The
President has been impeached. But more about that next time. This article is
about seeking to subvert the “culture of contempt” that was so evident in the
impeachment hearings. The message of Advent (and Christmas) is hope, peace,
love, and joy. How we need this message in the U.S. where the
culture of contempt is so prevalent—and yes, so contemptible!
Help
from Arthur Brooks
Arthur
C. Brooks, the Washington Post columnist and professor of public leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University, is the author of a book published in March of this year.
You have previously heard the words of the title of that book: Love Your
Enemies.
That is certainly not an original title—but the subtitle is: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt.
Brooks (b. 1964) is a political conservative, and I disagree
with many of his political positions. But I fully agree with what he writes in
his new book—and with Nebraska Republican Senator Ben Sasse, who is quoted on
the back cover of the book:
If you are satisfied with our toxic ideological climate, then don’t bother reading this book. But if you’d like to rebel against the present nonsense, Arthur Brooks can show you how to do it with joy and confidence—regardless of your political preferences. If we follow the lessons in Love Your Enemies, better times lie ahead for America.
Help from These Five Rules
In the Conclusion, Brooks advocates “Five
Rules to Subvert the Culture of Contempt.” Rather than repeating his five rules,
I am sharing a helpful statement about each one.
1) “Stand up to people on your own side who
trash people on the other side.” Since contempt is destructive, whenever we
read or hear words of contempt, to subvert the culture of contempt we need to
speak up, kindly, in opposition to those words.
2) “Seeking out what those on the other side
have to say will help you understand others better.” Whenever we read or hear
words with which we strongly disagree, we first need to seek to understand why
the writer/speaker wrote or spoke such words.
3) Here is a point that Brooks makes
repeatedly: “never treat others with contempt, even if you believe they
deserve it.” Contempt never causes others to change for the better and is
“always harmful for the contemptor.”
4) Brooks also encourages his readers to
“disagree better” and to “be part of a healthy competition of ideas.” He
writes, “The single biggest way a subversive can change America is not by
disagreeing less, but by disagreeing better—engaging in earnest
debate while still treating everyone with love and respect.”
5) Finally, Brooks advocates tuning out,
disconnecting more from unproductive debates. “Unfollow public figures [and
social media ‘friends’] who foment contempt, even if you agree with them.”
Trying It Out
Partly
because of Brooks’s book, I have been reading, and trying to understand without
contempt, two books with which I have strong disagreements.
Dark Agenda: The Way to Destroy Christian
America (2018) was written by David Horowitz, the son
of Jewish parents who in 2015 identified as an agnostic. Even though Jewish,
Horowitz (b. 1939) dedicated his book to his wife and to three “Christian
buddies.”
And on the back cover, Horowitz’s book receives
praise from the ultra-conservative Christian politician Mike Huckabee.
Reading some of that book with the desire to
subvert the culture of contempt helped me understand why Horowitz, and many
religious and political conservatives, think the way they do.
Although the book contains much I strongly
disagree with, reading it with the goal of gaining deeper insight into why
conservatives think the way they do was beneficial. And I realize afresh that I
can view Horowitz as a good and honorable man—even though wrong in many of his
ideas!—without having contempt for him.
The same goes for Star Parker, author of Necessary
Noise: How Donald Trump Inflames the Culture War and Why This is Good News for
America (2019). Parker (b. 1956) is an active Christian as well as an
African American woman who has been a strong supporter of President Trump.
During the Christmas season—and throughout the
new year—let’s work together to subvert the culture of contempt, for the good
of the country and the world.
Merry
Christmas to all!
Here are important comments from local Thinking Friend Anton Jacobs. (He was unable to post his comments directly as others have had trouble doing from time to time; I apologize for that, but I don't know of anything I can do about it.)
ReplyDelete"I've not read the book, so I'm responding with some hesitancy. The book might have far more depth than a short blog can represent. But it sounds to me to be a bit too superficial. I, for one, will not debate with Trump supporters about Trump, for the simple reason that I do not want to normalize his ideas and his actions. I think it is very dangerous to treat despicable, inhumane, and hateful ideas with respect. Does it make sense, for example, to have a respectful discussion with a Nazi over whether Jews should be incarcerated and gassed?
"Closer to home: Does it make sense to have a mutually respectful discussion over whether we should separate young children from their parents at the border? I'm not sure how to separate the ideas from the persons. I do have many friends and relatives who are Trump supporters, and I treat them personally with great respect, not contempt, but they know I won't argue with them about Trump. Now, if not entertaining despicable, inhumane, and hateful ideas as worthy to be discussed and debated is treating them with contempt, I guess I'm guilty.
"Thank you for the blog."
(Posted yesterday, corrected just now.)
DeleteAnton, I appreciate your comments (and am sorry you had trouble trying to post them directly on the blogsite).
I think the key to understanding Brooks's book--and to understanding my point--is contained in what you wrote: "I treat them personally with great respect, not contempt." That is the basic way that the culture of contempt can be subverted.
