Saturday, July 27, 2019

Love Your Enemies

Book: Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt
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:
  1. Focus on what is causing the other person’s distress. Listen, not rebut.
  2. Adopt the five to one rule: five positive comments to one negative.
  3. Contempt is never justified.
  4. 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
Book References:
  • 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
      Table of Contents:
      • 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:
          Posted by at
          Labels: , ,

          No comments:

          Post a Comment

          Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)