Love Your Enemies

Arthur C. Brooks, a policy analyst and president of the American Enterprise Institute (a public policy think tank), argues that the United States is being destroyed not by political disagreement but by a "culture of contempt," and that the radical solution is love. The book's title draws from Matthew 5:44, which instructs believers to love their enemies. Brooks, a self-described conservative who grew up in a politically liberal Seattle family and spent 12 years as a professional French horn player before entering policy work, frames the book as a practical guide for ordinary citizens to resist the forces tearing the country apart.

Brooks opens by recounting a speech he gave to conservative activists in New Hampshire roughly two and a half years before the 2016 election. A woman told him that liberals are "stupid and evil" (3), effectively forcing him to choose between his ideology and his liberal family. He presents this as a false choice Americans across the political spectrum increasingly face, citing polling data showing that one in six Americans stopped talking to a family member or close friend because of the 2016 election. He then offers a counter-model: a September 2017 encounter on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Hawk Newsome, president of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, arrived at a pro-Trump rally expecting confrontation. Instead, rally organizer Tommy Hodges invited Newsome onstage, where Newsome identified himself as an American and a Christian and spoke with sincerity. The crowd cheered, Trump supporters embraced him afterward, and the video reached 57 million views. Brooks argues that the overwhelmingly positive response reveals contempt is not what Americans actually want.

Brooks defines contempt as anger mixed with disgust, distinguishing it from anger alone. Anger seeks to change behavior and repair relationships; contempt seeks to exile and permanently exclude. He cites a 2014 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finding that "motive attribution asymmetry," the tendency to believe one's own ideology is rooted in love while the opponent's is rooted in hate, is comparable among American partisans to that between Palestinians and Israelis. He draws on the work of psychologist John Gottman, who can predict divorce with 94 percent accuracy by observing indicators of contempt such as sarcasm, sneering, and eye-rolling. Gottman tells Brooks that the same dynamics are degrading political discourse. Contempt also harms health: it triggers stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline, and couples who constantly battle die 20 years earlier, on average, than those who seek mutual understanding (26).

Despite these harms, most Americans reject the culture of contempt. Brooks cites Tim Dixon of the organization More in Common, whose research identifies an "exhausted majority" (26): 93 percent of Americans say they are tired of national division. Brooks compares the nation's consumption of political contempt to addiction, arguing that an "outrage industrial complex" in media profits by catering to one ideological side and painting caricatures of the other. Social media intensifies the problem through ideological filtering and anonymous attacks, while gerrymandered congressional districts push politicians toward extreme positions.

Turning to solutions, Brooks argues that human beings are wired for connection. He recounts responding with gratitude to a hostile reader who sent a lengthy e-mail attacking his book Who Really Cares, instantly transforming the man's hostility into friendliness. He presents Gottman's four rules for answering contempt: listen empathetically before offering your view; maintain a five-to-one ratio of positive comments to criticisms; never treat anyone with contempt; and go where people disagree with you. He also recounts the counsel of the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, who advised Brooks to "practice warm-heartedness" (40) when feeling contempt. Brooks notes that the Dalai Lama, who has lived in exile from Tibet since 1959, begins each day praying for China and its leaders, modeling the strength that warm-heartedness requires. Brooks counters the assumption that niceness is a liability by citing studies showing that nice people are preferred as romantic partners, sought out as workplace leaders, and receive better performance reviews. He holds up Nelson Mandela, who befriended his prison guards and led South Africa's peaceful transition from apartheid (the country's system of institutionalized racial segregation), as proof that kindness and leadership success are compatible.

Brooks identifies a dignity gap underlying the 2016 election: millions of working-class Americans, especially men without college degrees, felt forgotten. He cites political economist Nicholas Eberstadt's finding that the percentage of working-age men outside the labor force tripled since 1965, and economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton's research showing rising mortality among middle-aged white Americans without college education due to suicide, drug overdoses, and liver disease. He argues that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders succeeded by tapping into this demand for dignity, noting that about 12 percent of Sanders primary voters voted for Trump in the general election, providing Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (73). Using psychologist Daniel Goleman's research on leadership styles, Brooks contends that coercive leaders destroy morale over time, while authoritative leaders inspire lasting success by articulating a vision and empowering others. He cites Martin Luther King Jr. as the paradigmatic authoritative leader who created a hunger for civil rights that people did not know they had.

Brooks uses social psychologist Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory to argue that political opponents are not immoral but express shared values differently. Haidt identifies five innate moral foundations: fairness, care, authority, loyalty, and purity. Liberals and conservatives both value fairness and compassion but express them differently: liberals emphasize redistribution and direct assistance, while conservatives emphasize merit and self-reliance. Brooks urges readers to focus arguments on shared values and to embrace ideological diversity as enriching rather than threatening.

Brooks argues that demographic identity, when used primarily for in-group bonding, undermines unity. Drawing on political scientist Robert Putnam's concepts of bonding and bridging social capital, he contends that bridging identity, which seeks common humanity across differences, is essential. He profiles Father Greg Boyle's Homeboy Industries in Los Angeles, which requires former gang members to work alongside rivals, breaking down gang identities through shared labor. Brooks also contends that human stories are the most powerful tool for creating understanding, citing neuroscientist Uri Hasson's research showing that listeners' brain activity synchronizes with a storyteller's, and economist Paul Zak's experiments demonstrating that emotionally engaging stories cause the brain to release oxytocin, a bonding hormone that increases trust and generosity. He warns that the absence of such stories enables dehumanization, pointing to historical atrocities including the Nazi propaganda equating Jews with rats and the Rwandan genocide's labeling of Tutsis as cockroaches.

Brooks argues that competition, properly bounded by rules and shared moral objectives, is unity's essential engine. He extends this principle from sports to economics, noting that free-market competition has lifted roughly 2 billion people from extreme poverty, and to ideas, citing John Stuart Mill's argument that contact with dissimilar people is a primary source of progress. He presents a framework for productive disagreement modeled on the friendship between conservative Robert George and progressive Cornel West, both Princeton University professors who disagree on nearly everything yet express deep mutual love grounded in shared truth-seeking. Brooks sets out four rules: find a deep friendship across ideological lines; never attack or try to win; never assume others' motives; and use values as a gift, not a weapon, distinguishing Ronald Reagan's 1980 use of "Make America great again" (198-199) as a unifying message from rhetoric that weaponizes patriotism to attack opponents.

Brooks concludes with five rules for subverting the culture of contempt: refuse to be used by manipulators on your own side; escape ideological bubbles; never treat others with contempt; pursue better disagreement, not less; and ration media consumption, including a two-week "politics cleanse." He frames the project as countercultural "missionary work," urging readers to carry a vision of love over contempt into their communities, promising that doing so will make them happier and the country stronger.