Brooks is not (as I understand him) and I certainly am not advocating accepting/condoning contemptible ideas or actions. We are in no way suggesting treating "despicable, inhumane, and hateful ideas with respect." But we are calling for people to treat other people with respect and to seek sincerely to understand why they hold what seems clearly to be harmful ideas.
I didn't watch a lot of the impeachment debate on Wednesday, but I heard enough to conclude that many of the Republican opponents of the impeachment bill spoke contemptuously. Since they were supporting the articles of impeachment, it was not necessary for the Democrats to speak so contemptuously.
On Facebook, and elsewhere, though, it seems that there are a lot of people on the left who show contempt in the way they rail against DJT and his supporters. Again, there is ample reason to oppose the ideas, but often I see attacks on DJT and his supporters as despicable persons. That is the culture of contempt that needs to be subverted, for it leads to only to dangerous division and strife.
Leroy, thanks again, for another book idea (I'm thinking of my SS class, which already has a long list of works by conservatives to read before this one). I look forward to reading it. I want to encourage my SS class to read conservatives, because I know my own biases and recognize how I do the very things I accuse conservatives of doing (Republican or Democrat; Christians or Jews or Muslims, etc.): favor my own biases.
ReplyDeleteWhat is more, while I am deeply concerned about "normalizing" disgustingly immoral behavior and public policies that permit or even encourage such, by admitting it to the table of debate and re-debate, (with respect to my wise friend and colleague, Anton, I am equally concerned about simply relegating such ideas to a category of "non-debate," because I presume everyone ought to agree with my position on them. I would have loved, for instance, to have eventually presumed that students no longer needed for me to introduce them to the critical concepts that differentiated hagiographical readings of sacred texts from historical readings of sacred texts. But, historical readings were never normalized; hagiographical readings were, requiring, every semester, the reintroduction of things that I thought should be obvious. They never were.
Frankly, I've found that the work of changing one's own mind is nearly impossible; changing another's mind seems impossible altogether, especially without conversation. So, loving enemies, if it's really possible, seems the wiser course, specially if it at least enables the understanding that comes from conversation.
Thanks, Milton for your helpful comments. I think your final paragraph is especially important. I am not at all sure that even with conversation we can do much to change the minds of others. Perhaps all we can do is to plant seeds that in time may sprout new ways of seeing and understanding. But at least some greater degree of understanding of other people can, surely, come through conversation. Seeking to understand rather than to change those we disagree with is a key factor here, and that is what I want to try to do more and more.
DeleteI found it interesting how my attitude toward Horowitz and Parker changed when I switched from my negative thoughts/feelings regarding their ideas to a position of trying to understand why they were saying what they were. And if that was so with people I don't know personally, how much more should it be true with people I know--and my Facebook "friends."
Thinking Friend Eric Dollard shares the following important rules:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for sharing these ideas from Arthur Brooks.
"I am attaching my rules of engagement with those who hold different opinions, especially political ones."
Here are Eric's first five rules:
"1) Always be civil and gracious. No ad hominems or use of derogatory adjectives (e.g., "stupid") to describe the other person's opinions.
"2) Be willing to listen. You might find some areas of agreement. Try to understand why the other person has his or her opinion.
"3) Be realistic. It is almost impossible to change another person's political or religious beliefs. Don't worry about changing them.
"4) Be willing to concede valid points made by the other person.
"5) In presenting your own viewpoint, use good evidence and arguments without pushing too hard. If the other person isn't interested in the evidence, then let it go."
Thanks, Eric, for sharing your "rules of engagement." I agree wholeheartedly with the five of yours I posted above.
DeleteEric, I too appreciate your rules. Generally, I find that people have an agenda. It is probably worth just holding one's tongue and walking away as quickly as possible. In order to engage in dialogue, there must be some initial respect or goodwill. The two commandments of Christ most rejected by Christians seem to be "Love your enemy", and "Love one another (fellow Christians)".
DeleteThanks, Leroy. Great post. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
ReplyDeleteI was happy to receive the following positive words from Thinking Friend Andrew Bolton in England:
ReplyDelete"Good blog! Subverting the culture of contempt is a Christian thing to do. Thank you for modelling this commitment by reading the two books you mentioned.
"I have copied your treatment of the ‘five rules’ into a Word document to use perhaps in ministry – can I have your permission – will acknowledge my source!"
Thanks for your comments, Andrew--and for your desire to use the "five rules." I am happy to give your permission to use my blog articles any way you would like to.
DeleteYou may also want to consider using the five rules TF Eric shared this morning also.
A very hard saying of Christ - "Love Your Enemy". At least he lived it. And a few others too. But I don't see much of the good guys out there (although many claim to be). I'm from Missouri. The bridges many already be burned. I heard an attack again this morning at a Christmas party. I remember Jerry Heaster saying a few years back that our country was identifiably approaching the precipice of civil war again with the heated antagonism from all sides. And it does come from all sides, including those of the "Christendom". The self-righteous lead the way thinking they are the way. But there are NONE righteous. Groups who claim to be bridge-builders are good at throwing on kerosene.
