Why don't Americans like to argue?

Christian culture is authoritarian. American culture, essentially protestant, is particularly so. The reason is doubtless our form of capitalism and the way it has historically developed. One thing this means is that you cannot argue with the boss. That is considered nasty behavior, not nice, but behind this demand for courtesy and friendliness is the authoritarianism that considers the mere articulation of a disagreement to be effectively a kind of violence against the property right of the boss, or the other person, who has a property right over his or her own person that is supposed incompatible with a right to criticism and the free use of the form of reason proper to discussion or 'argument' that is part of the fabric and basis of any participatory democracy.

Jewish culture is less authoritarian and more democratic, and so are several others. American society is essentially protestant in its historical forms and structures, and other religious and ideological orientations have had to cope within and adapt to its norms.

Modern Protestant Christian culture does value liberty but democracy often less so. It also tends to substitute for the demand for justice the expectation of a kind of genteel civility or 'friendliness'. People do not have to be just, only nice. Fairness is a privilege and obligation of those in power, not a quality of participatory democracy, where, for example, workers or consumers could expect to be treated fairly according to norms of justice that are not relegated to legal contracts, which everyone knows are only used in business to enforce or pursue the self-interest of the business owners.

I don't know how I wound up acquiring what I consider to be more democratic values and expectations. Perhaps it was partly growing up in the neighborhood of a university and during a time (the 1970s) when the prevailing sensibility was still fairly liberal and there were active social movements basing themselves on some idea of democratic participation in the social life of the institutions that people were involved in. But I always knew that these values are not shared by very many people, and I always knew, yet have never quite accepted (and in fact, doubt that I should) the evident fact that if there is ever anything that I want or believe to be true, I can almost never convince anyone else of it, and if anything is at stake, probably I lose. Various professions offer either ways of managing one's social interactions to succeed better with people in this society or, more often, alternatives to this that rely on elite status and expertise to deal with social conflicts or difficult situations, which amounts to relying on the very structures of authority that I think are the problem. The boss is always right. Whoever is in a position to enforce their own will or preference is always right. No one owes anyone anything and if you think otherwise, you may be treated like a Pharisee or a Shylock.

True friends ask and expect their friends to be just. If you believe your friend is being unjust, you tell him, and of course that does not mean that you are trying to exercise a tyranny over him. A friend just hung up on me because she does not understand this. I have noticed this misunderstanding happens even more often with women than with men. That is interesting. Women do think less about justice and engage less in the kind of rational thinking that it requires (and that cannot be relegated to law courts, except at the price of living in a totally depoliticized society which also cannot have true friendships, if friendship is understood as it should be, and classically was), and think more in terms of affective care, nurturing, and thus emotional management and kindness, but the reason for this is mainly the persistence of traditional gender differences, and that is changing, though has changed less than most people, including feminists, have managed to recognize, as many women and feminists actually enforce traditionally feminine styles of thinking and interacting, without realizing that that is what they are doing, and that it is conservative (and does not liberate women quite as they would like to see happen or contentedly insist already has). What is really involved here is a Christian liberalism that disdains arguments about justice. Such as society would scorn the thinking of the Talmud, though Judaism and Jewish culture are not the only alternatives to this, and those alternatives are also possibilities within Christian society, if only given its extremely rich and diverse history. More democratic ways of thinking in the terms I have mentioned are a possibility of our society and culture today, and they are hindered by older social forms that are, ironical as this may sound, both more authoritarian and more liberal. Liberty has always been a privilege of those with power, property, or opportunity. We want people to be empowered. But my telling you that I disagree with your decision (while in no way questioning your power, authority, and right to be the sole person making it, with my opinion having only the weight of a bit of advice, or a kind of plea, appeal, request, certainly not a command or order), this would only seem wrongful in a society and culture where the expression of thought in social interaction is broadly prohibited on the supposition that it is effectively a kind of violence. This is a possible way of thinking in a society that has become so anxious about the property rights of individuals that its tacit ethos is, "Don't touch me," because social interaction itself is violence. To touch is to violate. Then the only way to be inviolate is to be solitary. The alternative is not some form of tyranny, it is the freedom and love that are made possible by that activity of friendship which is the conversation, the free conversation being one in which people can speak of matters they are concerned about, and it is perfectly legal, kind, and friendly to say, "(Of course I can't command or compel you and would never pretend I should, but): You're wrong!" A tyrant you must flatter is of course never wrong, always right, and so all you can say is the boring politeness of irrelevant flattery, perhaps allowing at times for the subtlety of allusive innuendo. A ruler can be your friend, but only if you may say, and he knows, that he may be wrong. The tyrant will never admit that he could be wrong. Just as the good person will always be able to doubt he is acting in a good, or just, way, the boss who is not a tyrant, and the neighbor who is a friend, knows that he could be wrong. The king who demands his subjects and courtiers obey and flatter is a fool. American society has within it other possibilities than tyranny, but it is in some ways profoundly and almost uniquely authoritarian, and in ways that most people cannot and will not even see. They will get angry if you speak of it, like liberals who will politely say, "No, you're mistaken," if you call them a conservative or socialist, but become outraged if you call them a liberal, insisting that they are tolerant of and open to everything, which is a definition of liberalism of a certain kind, and for that reason will never permit being abusively tied down to such a nasty and ugly label as that very concept that names their charmed and incontestable insistence.

Is that how republics die?