This summer, I picked up a book by Arthur C. Brooks, the former president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. The book, titled “Love Your Enemies,” urges us to rethink how we interact with one another, especially in the political arena. I don’t plan to go into a detailed book review, but I do want to share how the book influenced me.
First, a bit about Brooks. He comes across as a thoughtful and reasonable person. Before transitioning to economics and policy analysis, he was a professional classical musician for about 22 years. His early work focused on charitable giving, and he even co-wrote a New York Times article with the Dalai Lama, who has greatly influenced him despite Brooks being a Catholic since he was 16. Politically, he has shifted from being a Democrat to a Republican and is now an Independent. While he’s conservative, he doesn’t align with Trumpian conservatism.
I deliberately chose to read something by a conservative because it’s easy to dismiss views different from our own, and most of my political beliefs lean liberal. I looked forward to the challenge this book would present.
And it did challenge me in many ways. I had to work hard to stay patient at times. Brooks tries to maintain balance by critiquing both Trump and Clinton, even though their failings don’t seem comparable to me. He talks about the need to follow democratic “rules” but doesn’t address issues like gerrymandering or voter purges, which are primarily right-wing abuses. I craved for him to acknowledge that sometimes one side is worse, but I tried to set aside that desire, suspecting it might be my own bias.
The main positive challenge was learning how to love our enemies. Brooks dismisses “civility” and “tolerance” as inadequate goals. He argues that striving to merely be civil or tolerant isn’t enough. Just as you wouldn’t describe a healthy marriage as merely “civil,” Brooks suggests our political interactions should go beyond that. We need to learn to love our enemies.
This is, of course, incredibly challenging. Even being civil and tolerant can be hard when we feel compelled to be harsh towards those we disagree with. But loving our enemies means recognizing our common humanity. We all value things like fairness, freedom, and security, even if we understand them differently. When we acknowledge these shared values, our communication becomes more respectful and potentially more persuasive, rather than confrontational.
Brooks gives an example of an unlikely friendship between Cornel West, a black socialist, and Robert George, a white conservative. Despite their opposing views, they respect and love each other deeply. This shows that it’s possible to relate lovingly while still challenging each other’s views.
One danger is expecting empathy to change opponents’ minds, and then getting upset when it doesn’t. Brooks argues that empathy shouldn’t be a trick to get what we want; it’s a better way to be. As he says, “Love and warmheartedness might not change every heart and mind, but they are always worth trying, and they will always make you better off.”
I’m trying to put this into practice by avoiding the outrage often found on social media and in TV debates. I’ve reduced my social media usage and avoid following people known for their insults. My goal is to see the common concerns behind different worldviews and recognize the humanity beneath contempt.
Communicating empathetically with people I completely disagree with scares me. But as someone who has practiced lovingkindness meditation for years, I see this as a lifelong task. By aiming to love our enemies, we often find that they become more like brothers and sisters.
“Love Your Enemies” may not be a perfect book, but it’s worth reading for its central challenge: to avoid contempt and strive to be more loving.
I resonated with Brooks’ ideas, especially his point about moving beyond a “culture of contempt.” Our society profits from our outrage, and Brooks challenges us to disengage from this cycle. He warns that unless media or social media expands our worldview, we’re merely being used to further this culture of contempt.
I’ve learned that trying to empathize with those who challenge my peace of mind or contradict my biases is incredibly hard, but necessary. For example, the Brexit debate polarized the UK, and I found myself quick to judge when my mother voted Leave. By becoming curious about her reasons, I discovered that beneath our differing views, we both have deep fears about safety. Getting beyond these surface disagreements is a lifelong practice.
Surrounded by media that cultivates disgust is unpleasant and easy to see. Recognizing righteous indignation in oneself is harder. As I continue this journey, I aim to practice empathy and understand those I disagree with deeply, even if it’s a challenging path.