I recently finished the book Love Your Enemies, by Arthur C. Brooks.  I found the book to be challenging in places– which is perfect because it ties in with one of the points Brooks is trying to make. We can listen to each other’s reasoned arguments–even when we disagree– with an open heart, without shutting down or demonizing the person we disagree with. Brooks’s argument throughout is heartfelt and open. I did not feel insulted or demonized by what he was saying, I just disagreed with some of his conclusions. Still, I am glad I stuck with the book to the end because his overall thesis is an extremely important one in today’s political climate.

The introduction grabbed me immediately, in a positive way. Brooks talks about the “culture of contempt” that we are currently experiencing and warns us not to be manipulated by the “outrage industrial complex.” I love that phrase, modified from Eisenhower’s military industrial complex, and I see the way social media and cable news are acting as the “dealers” for our addiction to contempt. All good. We’re on the same page here. Early chapters draw on social psychology research and the words of the Dalai Lama to discuss the harmful effects of contempt itself and the magical effects of warmheartedness. Brooks refutes the common belief that “nice guys finish last,” in romance and in the workplace — a noble and necessary refutation. He examines the phenomenon that draws some people to coercive leaders and explains why coercive leaders are dangerous. As a long-time fan of Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundation theory, much of this discussion was repetitive for me. If you are not aware of Haidt’s work, Brooks’s description is a good introduction to it. One of my favorite suggestions from these early chapters is to look for the “why” that we have in common rather than focusing on the “how.” Brooks implies that we all– liberals and conservatives and everyone in between– share common love for our country and belief in ideas like justice, equality, and freedom. Those are the “why” ideas. The “how” is policy, and we disagree on that. How to achieve justice or greater economic equality can be tricky. He wants us to discuss the “how” after we have acknowledged that we share the “why” in common. That’s a good suggestion and one I hope I can remember in the heat of a discussion.

Throughout the book, however, I had moments of “Eh….” when Brooks’ argument just didn’t ring true for me. For example, he shares a story about Howard Thurston, a turn-of-the-century stage musician from Ohio. It is the typical “pulled himself up by his bootstraps” story with the added twist of Thurston’s use of kindness and love for his audience as an explanation for his success. Lovely story, and I’m a big fan of love and kindness, but aren’t there other factors that explain Thurston’s success? Or at least explain the lack of obstacles in Thurston’s way? Like the fact that he was a white man who was allowed into any space he chose to venture into? Brooks similarly explains the success of the marriage equality act as stemming from the humanization of LGBTQ people in the eyes of neighbors and friends. By showing their humanity in asking for the right to marry “just like everyone else,” LGBTQ activists were, according to Brooks, able to overcome the resistance many people felt toward marriage equality. I’ve heard this argument before and it bothers me because it smacks of self-congratulatory smugness. It implies that LGBTQ activists had some moral secret figured out that other movements have lacked. I have yet to hear the argument that white men and women could rise to positions of power and influence in their communities and in the nation at large without anyone realizing they were gay, lesbian, queer, etc. How does a Black man in America show his “humanness” to people who automatically reject him based on the color of his skin? White LGBTQ activists still retained all the privilege of being white– the economic, educational, and legislative powers that all white Americans enjoy– because their LGTBQ identities were not obvious on the surface. Different challenges exist for other marginalized groups whose identities are immediately apparent and who suffer from generations of discrimination and systemic oppression. Showing people your humanity is not always as easy as it sounds.

Another weak spot for me was when Brooks explains the rise of populism in the 2016 election not as an economic issue caused by job loss and low wages, but as an issue of “dignity.” He argues against raising the minimum wage because it will, according to his research data, cause job loss instead of a better standard of living and in turn will not lead to “dignity” for working people. Again, I understand the need for dignity for all people, but I wonder how much real-world experience Brooks has dealing with issues of poverty and discrimination. He too easily takes on the assumption that what stands in the way of people pulling themselves out of poverty is a resistance to work, that we need to insist that poor people work so that they can feel the dignity of supporting themselves, as if poverty is caused by a character flaw instead of major systemic economic and social issues. Does Brooks know many poor people? People on public assistance? He admits that he is an academic– he says he took on a job as a fund-raiser with a strong knowledge of the data around charity giving but no real-world experience with the raising of funds. As a former recipient of public assistance, I find the assumption that poor people just need to experience the dignity of work to “wake up” their self-sufficiency to be simplistic and patronizing.

Chapter 5 is where I struggled the most to continue listening. Here Brooks discusses identity and the dangers of focusing too much on “identity politics.” He never names specific groups that fall into this trap, and I was left to wonder if he meant groups like “Black Lives Matter,” which is often accused of playing “identity politics.” Again, I felt like his argument was naive. I get his point– too much focus on identity without a balance of unity can be destructive. But whenever people suggest leaving identity issues in the background to focus on what binds us together as people, it sounds like a suggestion to support the status quo and stop agitating for change. Does Brooks understand that “identity politics” is not about identity for the sake of identity, but instead is about power, privilege, equality, and justice? I was left thinking that he doesn’t fully understand what is needed for marginalized people to challenge the status quo.

Later, in Chapter 7, Brooks focuses on the merits of competition– the tried and true “yin” in conservative arguments that seems to never be balanced out by the “yang” of human survival– compassionate cooperation. This chapter starts with a bemoaning of the elimination of dodge-ball from many public school gym classes, a sign in Brooks’s mind that we have become too “soft” and have stopped valuing competition. Seriously? Anyone who has spent any time at all in a public school knows that competition is alive and well. Sports reign supreme at most high schools in America, and if you’re not a star on the soccer field, you have your GPA, your STEM competitions, your poetry recitation competition, your all-state chorus and band competition–the list goes on and on–to prove your strengths. Dodge-ball is a horrific experience for 90% of the students in a gym class who get hit with a ball early in the game and then spend the rest of the gym class sitting on the side lines. How is that teaching them physical fitness? Imagine if we taught reading by such a contest of strengths. “Oops, you can’t read! Well, just sit over there on the wall of shame and watch THESE guys read. That’ll help you!” Eliminating dodge-ball is a smart move pedagogically. There are FAR better ways to encourage physical fitness for all– and especially for those who need it most– than by this archaic game. If you choose to have a dodge-ball game for those who WANT to play it, go ahead. But it does not accomplish the goals of physical education for most of the students.

These arguments, spread throughout the book–for pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps, for the dignity of work and the merits of competition–are boilerplate conservative economic arguments. They have always left me feeling that conservative economists lack a true understanding of the world outside of their academic and personal experiences. On the plus side, Brooks presents these arguments with clear warmheartedness; there was no contempt or insult to people who might disagree. I gave myself the goal of listening simply to understand his points, with my own heart as open as I could make it. Luckily my frustration was lessened by the final chapters of the book. Here Brooks asks us to please continue to disagree with one another, but to disagree with kindness rather than contempt. This is a large ask in this era of social media trolls, cable news panel smackdowns, and YouTube videos that announce “Watch as (insert name of cable news host) DESTROYS (insert name of guest).” He ends with a list of concrete suggestions for how to wean ourselves from the culture of contempt. Refuse to be used by the powerful who ask you to hate people different from yourself.. Don’t watch so much news. Spend limited time on social media. Speak up when friends express contempt for people who hold different views. Put yourself into situations where your views are in the minority. Focus on the “why” questions that we all agree on. Apologize to those you have offended. In the end, aren’t these actions all of us could benefit from?