with the exception of political disagreement = bad guys
Oh, but that's one of the lies we tell to grease the wheels of democracy.
All fundamental (insoluble by honesty) political disagreement arises from moral disagreement. Bad guys are guys who tend to do bad things, but nobody is the villain in their own story.
The notion that political fights are trivial is untrue, and it's been proven again and again. Recently you may have heard in regards to BLM riots or man made climate change "it's not a political issue".
What do they mean by that? They mean it's not trivial. They mean people who disagree are bad guys. They mean they won't accept an overton window where those issues are debatable.
When people "agree to disagree" the ones who lie win.
This viewpoint is not at all the same as the "intrinsic evil" mindset, where you don't debate and you don't show mercy because the other side is just so bad to the bone that there is no redemption or resolution.
TL;DR: Moral disagreements are neither trivial/ignoreable nor are they insoluble due to the evil nature of some people. To have peace they must be resolved and the only genuine resolution is rejection of the incorrect moral claim as identified by logic. i.e. debate is the only true peace maker.
This is just about identifying people who disagree politically but also qualify (by whatever measure you wish to employ) as intelligent in your personal estimation.
Mmm, well let's try all of the intelligence related traits I named:
Jesus and Siddhartha were wise.
Mao Zedong, and Genghis Khan were cunning. (A more recent example would be Bill Clinton, I saw him on your list)
Neil Degrass Tyson and Allen Dershowitz are knowledgeable.
The number of people who show great creativity but have ridiculous canned political opinions is enormous. John Lennon "Imagine"
