Basic Information : Synopsis : Expectations : Thoughts : Evaluation : Book Group : New Words : Book References : Good Quotes : References
Basic Information:
Author:
Arthur C. Brooks
Edition:
epub on Overdrive from the Fresno County Library
Publisher:
Broadside e-books
ISBN:
0062883771 (ISBN 13: 9780062883773)
Start
Date: July 11, 2019
Read
Date: July 27, 2019
256
pages
Genre:
Essay
Language
Warning: None
Rated
Overall: 4 out of 5
Synopsis (Caution: Spoiler Alert-Jump to Thoughts):
Conservative politically,
Brooks looks over the political landscape and sees not only values he
does not endorse from his own party, but the conversation in America
has degenerated. Contempt for opposing sides of issues is rampant-he
believes this is the central issue. Brooks outlines the issues and
then walks through what he considers some solutions, which he calls
rules.
-
Rule 1. Stand up to the Man. Refuse to be used by the powerful.
-
Rule 2. Escape the bubble. Go where you’re not invited and say things people don’t expect.
-
Rule 3. Say no to contempt. Treat others with love and respect, even when it’s difficult. Rule 4. Disagree better. Be part of a healthy competition of ideas.
-
Rule 5. Tune out: Disconnect from unproductive debates.
Thoughts:
Introduction:
Are You Sick of Fighting Yet?
Definition
of our country’s problem today: we have a culture of contempt.
Contempt:
Anger mixed with disgust. Complete disdain. Arthur Schopenhauer’s
definition: unsullied conviction of the worthlessness of another.
Brooks
understands that this is the worst political climate since the Civil
War.
Not
a member of a political party, but is a believer in free enterprise.
Says that he is a somewhat more on the conservative leanings. He was
54 years old and the head of a conservative, free enterprise think
tank-now is a professor at Harvard. Also is a Catholic and teaches
marital relations seminars.
He
cites an instance where people came together, even though they are on
the opposite side of things. At a pro-Trump rally, the MC, Tommy
Hodges, noted a counter-demostration which Hawk Newsome (Black Lives
Matter of New York) was a leader of. Tommy decided to give Hawk two
minutes of speech time during the demonstration. He talked about why
Black Lives Matter is needed. Some of the things Tommy said the crowd
booed. But many of the things there was resonance with. Such as
needing to get rid of bad cops like you would a bad plumber. It is
not only Black Lives which matter, but all lives, it just seems like
there is more injustice happening on the black side of things. That
is what they want to get corrected. This created a better
understanding. After Hawk’s speech, several people came up to him
and said that they understood better what was happening. After all
of that and back at home, Tommy decided that he would rather love
people than blast them. (Respect and Rebellion web
site,
also the Daily
SIgnal with
an interview with Hawk Newsome) This is probably the most powerful
story in the book and one which Brooks continues to go back to time
and time again.
Hawk
notes that political violence is something other countries
experience, not what the USA does. Hodges also says it is time to
bring everybody together. Set a new standard.
Brooks
says that contempt is a false choice given to us by today’s
leaders. Brooks
talk at Harvard.
He
is not looking for civility and tolerance-he thinks those standards
are too low. He feels that to make a change, love is the standard to
shoot for. Love as in popular culture is weak. He quotes Thomas
Aquinas: To
Love is to will the good of the other.
Disagreement
is not grounds to compare a person or ideology to people or systems
which have killed millions of people. There is more room in the
middle for most discourse, you just have to find it. That is pretty
much what the book is about.
1
The Culture of Contempt
A
2014 study found an asymmetry in belief of motives by those who are
political opponents. Usually you think your ideology is based on love
and benevolence while your opponents based upon hate and evil. Right
now this rivals the Palestinians and Israelis. This means there is
limited room for bipartisanship in America.
But
anger is not the cause-he points out that anger is not a big factor
in marriage separation. This difference in perception about what you
are trying to accomplish leads to contempt, which causes separations.
With
politics, competitors also need to be collaborators[a major point in
the book]. Contempt does not lead to working together. It makes you
want to defeat a person.
