"United We Fall" argues that today's harmful levels of polarization in American politics can be ratcheted down only by giving up the twin notions that the center is the sweet spot for political efficiency and that all differences deserve equal weight in the democratic balance. The American people need instead to embrace a political credo of civic engagement, confrontation with open ears, and spirited debate. The commonplace United We Stand must be supplanted by the insight that democracy is strongest where it acknowledges and formalizes real division. But surely bipartisan rancor in America and extremist violence around the world are symptoms of too much disagreement--not too little? No, asserts the author: The root cause of political violence of all stripes is the failure of opposing camps to engage each other openly and persuasively on their genuine and irreconcilable differences.

In making the case for principled disagreement, "United We Fall" reviews the history of good and bad disagreement practices in American politics, analyzes our mass media through a pro-disagreement lens, and draws on studies of conformist group behavior to expose the manipulative dynamics of contemporary dialog initiatives. Neisser assesses best practices for conducting public debate at all civic levels on the most vexed issues in America today: terrorism, multiculturalism, religion in politics, social and family values, race, the media, education, and the environment.

Americans have been divided along political lines for so long that they have nearly forgotten how to talk to one another, much less how to listen. This is not likely to improve as long as differences between them continue to be cast in overly simplistic terms, such as “ignorance” vs. “enlightened awareness” or “morality” vs. “reprobate immorality.” Such dichotomies ignore the fact that many citizens who disagree politically nonetheless share a desire to work for the larger good of society. Phil Neisser, a self-described “left-wing atheist,” first met Jacob Hess, a social conservative, at the 2008 proceedings of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. After discovering a shared commitment to cross-party dialogue, they embarked together on a yearlong attempt to practice what they preached. In this book they share the result by exploring the boundaries of core disagreements about morality, power, gender roles, sexuality, race, big government, big business, and big media. Each chapter revolves around an issue explored in depth through back-and-forth, lively question and response. This nuanced, iterative process was transformative for both authors, and could likewise serve as a valuable resource for anyone—liberal or conservative—who feels disillusioned by today’s often shallow, demagogic public discourse.