Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt

Does modern social life present situations that justify despising one’s neighbor? In his best-selling book, Love Your Enemies, social scientist Arthur Brooks responds with a resounding no, while presenting an alternative to the dialectic, binary understanding of modern American politics held unquestioningly by believers and non-believers alike. The way liberals see it, conservatives and their beliefs are the problem; the way conservatives see it, liberals and their agenda are the problem.

Brooks, who in a 2014 piece in the New York Times called himself a conservative who ‘smells’ like a liberal (Brooks 2014), argues in his 2019 book Love Your Enemies that the increasing tendency to consider contempt of political enemies as morally justified – and the increasingly entrenched social divisions caused by this collective disposition – is the real problem worth solving. Contrary to what the two sides of the political spectrum mutually believe about each other, what is at stake will not be ‘saved’ by one side’s victory. Though not formally engaged in a civil war, Americans may be just as divided as they were in Lincoln’s day, if not more so. Brooks points to data indicating a steadily worsening situation since the 1970s, as the nature of division in American politics has shifted from respectful disagreement proper to diversity of opinion in any public square to a mutually hateful disgust reminiscent of a couple on the verge of divorce. Battle lines are drawn over bumper stickers, and evil mutually attributed according to political views. Worse still, Americans today are more likely to engage in ‘ideological siloing’, refusing to interact entirely with people who hold opposing views. As Brook reports, ‘just 14 percent of Republicans and 9 percent of Democrats have ‘a lot’ of close friends from the opposing party’ (30).

Polarization is not exactly breaking news, but for Brooks, it is something personal. Born in Seattle, a city famous for its progressive citizen base, Brooks’ unlikely journey to conservatism includes dropping out of high school to tour Europe and embracing a bohemian lifestyle as a French Horn player for the Barcelona Symphony Orchestra. Brooks, however, says the values instilled by his liberal upbringing – a concern for social justice issues, especially poverty, as well as an independent, free-thinking spirit – eventually led to enthusiasm for the free market economy. ‘While I’m not a member of either political party’, says Brooks, ‘free enterprise is something I deeply believe in’ (2).

A professor at both the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Business School, Brooks has become an important thought leader for our time, all while being a practicing Catholic who is unashamed to share his faith publicly. Understandably, he is not one for pigeon-holing people in their views. As someone whose own opinions eventually diverged from those of his family members, Brooks is particularly sensitive to the tension and division caused by political polarization. He describes what will strike readers as a familiar situation: families and friends who stop talking amongst themselves because of differing political convictions. While Brooks focuses specifically on American politics, his analysis of current events will likely resonate with international readers.

As he weaves together powerful anecdotes with thought-provoking research, Brooks makes an impassioned plea for dialogue across party lines as he analyzes the havoc wreaked by political polarization in the United States and its effect on mental health, interpersonal relationships, and overall well-being. Liberals and conservatives actually have more in common than they would like to admit, Brooks insists. For example, ‘despite [the] difference in emphasis, most conservatives also believe in direct assistance to the poor, while most liberals also believe in self-reliance’ (93). Unfortunately, people of opposing views are being driven apart by a ‘culture of contempt’, where people who disagree consider their opponents worthy of hatred because of their views. Consequently, nothing the others say can be considered true; nothing they do can be trusted.

In one story, Brooks describes being told by someone that he had the obligation to say liberals are ‘stupid and evil’ because ‘it’s the truth’. Brooks reflects: ‘We may not be engaging in daily violence against each other, but we can’t make progress as a society when both sides believe they are motivated by love while the other side is motivated by hate’ (22). In reality, moral motivation animates both liberals and conservatives. Brooks cites research by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt on the innate moral values found across all races and cultures: fairness, care for others, respect for authority, loyalty to one’s group, and purity/sanctity (90). Haidt says liberals and conservatives agree on the importance of the first two but diverge on how much emphasis they place on the last three. While conservatives see them as critical for a healthy society and worthy of being defended aggressively, liberals feel that these values clash with the rights of individuals. A conservative himself, Brooks chides the conservative movement for poorly communicating the connection uniting all five values, acknowledging, ‘liberals are widely considered to be compassionate and empathetic… conservatives should work to earn this reputation as well’ (3).