Like
a drug addiction, we are responsible for the fuel coming into our
system which breeds contempt. But there are pushers like there is
with drugs which provide the fuel. It builds them up and tears down
our nation. It is noted that we get most of our feedback on social
media, even dating apps, from friends who are like minded. There are
five like-minded friends to every friend who thinks differently.
Kindness
and respect will generally turn contempt into friendliness.
According to Matthew Lieberman, a UCLA psychologist, we desire
positive social connections-which shows why we gravitate to
like-minded friends. I think Brooks idea is that the kindness and
respect will provide the positive connection Lieberman is talking
about. Lieberman says to happiness is gives you the same well-being
as earning an extra $100,000-probably a lot easier too.
Brooks
brings up the point, how much would you suffer to be right on a
point. The separation of a friendship can feel like a broken bone.
But isn’t there a sense that friendship should be built on
“trueness” rather than falsehood? Would agreeing with a friend
for the sake of friendship be something horrible? I think there must
be a way to be “right” but still not divide a friendship. Many of
the great people in the past were able to be friends while working
opposite sides of an issue. How did they do it?
Dr.
John Gottman rules for marital harmony as applied to America:
-
Focus on what is causing the other person’s distress. Listen, not rebut.
-
Adopt the five to one rule: five positive comments to one negative.
-
Contempt is never justified.
-
Associate with people who disagree with you. Make new friends with differing opinions.
Dalai
Lama-When you are treated with contempt, don’t view it as a threat
but as an opportunity.
Conquer
anger through gentleness, unkindness through kindness, greed through
generosity, and falsehood by truth. Be truthful; do not yield to
anger.
Buddist teaching.
Attitude
follows action.
2
Can You Afford to Be Nice?
For
leaders, civility is a valuable commodity. It allows for initial
connections and relationships to develop. You admire leaders who
lift you up, not those who are jerks. This is not borne out with
President Trump. Many people view his lack of civility as being a sin
of honesty and forthrightness, not of being a jerk, I am not one of
them.
Brooks
points out the Nelson Mandela is sort of an extreme case of civility.
He says that Mandela felt that goodness wins a moral struggle-sounds
like Ghandi here. Even when persecuted unjustly, treat others with
kindness and respect. If you did not, it was a failing of character.
Gratitude
is, quite simply, a contempt killer.
Brooks says that gratitude is needed most when facing hostile people.
3
Love Lessons for Leaders
Brooks
raises the question: when is it time for a leader to be a tough
leader? Is it when the nation is divided? Seemly lost its ability to
be governed? He brings up Machiavelli about it is safer to be feared
than loved. It is hard and exceptional to be a leader who is loved.
Daniel Goleman says these are called coercive leaders-that is the
feared, not loved leader.
Interesting.
Jonathan Haidt, who Brooks talks about later in the book, says that
both liberals and conservatives use the same terms but mean different
things. Brooks talks about the gap between the classes in America. He
says that liberals talk about an income gap. But he thinks it is more
of a dignity gap-the work which a person has available to them. A
book by a conservative puts forth the dignity rather than money
thoughts is Hillbilly
Elegy
by J.D. Vance. Brooks says that to feel dignity, you need to feel
needed by others. This does explain the rage which many people feel
and the lack of understanding by the more liberal members of our
society. There is something to be said that if liberals are from the
upper classes, there is not as much experience with this lack of
being needed. It looks on the surface like things are a matter of not
enough money. On the other hand, conservatives seem to discount the
money aspect and say live on dignity, money will follow sometime.
It
is hard to stand up to a coercive leader-there is a need to support
the person who does stand up. There is also an attraction to the
dominant leader-an admiration of power and security presented by the
person.
Free
speech has been shut down by either side. Little exchanging of ideas
occur, even, or maybe particularly on college campuses. This is
another place where ideas should be talked about, rather than shouted
at each other-my words, not Brooks.
Brooks
thinks that dignity is the key. There is space under this banner for
ideas on both sides. Not so sure that liberals would agree with this.
Not that they are against dignity, rather they also see things just
as important or more so, such as justice and economic power.
