When building an RPG party, I often find that some of my characters are, at least at the beginning, diametrically opposed on certain issues, leading to squabbling within the party as the story proceeds.  In fact, it almost seems that at least one character has got to be "in the wrong" only to be "redeemed" in the end- though I admit that at least some of these game ideas are author tracts.
Is this bad?

No- if they knew about the 2008 elections it would have to be a pseudo-medieval future. :P

Of course this is good.  Your characters are human; no group of more than one person is going to always nod and agree with everything.  Such things are important for story development; the only way it can be bad is if you did the exact opposite, but even that can be worked out into one's favor for storytelling.

Yes, I agree that this disagreement is realistic.  It would be really neat to have a party that disagree on a course of action, leading to a split, so one or more characters 'go their own way' and are temporarily (or perhaps permanently) removed from the party.

Although, sometimes there is some compulsion to go along with someone else's intentions even if you disagree.  This can be because some party members are more of the follower type of personality, or it can be that the relationship between two characters is such that one of them has a need to please the other.

one thing i would say is just make sure the viewpoints follow the personality of the character. I remember on the show 4400 it seems like every episode there was some random "moral dilemma" that both the main characters always disagreed about. It felt very forced and cheap.

Although, sometimes there is some compulsion to go along with someone else's intentions even if you disagree.  This can be because some party members are more of the follower type of personality, or it can be that the relationship between two characters is such that one of them has a need to please the other.

Then make that work for you.  The characters do not have to disagree openly; a cutscene where a character may mumble his thoughts to himself will suffice, as well.  Things do not always have to be direct.  ​  Though it doesn't have to happen at all, the conflict can come later when the tension from said disagreement has mounted sufficiently to bring an outburst from the "follower."

Keep in mind that clichéd concepts are used because they work. Consider the atmosphere of your story. There are a lot of games that do not use the entire "disagreement" thing and work (Wild ARMs series comes to mind, as does Final Fantasy), whereas you also have games that pull it off and do it semi-splendidly to splendidly. (Tales of the Abyss is a nice example)

In the end you need to look at the tone of your game and consider if the party should disagree given the tone of the story itself.

This all boils down to, "Do what feels good to you mang, that's the only way to roll"- to be down with the street talk a little.

Thanks for all the feedback-  I appreciate it.  I also think I may need to add a tad more diversity of opinion for realism- Round out things a bit, not just "three liberals and a rich conservative bigot." I think i know which game idea will work well with this... Hmm..