What We Stand For

“The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress.”
— Joseph Joubert

The other day I listened to someone speak passionately about everything they were opposed to. The list was long, the tone was firm, and before long the people around them began to disengage. No one argued. No one leaned in. The conversation simply lost its energy.

What struck me afterward was not the strength of the convictions expressed, but how little I learned about what that person actually believed in.

Much of our public discourse today is framed this way. We lead with opposition. We define ourselves by what we reject. It can feel clarifying, even empowering, but it often produces an unintended result. Defensiveness rises quickly, and meaningful dialogue never has the chance to take root.

When we lead with what we oppose, defensiveness follows.
When we lead with what we value, dialogue has a chance to begin.

I have begun to wonder what might change if we reversed that habit.

What if we started our conversations by sharing what we value rather than what we oppose. What we hope to preserve. What kind of community, nation, or future we want to help build. These are often places where common ground still exists, even among people who ultimately disagree on solutions.

When conversations begin with shared values rather than opposing positions, they tend to slow down. Listening becomes easier. Curiosity replaces suspicion. Disagreement, when it comes, feels less like a threat and more like an opportunity to understand.

This does not require abandoning conviction or pretending differences do not matter. It simply asks us to consider how we introduce our beliefs. The order matters. Values first. Positions second.

Perhaps one small step toward healthier discourse is not changing what we believe, but changing how we choose to express it.

If we can learn to speak more often about what we stand for, we may find that the space for genuine dialogue quietly begins to reopen.