There
is a difference between coercive leader and an authoritative
leader-Brooks’ verbiage. The authoritative leader gets mad, a
righteous anger, on behalf of those who are vulnerable. Nelson
Mandela is an example. There is no banishing a person because they
are on the wrong side. Rather, you treat the person like a brother
who is errant. Wrongness is forgiven and we move on. Righteous
anger is an expression of generosity.
It is not weak, but is strong for others.
In
politics today, the biggest threat we face is rejecting kindness not
in favor of anger, but of contempt.
This is a weapon of mass destruction, a weapon we should not use.
Ultimately, this is a loser weapon. People are drawn to long term
happiness, particularly those who fight for others.
America
was created more by disagreement than agreement. From disagreement
they figured out how to govern through disagreement.
4
How Can I Love My Enemies If They Are Immoral?
Brooks
talks about the moral depravity of our times where drunkenness and
infidelity is accepted. But he also points out that in 2016 the
candidates were calling each other names using moral overtones. He
calls these moral battlefields. This sets the tone for our nation’s
dialogue. No longer is it about having honest disagreements, but
about who is more moral in a moral swamp.
The
author then talks about Haidt’s work, particularly about what he
calls moral
foundations theory.
Haidt thinks that certain things are innate rather than a blank slate
at birth.Haidt talks about five foundations of morality:
-
Fairness
-
Care for others
-
Respect for authority
-
Loyalty to one’s group
-
Purity/sanctity
-
Also Haidt added liberty
The
crux of the problem here is to define the terms so that we all agree.
Haidt points out that liberals and conservatives have a set of
different ideas of what is fair. Conservatives might think that as
long as everybody has an equal chance at something-all are playing by
the same rules, then that is fair. But a liberal might point out that
discrimation in the past will not let people have the same
opportunities.So the rewards have to be proportional to the needs vs
to one's competencies.
Haidt
goes on and says that it is not that a group of people, liberals in
this case, have more or less morals, but that they are a different
set of morals with different strengths and emphasises. Also on
Haidt’s scale, a conservitive may have about the same strength in
each of his five/six areas. While a liberal will usually specialize
in a couple of them. This is set in today’s political climate.
Moral
arguments beat economic arguments every time-whether we are liberal
or conservative--we are all moral createurs who are encoded to value
compassion and fairness.
So when making an argument, ask where is my appeal to? Is it the
majority or a select few of the minority? (Note: In my mind this
question has to be asked fairly, not to everyone
who is right
type of argument, but how does it resonate with others beyond my own
circle.
Brooks
says there are three takeaways from moral psychology:
-
Focus arguments on moral values we share, such as compassion and fairness, rather than only one part of the population
-
Be wary of leaders who manipulate-particularly in politics and/or the media. The use of wedge issues to divide and fuel contempt.
-
Divisive leaders emphasis certain values to the exclusion of others, usually their strengths and fault the other side for not being strong in these areas. Of course the other side has their own list of strengths and faults.
-
Sort of reminds you of Jesus saying don’t condemn someone else until you pull the plank out of your own eye.
-
-
Brooks says changing someone, particularly in this manner is like changing taste buds.
-
This extends to religious matters as well.
-
If we want unity, get outside of our comfort zones. Go where you are not welcome and talk with people.
-
-
-
Divergent moral values are not a bug, but a feature that can make us stronger
-
Reflect on what the other side is saying
-
Not only feelings, but what is right
-
5
The Power and Peril of Identity
Brooks
opens the chapter with a question about which what mental picture do
you have of four different types of people. This is a trick question
designed to make you think about how you associate people with your
own prejudices. (Gary’s note: If you think you are not prejudiced,
how deeply have you looked at yourself. Let's say, if a person from
a particular racial group approached you in a dark alley, which group
would you fear less?) Brooks notes that at the end of things, what
really matters is the intense love you feel towards another person.
People
naturally sort themselves out by communities they can identify with.
But this also creates us vs them situations. There are two kinds of
social capital: bonding
social capital-inward
looking, the sameness which somebody has with me. Bridging
social capital-usually
built on something higher, such as we are all human, looks beyond our
sameness. Bridging is more of a long-term picture while bonding is
more instantaneous. Focusing on bridging can lead to acceptance. Look
at how those involved with gay rights have bridged-we just want to be
married, just like you.
