Dissent Vs Disagreement

If one were to look in a thesaurus - a thick book written by very educated people whos word is obviously law - at the word disagreement, dissent would without a douby be listed as a synonym. however, daniel j boorstin offers the mostly correct assertion that there is in fact a difference - a massive difference that separates americas greatest enemy with simple debate. in the decline of radicalism (1969), boorstin proposes the argument that disagreement is logical and levelheaded, whereas dissent carries with it an intrinsic emotion, a cancerous poison when exposed to democracy; this argument, for the most part, carries weight, except in certain cases. boorstin is absolutely right in saying that a “quarrel” arises in the wake of dissension; a doubter of this claim needs only to look at the frech revolution. those revolutionaries no doubt were driven by emotion in their fight for justice; they were angry with the ruling class and needed justice. however right they were in thier fury, this still coincides with boorstins definition of dissent, and a quarrel did most definitely happen. shortly following the overthrow of the french aristocracy, there was a time period known as the reign of terror, in which former members of the aristocracy and anyone else who dared to defy the rebolutionaries were

in the recent presidential debates, more often than not logical argument was not ued in the slightest. the clearest example of this is donald trump, a man who seems to embody a halt in progress. trump seemingly sows eeds of dissent wherever he goes - he is illogical, emotionally driven, and to be frank, rude. not only this, he inspires other people who share this qualities to speak up themselves. this kind of dissent halts progress completely; in boorstins own words, “a liberal society thrives on disagreement but is killed by dissension. disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy, dissension is its