But what does Brooks really mean when he says, ‘love your enemies’? He is not talking about mere tolerance, but rather that people of good will make an intentional effort to become friends with people on the other end of the political spectrum, acting in a way that directly opposes the ‘echo chamber’. He combines this recommendation with a proposal: a societal commitment to a positive and fair competition of ideas, which involves learning how to ‘disagree better’. Brooks wants to purify the term competition, distancing it from the common belief that ‘jerks get ahead’ or that one must be a bully to get her way. Brooks says competition need not be mutually destructive. A friendly and healthy competition of ideas is possible, and we need to relearn how to engage in it, the same way that we enjoy competing against each other in sports, willingly playing by the rules and exhibiting the virtues of good sportsmanship. Positive competition of this sort involves committing to rational arguments that avoid holding the other side in contempt or demonizing them behind their backs. Brooks sees a healthy competition of ideas as the antidote to the ‘cancel culture’ as well as a far superior alternative to tolerance, which he views as a ‘pitifully low standard’: a false, superficial substitute for loving one’s enemies.

Brooks also distinguishes contempt from anger. Anger, claims Brooks, implies caring enough about a situation to exhibit passion, whereas contempt is a step away from indifference or ‘agreeing to disagree’, abandoning all attempts at further conversation. The problem is not the disagreement itself, but the loss of the ability to disagree civilly. Brooks puts the onus on political leaders themselves to cut the bickering and to start living the virtues proper to servant leadership. In a telling anecdote, Brooks describes a viral video that captures an unlikely moment of unity between Trump loyalists and Black Lives Matters activists at a 2017 political rally. Brooks praises the leadership exhibited by both leaders involved in the incident, since they show that even in the most heated arguments, there is always some common ground. As one viewer concludes, ‘Unity is what is going to make the world a better place for all’ (10). Finally, Brooks concludes with suggested action steps to reverse the vicious cycle of contempt. These practices include confronting and correcting the contemptuous tendencies of friends; intentionally interacting with people who disagree; cultivating affection for people who oppose your ideas; engaging in honest, rigorous, and healthy debate; and regularly disconnecting from political news, especially on social media.

Love Your Enemies is an easy read but a painful book. Brooks’ analysis of American politics strikes an ominous chord, and – despite his optimism – the situation looks grim for the foreseeable future. Although many people share Brooks’ concern over the erosive nature of polarization today, not all will agree that he pinpoints the underlying causes that brought us here. Perhaps it was not Brooks’ intention to delve into the roots, but it would have made his proposed solution even more convincing if he had included a chapter on ‘how we got here’ to cover his bases, especially regarding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Brooks also could have called out Christians themselves in a particular way, emphasizing the need to counteract polarization as a new opportunity to bring the Gospel to life. But as he writes for a general audience, specifically addressing believers in this way would likely be out of place.

Benedict XVI once described love of enemies as ‘the nucleus of the “Christian revolution”’ (2007). Brooks hopes this nucleus can help Americans resolve their political differences. His view of American politics and its widening divisions points to the space in which Christians today find themselves having to communicate the faith to their contemporaries. They cannot pretend that one political label is ‘more Christian’ than another, as Paul O’Callaghan pointed out in another article in this journal (2019). Just as O’Callaghan rejected the notion that conservative is somehow more Christian than liberal, seeing both elements – at their best – in a truly Christian spirit, Brooks challenges fellow believers to overcome the political lenses that truncate our understanding of what it means to be a good citizen with an upright conscience. Brooks is right: it’s not about winning. It comes down to loving those we find difficult to love: in other words, basic Christianity.

Helen Keefe
Masters of Business Administration, University of Notre Dame Mendoza College of Business, Notre Dame, IN, USA
[email protected]