Brooks
points out that you cannot force people together-that is toxic.
Discovering the “we” in the discussion can overcome differences.
It needs to be an active
choice
to come together.
Differences
are important. Just know the places we can come together.
Today
there are three types of leaders:
-
Breakers-those who drive people apart by contempt. Can be found on both conservative and liberal sides.
-
Bonders-these are not those who drive apart, but they do not bring us together
-
Bridgers-those who try to bring people together. The “we” people.
6
Tell Me a Story
John
Adams: Facts
are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the
state of facts and evidence.
I have two competing thoughts. First, we need to adhere to that more
today than anytime in my 65 years. The other thought is that Adams
had not met President Trump. In today’s world, more data does not
convince people, it just antignizes or makes people not want to talk
with you. More data only is good for people who already believe. This
is referred to as confirmation bias
Turns
out that stories are a very good way to implant in people’s brains
a set of beliefs. (Sometimes my children have told me, but it is just
a story. Or my wife will talk about a historical fiction story. I
feel that fiction is the most sinister way to supplant true facts
with false interpretations.).
Statistics
do not make connections-individual people do.
Stories
can be powerful, both positive and negative. As an example, the
stories told about the Jews by the Nazi’s drove a whole nation to
try to annhilate a race. Or in the United States, the treatment of
Native Americans took to dehumanize them, allowing for the taking of
lands and lives. This is a warning about how people are
portrayed-rapists, murders, … There is always an attempt to
dehumanize. That is where what happens in a political rally where
speakers are shouted down, or even on a college campus where a
speaker is not allowed to speak. Le Bon showed that crowds insight
people to act differently than if they were alone.
Trolling,
anonymous posting, is one of the most destructive items on social
media. It is was correlated with negative behaviors. (Brooks suggests
if you are going out on a date, someplace in the conversation, ask,
Do
you have an anonymous Twitter account?
If the answer is yes, RUN!) For those of us who do not troll, he
suggests, they be ignored. Anybody who will not say who they are,
should not be responded to. Also just cut back on the use of social
media.
Find
stories which resonate with a topics discussed. Better than
preaching. A story should be concise and to the point. Hemingway
wrote a whole story in six words. Brooks suggests as a starter, write
down your story in twelve words or less.
7
Is Competition Our Problem?
Brooks
talks about how certain recess games in elementary school are to be
discouraged, more due to self-esteem issues. But he notes that there
is a positive aspect as well-there is an emphasis on games where you
cooperate rather than compete. He notes that competition is a second
place action next to cooperation.
Fairness
is part of competition, where there needs to be competition. No one
wants to be in or see a game where rules are broken and there is no
penalty. This implies that there are rules. Particularly meaningful
and fair rules. Rules must be applied equally. Voluntary cooperation
with the rules is a mainstay. Lastly, when competition is done
properly, it unites people. Such as sports fans who are rooting for
opposing teams will want to talk to others about the game.
Great
leaders love competition because they know it improves them and their
company. Only the mediocre prefers to go by without this improvement
process. Bribes and other illegal activities are not part of
competition or even getting ahead. It does not enhance greatness,
rather emphasises how wretched a company/person is. Americans
generally do not resent when a person gets ahead. What is resented is
when there is cheating or the system gets gamed.
Brooks
feels the most important competition is the competition
of ideas.
Having different ideas is not bad. Through this competition, you take
away that which is not fit, leaving those which have possibilities.
If
I am right and you are wrong, why talk? John Stewart Mills points out
that it is in the it is when dissimilar ideas come in contact does
progress happen.This is a hallmark of a free society, the discussion
and m0lding of ideas.Shutting down ideas through protests or mocking
or stifling it is either stupid or evil.
People
no longer think that debate is possible. That when disagreements
happen, then the talk is not heard. See Haidt’s book. We are
learning to despise
and ostracize, rather than understand and engage those with whom they
disagree.
Brooks
says that just tolerating or being civil is not a high enough
standard to achieve excellence. One must be grateful for the
opposition. Without them you cannot excel. Do we really want to live
in a country where there is only one way to think? This in some ways
reminds me of the ending of E.R.R. Eddison’s
The Worm Ouroboros.
