We Need to Share the Goal of Achieving Agreements

Following advice he sought and received from the Dalai Lama on what to do when one feels contempt for an adversary or opponent or person who sees the world differently: “substitute contempt with kindness…answer anger with love.” 

Arthur Brooks, president of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, is encouraging fellow conservatives to recognize the importance of civility in a democracy—of course we disagree with those on the other side, but better policy ideas are the result of multiple perspectives working it out…and that gets cut short when either side holds the other in contempt.

No side has a monopoly on good policy ideas and we all have a lot to learn from each other, but that learning and progress never happens in a context where disagreeing with me is confused with being stupid and evil. That is just too easy and lazy and, more importantly, fundamentally anti-democratic.

In the comments after this short article we see that this suggestion was not well received by his fellow conservatives. The central theme of the comments, in short, argues that disagreeing with me really does mean someone is stupid and evil. Several reasons are provided, including the perennial favorites—should we substitute our contempt with kindness for Nazis and ‘if liberals aren’t stupid or evil, how do you explain Obama?’

Other reasons include that the problem is only liberals are trolls and only liberals attack conservatives with malice and conservatives just don’t do that sort of thing. And several were kind enough to provide the standard list of grievances to justify being unkind: liberals are the enemy in a culture war trying to destroy our constitution and are in league with Islam trying to destroy America.

Let’s consider what these comments share. Let’s also use language that prevents us from seeing this celebration and defense of unkindness as a uniquely conservative malady, following the spirit of Brooks’ initial suggestion.

The comments argue we can, indeed must, be unkind to those who disagree with us because any failure to be unkind will result in the triumph of evil and we will be responsible for not standing up to defend what we know to be right.

When I take a look at people I know well, I see liberals struggling as mightily as conservatives with this call to substitute contempt with kindness for those who disagree with us. Please do not willfully misunderstand me here—I am not arguing an absolute equivalency, but only observing that this is a shared struggle, without ideological markers, and that I observe that our failure to make this substitution is widespread.

Right now most readers (if there are any) are demonstrating the truth of my observation.

My liberal friends are making reference to studies they have seen that show conservatives are much more likely, for psychological reasons, to adopt an authoritarian perspective and to deploy the either/or, dualistic, thinking needed to make this ‘I have a monopoly on the truth’ approach seem sensible, moral, and defensible.

My conservative friends are similarly foaming at the mouth with a ready list of grievances they believe conclusively demonstrate the harms repeatedly caused by liberal big government, wasteful spending, and inattention to the moral education and ethical behavior needed for civility, prosperity, and democratic decision making to thrive.

In the end, then, the value of Brooks statement here is that he directed this toward his friends, rather than doing as most of us usually do—directing this type of critique toward our opponents.

Clearly, democracy requires all sides to share the goal of achieving agreements that can move us forward, even as we (inevitably) continue to disagree. Our refusal to honor alternative perspectives, indeed to substitute honor with contempt, indicates how far we are from sharing this goal. 

When we share this goal we are much more likely to agree that kindness and empathy and civility and listening with an open mind are not just platitudes for our kids in civics class, but the building blocks for a successful democracy that we are overlooking today.

I rarely agree with positions articulated by the AEI, but this is now the second time that I applaud their willingness to take a public stand in favor of this deeper level of commitment needed for our experiment with democracy to survive, must less thrive.

Norman Ornstein (of AEI) co-authored a brilliant piece with Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute making a related argument last year. JS Mill in On Liberty emphasizes this point as central to protecting and advancing freedom. EJ Dionne and John Danforth have made the argument earlier.

Today I see Arthur Brooks taking that risk again and, again, I applaud the courage and self-sacrifice. And I hope this message might be heard by our friends and allies on both sides of the aisle. Thanks Mr. Brooks.