海角大神

Arthur Brooks is one of the limitless number of policy analysts who toil in聽Washington. He stands out both because he is prolific and his work has had聽an impact. He has already written 10 books on a wide range of subjects, served聽as president of the influential center-right American Enterprise Institute, and聽writes a column for the Washington Post.

His background sets him apart. An accomplished classical musician, he spent聽12 years playing in a symphony orchestra. He worked his way through college聽and attended Thomas Edison State University in New Jersey 鈥� not exactly a 鈥渂ig name鈥� school in the corridors of power (though he did earn a Ph.D. in聽public policy from the Rand Institute). On a personal level, he is deeply religious (Roman Catholic)聽and calls the Dalai Lama a friend and mentor.

In his latest book, Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America From聽the Culture of Contempt, Brooks takes aim at the hypertoxic climate that affects our civic culture. His description of the current situation is essentially that 鈥渉yperbolic鈥� public discourse聽driven by an 鈥渙utrage聽industrial complex鈥� has produced a culture of contempt that is tearing America聽apart.

He uses the word 鈥渃ontempt鈥� deliberately because it is more than mere聽anger. A culture of contempt reflects a desire to 鈥渕ock, shame, and聽permanently exclude [the other side] from relationships by belittling, humiliating, and ignoring鈥� those with whom we disagree. 鈥淐ontempt鈥� says to others: 鈥淵ou聽disgust me. You are beneath caring about.鈥�

Brooks marshals an impressive amount of evidence to make his point. Not only is such behavior damaging to the public discourse, he writes, but it undermines the health of not only its practitioners but also of those on the receiving end. He cites research to suggest聽that humans are likely hard-wired to be decent and kind and to seek common聽ground. To him, the toxic political culture undermines our democracy and health and is contrary to human nature.

Discussions about the state of civic discourse typically lead to calls for聽civility and respect and for tolerance of different points of view. Here Brooks does something you might not expect from a data-driven economist: He聽calls on us to go much further and to love those with whom we disagree, following the biblical聽injunction to聽seek and find the good in other people. When confronted by critics, rather than聽ignore, insult, or argue, we must make a concerted effort to engage them in a聽respectful and welcoming manner. Or, as the Dalai Lama reportedly told him, we must聽practice 鈥渨arm-heartedness.鈥�

So while many (myself included) would be thrilled to start with civility and聽respect, Brooks calls on us to draw upon the better angels of our nature and to go聽much further. Loving our enemies, as opposed to simply tolerating them, will聽lead to better understanding, more respect, and the possibility of finding common聽ground.

This is an important, powerful, and well-argued thesis. Close personal dialogue聽and engagement based on compassion would absolutely result in greater聽understanding and connection.聽It鈥檚 a tall order. Responding with love in the face of hostility and anger requires a level of patience that few of us possess these days. Moreover, it demands time-consuming, one-on-one interaction that seems at odds with the rapid-fire responses of social media that favor caustic sound bites over connection and聽dialogue.

Brooks goes easier than he should on the nation鈥檚 political class. He admits that聽he knows many elected federal officials and in general respects and admires聽them (as do I). But elected officials bear a special responsibility for ameliorating聽the culture of contempt and making the civic square a place where respectful聽debate is the norm. It鈥檚 hypocritical for public officials to tell Brooks that they聽regret and are dismayed by the nature of our public dialogue but claim that they聽are powerless to influence it because their base demands it. They aren鈥檛. It鈥檚聽not too much to expect that they avoid vituperative ad homenim attacks, foster聽civil debate, and encourage their base to do the same.

Brooks鈥� prescription that we treat others with love is praiseworthy and highly desirable. But it鈥檚 not clear that such an approach will get us very far if our leaders continue to spew anger and gratuitous insults in the public arena.

This is a powerful and important book. Even as someone who lives in the same聽world as Brooks, I found his analysis compelling and his prescription worth聽careful and sustained thought. Indeed, the book is so intriguing and thought聽provoking, that, as soon as I finished it, I started to read it again. I suspect other聽readers will react the same way.

Terry Hartle is senior vice president for government relations and public affairs at the American Council on Education in Washington.聽