After the wars end, their lives feel empty. When asked what do you
want to do now? It was to engage in conflict.
Brooks
points out that our freedoms are mutual-ours being mine and those who
do not think like me. So if I am grateful for my freedom, I need to
be grateful for their freedom as well. The point of true friendship
is truth seeking, armistices are not a mechanism to get to the truth.
Brooks summarizes Aristotle by saying: The
highest expression of this Aristotelian ideal is that two people
total disagree on a substantive thing but are willing to debate each
other on it, precisely because they both care so much about the
underlying issue on which they agree.
Brooks
lists some “rules” to engage with
-
Rule 1. Find the friendly opposition. Brooks says that we tend to separate ourselves out from those who disagree with us. Without the practice of disagreement, you get defensive and angry.
-
Rule 2. Don’t attack or insult. Don’t even try to win. The purpose is to enrich the discussion, test out your point of view in a respectful way, and persuade someone you care.Chances there are people whom you love on the other side. By insulting those on the other side, you are insulting someone whom you love.
-
Rule 3. Never assume the motives of another person.
-
Rule 4. Use your values as a gift, not as a weapon. By using values as a weapon, you turn a positive into a negative. Sometimes a value is used to energize the base of a party. It used to be that the politician was saying this is what we believe, not that the other person is evil.
Ignorance
of the other side and who they are and what they believe is a great
part of the issue of contempt.
8
Please Disagree with Me
Brooks
goes back to Aristotle and says that there are three kinds of
friendship:
-
Utility-what each side can do for each other
-
Pleasure-we are drawn to each other due to a myriad attractions-intelligence, talent, ….
-
Good of the other-This is the highest form-a sense of virtue and trueness.
As
you go up the ladder of friendship, you want to share more and more,
even your disagreements. You are not going to be contemptuous in your
disagreement because that would drive the other person away.
Conclusion:
Five Rules to Subvert the Culture of Contempt
-
Rule 1. Stand up to the Man. Refuse to be used by the powerful. Most of us think that it is someone else is is being used, particularly if they have opposing ideas. Comes in two forms:
-
Passive:tunning out the manipulators
-
Active: Stand up against people on your own side who trash talk others.
-
-
Rule 2. Escape the bubble. Go where you’re not invited and say things people don’t expect.
-
Rule 3. Say no to contempt. Treat others with love and respect, even when it’s difficult. Even if you think they deserve contempt, do not be that way. This is your chance to change your own ways.
-
Rule 4. Disagree better. Be part of a healthy competition of ideas.
-
Rule 5. Tune out: Disconnect more from the unproductive debates. He is not talking about forever. But more take a break, a hiatus from debate. Learn to relax again and enjoy other things.
-
Politics is like daytime soap operas. You can skip a couple of weeks and not have missed too much.
-
Your vision will be clearer.
-
As a reformed political addict, you will realize how much time you were wasting.
-
Evaluation:
From
the title, Love
Your Enemies,
you wonder if this is a Christian book. I would say it's more of a
Christian influenced book. While I am not sure how much there is
about directly loving your political enemies in the book there is, it
is a book directed towards softening attitudes. His main theme is to
move us away from a culture of contempt from our enemies to one where
we are grateful that we can live in a land where we can enjoy
dialogue with those who have different views than us.
Does
Brooks live up to his title? Probably not. The more complex and the
more words one throws at something Jesus said, usually the less on
the mark we are. But it is a good book for today. It is well worth a
read and a pondering.
Note:
This seemed to be the summer where I was to read this type of book.
Also in the same lines is Peter Wehner’s Death
of Politics
and Jonathan Haidt’s The
Righteous Mind.
Notes from my book group:
Many
of these questions are either from or adapted from LitLovers.
-
Why the title of Love Your Enemies?
-
Does this book work to bring a more understanding culture to America?
-
Did his remedy seem fitting? Satisfying? Predictable?
-
Every book has a world view. Were you able to identify this book’s world view? What was it? How did it affect the analysis and remedies in book?
-
In what context was religion talked about in this book?
-
Was there any thoughts you would consider religious?
-
How did they show it?
-
Was the book overtly religious?
-
How did it affect the books story?
