How to Talk About Politics Without Fighting: Advice From Arthur Brooks

With the Thanksgiving / Christmas / New Year holiday season upon us, it’s a good time to ask how families and friends can discuss politics without sabotaging those relationships.

This is particularly the case as many of our get-togethers with family members, friends, co-workers, and so forth will be in the context of rising COVID numbers, disagreements over how to handle COVID, and ongoing polarization and court battles from the recent presidential election.

Can people talk politics (and, for that matter, religion – another “hot button” topic) without alienating family or losing friends?

Each Wednesday, I like to review a non-fiction book for my readers. Today, I want to follow up on a review I’ve previously done, and focus on offering some advice from that book.

The book to which I’m referring is Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America From The Culture of Contempt by Arthur Brooks.

If you haven’t yet read my review, you can do so by clicking here, but as a quick refresher, Mr. Brooks’ point in authoring Love Your Enemies is reflected in this passage from the book:

We need national healing every bit as much as economic growth. But what are we getting instead from many of our leaders in media, politics, entertainment, and academia? Across the political spectrum, people in positions of power and influence are setting us against one another. They tell us our neighbors who disagree with us politically are ruining our country. That ideological differences aren’t a matter of differing opinions but reflect moral turpitude. That our side must utterly vanquish the other, even if it leaves our neighbors without a voice.

Brooks, Arthur. Love Your Enemies, Broadside, 2019

Brooks explains that “our public discourse is shockingly hyperbolic in ascribing historically murderous ideologies to the tens of millions of ordinary Americans with whom we strongly disagree.”

This is the case on both the left and the right, with each side assuming the worst about the other’s beliefs, motives, and intentions. Rarely do we take the time to truly listen or understand.

To better understand this challenge and for insight and advice on what we can do about it (and to hopefully pick up some wisdom in how we can talk politics without fighting), I thought I would provide several pieces of advice from Mr. Brooks – in the form of quotes from his book. Here they are:

“Just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean it’s hate speech or the person saying it is a deviant.”

We need to stop expecting or demanding the others immediately agree with our convictions and how we express or promote them. We must make room for disagreement as well as constructive conversations that lead to some form of peaceful and civil resolution.

“Motive attribution asymmetry doesn’t lead to anger, because it doesn’t make you want to repair the relationship. Believing your foe is motivated by hate leads to something far worse: contempt.”

Here, Brooks refers to something called “motive attribution asymmetry” which basically speaks to our tendency to assume and attribute motives to other people — without allowing the other person to speak for himself or herself.

As Brooks points out, this doesn’t lead to any kind of helpful passion – or what we might call “righteous indignation.” On the contrary, it leads us to hold those with whom we disagree in contempt.

And what is contempt?

“Deriving from the Latin word contemptus, meaning ‘scorn,’ contempt represents not merely an outburst following a moment of deep frustration with another but rather an enduring attitude of complete disdain.“

The Bible is full of warnings against such an attitude of scorn and disdain.

“Social scientists define contempt as anger mixed with disgust. These two emotions form a toxic combination, like ammonia mixed with bleach.”

Ammonia mixed with bleach? What better way to describe the state of how people handle political disagreements in America today?

“In the words of the nineteenth-century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, contempt is ‘the unsullied conviction of the worthlessness of another.'”

Brooks quotes Schopenhaur to further define and spell out the most practical ramification of contempt.

“Americans have been manipulated and bullied into thinking that we have to choose between strong beliefs and close relationships.”

One of the deepest hurts perpetuated by this cycle of contempt is the loss in relationships. And it’s not necessary.

“There is an ‘outrage industrial complex’ in American media today, which profits handsomely from our contempt addiction.”

Stealing a phrase from Dwight Eisenhower’s reference to the “military-industrial complex” of post-World War II America, Brooks gets to one of most challenging aspects of our dilemma. There are people in positions of social and economic influence who PROFIT from polarization.

Politicians and social movements benefit from rage and anger. It drives activism and financial donations. Media outlets benefit from controversy and polarization. Those things boost ratings and website visits, and that means more advertising revenue. And I could go on.

Americans need to realize that they are often manipulated — not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of others. And this often happens to their and our collective detriment.

The sooner we wake up to this, the better off we will be.

“Millions actively indulge their habit by participating in the cycle of contempt in the way they treat others, especially on social media.”

We of course can’t just blame politicians and the news media. We ourselves perpetuate this problem by the way we often handle disagreements on social media.

“It’s regular citizens acting as leaders who matter most in the battle against the culture of contempt. You see, whether or not we want to admit it, political contempt and division are what economists call a demand-driven phenomenon.”

It’s here that Brooks points toward solutions. We must, in our capacity as private citizens, speak against and live against this “culture of contempt.” We must do so in our homes, in church, in our workplaces, at gatherings with family and friends, and in political meetings.

We must choose to love and exhibit love – even in the midst (ESPECIALLY in the midst) of deep disagreement.

And what is love? What does that mean – practically speaking?

“In his Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas Aquinas said, ‘To love is to will the good of the other.'”

Brooks quotes Aquinas’ definition of love which, upon a study of I Corinthians 13, stands up as a pretty good definition.

Do we have the faith, character, and courage to love others – even if we feel they may not deserve it?

But how do we handle people who hold views that are anathema to our basic principles and convictions?

“There is evidence that as we become less exposed to opposing viewpoints, we become less logically competent as people.”

Again, love should not be based on agreement – nor should it be driven by agreement. We should be able to disagree without resorting to hate.

That said, before we decide the other person is wrong and that we are indeed in a state of disagreement, how about first understanding that person’s viewpoint?

Quite often, we treat disagreements as a threat — a threat to our identity, to our other associations (what will our friends think if we change our minds?), and our peace of mind. Rather, we should treat disagreements as an opportunity to learn.

If we close ourselves off from disagreements or (worse) try to stifle or suppress any and all dissent (even infringing on other people’s right to free speech), we are contributing to our own incompetence as a thinking person.

And we are also undermining the ability of society, as a whole, to constructively work through issues and challenges.

“Will we win every heart? Of course not. Nothing could get 100 percent of the population. But I believe the majority of Americans love the country and have love for one another. We just have to build a movement and culture around these truths.”

How about it, Christian? Are you willing to commit to being a part of such a movement?

When we think about it, doesn’t that sound like what the church should be about?

Of course, as a Christian and pastor, I would point to the two Greatest Commandments as the ultimate answer.

We are called to love God and to love people.

And if people know us by our love, and if we approach conversations in a spirit of love and humility, then we are on solid footing to enter into the most difficult and sensitive conversations.

Will others still sometimes be rude, impolite, or combative with us?

Yes. But this doesn’t have to be how we respond or how we act.

We don’t need to base our behavior on that of others. We can rise above the drama as we keep our eyes on the One for whom our life is ultimately all about.

May God bless you and may we all be known by, as we live by, our love.