ReplyDeleteThankfully, there still are people of goodwill out there, but don't look for them in a group. Merry Christmas to those of Goodwill!
I much appreciate these comments by local Thinking Friend Bob Leeper:
ReplyDelete"I enjoy your writing, and do recognize the culture of CONTEMPT which plagues our nation. I have felt blessed to have discovered in Liberty, Mo., two citizens who help cut through the differences to find good in THE OTHER: Leroy in these blogs and HateBusters Ed Chasteen. Life seems good when we can meet and mingle with folks who make us think.
"One of the key ideas I gained in Jim Wallis’ speech was his story about a woman serving the homeless; in her prayer, she is reported as having said something like: LORD, I KNOW YOU WILL BE IN THAT LINE TODAY. PLEASE HELP ME ASSURE I TREAT YOU RIGHT. While I accept all those kinds of sentiments as parables, perhaps, it is great reminder for our good treatment of all we encounter."
I also am happy to share these comments of Thinking Friend Truett Baker in Arizona. Perhaps he is more honest that most of us are:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for a much needed focus during this time of year when we celebrate the birth of the 'Prince of Peace.' This is one of those 'easier said than done matters. I am one of those 'angry men' who have prayed for years to have a better spirit. I keep the bad attitude under wraps but from time to time, it stealthy seeps out. That is particularly true with fundamentalism. I have found that same evil spirit tainting my life when I think of Donald Trump and what his kind have done to our country. I'm still looking for a miracle of grace to change that evil spirit."
Mark Galli, the editor in chief of Christianity Today, yesterday found himself wading deep into the culture of contempt. He tried to do "so with conviction and love." His online editorial revolved around this, "Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments." Reportedly the server for Christianity Today's website crashed due to high traffic. You can join the traffic at this link: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
ReplyDeleteWhether it is Paul going after the cruel cutters of the flesh, or Jesus going after the vipers' brood, the gospel at times seems to come with a hard, prophetic edge. Perhaps it has something to do with speaking truth to power. I have come to the conclusion that the Bible works on the theory that, if you don't have something nice to say, tell the truth. The prophet Nathan sure did that when he confronted David over Bathsheba. God rather quickly went from "Where is your brother, Abel?" to "What have you done?" Surely, when we speak to the weak in faith, we should try to not confound them. Still, there are times when a still small voice calls on us to lay it on the line. Donald Trump is the Orange Anti-Christ. Like Dick Cheney, an Anti-Vice President, Trump has committed many abominations and desolations, but Cheney never publicly called himself "the chosen one." Trump has ensnared the very elect of fundamentalism into his cult, until they celebrate his leadership even as they excuse his horrific transgressions of all of the Ten Commandments. This gets me back to Christianity Today's editorial. Mark Galli is more elegant than I. Go read what he has said.
Thanks, Craig, for bringing up Mark Galli's editorial in Christianity Today. I was surprised to find this morning it being a front-page article in the Washington Post and the top story on page 2 of the Kansas City Star.
DeleteI just now re-read Galli's piece to see if it passes the "no contempt" test. My judgment is that he was speaking truth to power, fully consistent with the prophets of the Old Testament and of Jesus himself. Seeking to subvert the culture of contempt does not mean condoning evil (as I tried to say in my response to Anton above).
But DJT's response, it seems to me, was largely him seeking to speak power to truth.
Galli wrote that "when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first"--and he says that he has tried to do that. But evidently feeling that enough is enough, he spoke out clearly and forcefully--but, it seems to me, without contempt toward DJT or his supporters. What is condemned was DJT's "moral deficiencies," his "grossly immoral character," and his "immoral words."
While re-affirming everything I wrote in my blog article, I also applaud the forthrightness--and bravery--of Mark Galli.
Not surprisingly, the CT editorial has provoked plenty of controversy. See this link for a summary: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/christian-post-editor-resigns-editorial-slamming-christianity-today.html
ReplyDeleteI failed to post earlier the following substantial comments (received on 12/22) from local Thinking Friend Will Adams, who taught Political Science at William Jewell College for decades.
ReplyDelete"Thank you for your thoughtful blog, and the reference to the book, 'Love Your Enemies.'
"As a long retired professor of Political Science, I have wondered what it would be like to be teaching now. I always informed my students that I'm a liberal Democrat, by way of warning them of my biases. At the same time, I taught them respect for opposing views and for those who held them.
I also warned that they need not seek a good grade by agreeing with my views; they would be graded on how well they knew arguments for both sides of controversial issues, regardless of their own views. I distinguished between statements of fact and value judgments. Statements of facts can be shown to be true or false; value judgments cannot be so tested.
"Early in my career I introduced discussion groups in several of my courses, on the assumption that teaching democracy by the lecture method is a contradiction in terms. Discussions were led by two of my advanced majors, one liberal and one conservative. I have wondered recently whether such groups could even occur these days without resulting in fist fights.
"The underlying values, respect for those who hold opposing views and knowledge of arguments for all points of view, seem so rare these days. It is a fine balancing act to be able to hold and express strong opinions on controversial matters, while keeping in mind the humble notion, 'I might be wrong.'