-
-
Why do you think the author wrote this book?
-
What would you ask the author if you had a chance?
-
What “take aways” did you have from this book?
-
What central ideas does the author present?
-
Are they personal, sociological, global, political, economic, spiritual, medical, or scientific?
-
What evidence does the author use to support the book's ideas?
-
Is the evidence convincing...definitive or...speculative?
-
Does the author depend on personal opinion, observation, and assessment? Or is the evidence factual—based on science, statistics, historical documents, or quotations from (credible) experts?
-
-
What implications for you, our nation or the world do these ideas have?
-
Are these idea’s controversial?
-
To whom and why?
-
-
-
Are there solutions which the author presents?
-
Do they seem workable? Practicable?
-
How would you implement them?
-
-
Describe the culture talked about in the book.
-
How is the culture described in this book different than where we live?
-
What economic or political situations are described?
-
Does the author examine economics and politics, family traditions, the arts, religious beliefs, language or food?
-
-
How did this book affect your view of the world?
-
Of how God is viewed?
-
What questions did you ask yourself after reading this book?
-
-
Talk about specific passages that struck you as significant—or interesting, profound, amusing, illuminating, disturbing, sad...?
-
What was memorable?
-
New Words:
-
Leitmotif (Introduction): a recurrent theme throughout a musical or literary composition, associated with a particular person, idea, or situation.
-
sattvic(Chp 1): pure, good, and virtuous
-
Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas
-
Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks
-
Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect by Matthew Lieberman
-
Republic by Plato
-
Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
-
Common Sense by Thomas Paine
-
The 5 Patterns of Extraordinary Careers by James M. Citrin and Richard A. Smith
-
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey
-
How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie
-
The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
-
Coming Apart by Charles Murray
-
Our Kids by Robert Putman
-
Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance
-
Men Without Work by Nicholas Eberstadt
-
The Allure of Toxic Leaders by Jean Lipman-Blumen
-
The Moral Sense by James Q. Wilson
-
Beyond Good and Evil by Fredrich Nietzche
-
The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt
-
Confessions by Augustine
-
The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek
-
The Birth of the Mind by Gary Marcus
-
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community by Robert Putman
-
The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon
-
Federalist Papers
-
Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
-
Principles of Political Economy by John Stewart Mills
-
The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathain Haidt
-
Three to Get Married by Bishop Fulton Sheen
-
The Important Book by Margaret Wise Brown
Good Quotes:
-
First Line: I live and work in Washington DC, but I’m not a politics junkie.
-
Last Line: I have just one thing I want you to remember: You are now entering mission territory.
-
To Love is to will the good of the other. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, q. 26, art. 6
-
Can there be any greater evil than discord and distraction and plurality where unity ought to reign? Or any greater good than the bond of unity? There cannot. Plato in Republic, V
-
It is not in numbers, but in unity that our great strength lies. Thomas Pain in Common Sense
-
Conquer anger through gentleness, unkindness through kindness, greed through generosity, and falsehood by truth. Be truthful; do not yield to anger. Teachings of the Buddha
-
Attitude follows action. Chp 1
-
Sometimes your joy is the source of your smile, but sometimes your smile can be the source of your joy. Thich Nhat Hanh
-
Gratitude is, quite simply, a contempt killer. Chpt 2
-
We are not enemies, but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address
-
No work is insignificant. All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence. Martin Luther King as quoted in chp 3
-
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams, Argument for the Defense
-
Introduction: Are You Sick of Fighting Yet?
-
1 The Culture of Contempt
-
2 Can You Afford to Be Nice?
-
3 Love Lessons for Leaders
-
4 How Can I Love My Enemies If They Are Immoral?
-
5 The Power and Peril of Identity
-
6 Tell Me a Story
-
7 Is Competition Our Problem?
-
8 Please Disagree with Me
-
Conclusion: Five Rules to Subvert the Culture of Contempt
References:
-
Author's Web Site
-
Wikipedia-Author
-
Amazon-Book
-
Amazon-Author
-
GoodReads-Book
-
GoodReads-Author
-
NPR Review
-
New York Times Review
-
PBS News Hour interview
-
AEI Conference with Arthur Brooks
