Review and Response to “How Contempt Destroys Democracy” by Zachary Elwood

I recently had the pleasure of talking with Zachary Elwood, the author of “How Contempt Destroys Democracy” for my show “Impolite Company.” We talked about a range issues around identity, politics, Trump, and disagreeing over politics. You can watch the episode here:

In this post, I want to offer my review and reflection on Elwood’s book. First off, I’d like to say this is well worth the read. And it might be a bit difficult for some folks as well. Elwood has a specific audience in mind – liberals. The basic focus of the book is to talk with a liberal audience about how contempt for “the other side” contributes to the problems that people complain about. Liberals have a responsibility to engage in conversation that focuses on important issues, and to do it in a way that doesn’t dehumanize those they disagree with. That applies to everyone of course.

This focus becomes evident right away when Elwood states: “Regardless of which group in a conflict is more right or wrong, it’s important to first recognize that this is almost always the core objection that gets in the way of people willing to engage in conflict resolution: the belief that the problem is the ‘other side’ and that therefore working on resolving the conflict isn’t ‘our problem.'” (pg. 29). This very notion has been a growing challenge in our political system.

I remember when I first started learning how to do campaigning attending an event where the political commentator Matt Lewis was talking about what he called “the Sir Galahad theory of politics.” That’s the idea that because your campaign, side, argument, etc. is so very right (as in correct), that clearly, it must be the other people who are wrong. If we are ever going to have a healthy political conversation, then the responsibility starts with us, not waiting for someone else to take action. It is our responsibility.

Elwood emphasizes this point by stating “Contemptuous us-versus-them views are contagious.” (Pg. 29). Not only are they contagious, but they are addictive, and they compound the situation. “In short, fear and anger begets more fear and anger. Toxic polarization is a feedback loop…” (pg. 30). He goes on to draw out that feedback loop with a helpful visual showing how it works. There are four parts to the feedback loop (pg. 35):

• We speak about the other side in more insulting and demeaning ways.
• The other side sees us as even more immoral and dangerous.
• The other side speaks about us in more insulting and demeaning ways.
• We see the other side as more immoral and dangerous.

Take your pick on where the beginning point is. Regardless of where it starts, round and round it goes. None of this should be a shock. There are plenty of examples in history of how this works. We’re watching it unfold right now in Israel and Palestine – one attacks the other, and the other responds in kind. And on and on it goes.

Throughout this book, Elwood is citing information from Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind” and Ezra Klein’s book “Why we are Polarized” along with a few other sources. I’ve read both of these books and found them useful in a variety of ways. You can read my review of Haidt’s book here and Klein’s book here.

Another important point that Elwood makes is about asymmetrical beliefs. This type of thinking creates a great deal of problems and toxicity. “Each group will tend to assume the other group is in some sense symmetrical to them, and this assumption can make people reach more pessimistic views of the other group.” (Pg. 89). So many of the problems and conflicts we have comes from this very notion – we make a bad assumption that everyone thinks the way we do or that we are the norm by which everyone else is judged by. But everyone comes through life with different experiences, values, and beliefs. I have often argued that I try to assume that those I disagree with come to their conclusions for what they see as very good reasons. I may not agree with the reasons, but I doubt that they come to those conclusions haphazardly.

Another key concept that Elwood talks about is how “our anger helps create the things angering us.” (Pg. 102). Essentially, what you focus on, you get more of. That’s because when you are focused on something, you are paying attention to that thing. You’re bound to find more of it. It’s like paying attention to green cars on the road. When you are really focused on green cars, your brain sees more of them. You might be shocked at how many green cars there are and think that all of a sudden there was a huge sale of green cars. The reality though is that all those green cars were already there – it’s you that has changed. This isn’t about wishful thinking though either. It has real consequences. “The 2006 book The Anatomy of Peace describes how conflict can result in self-fulfilling prophecies. As they put it, ‘We begin provoking in others the very things we say we hate.’ Whether it’s an interpersonal conflict or an international conflict, our contempt can induce precisely those behaviors we most dislike.” (pg. 107).

One of the key points that I was so very glad that Elwood made had to do with addressing conspiracy theories in politics and how they contribute and feed off of toxic polarization. None of this new, but too often it seems that we look at these in compartmentalized ways, rather than feeding into each other.

“A conflict grants more power to more narcissistic and antisocial people, and those people in turn amplify the conflict. But it’s also true that toxic polarization seems to make us more narcissistic and antisocial. You can’t hate a large swath of people around you without also, to some extent, hating humanity. And if humanity is so horrible and unlikeable, why not ‘burn it all down?'” (Pg. 156). I see elements of this that run beyond politics as well. The modern Rapture theology that is a key belief system for certain parts of a more evangelical and fundamentalist branch of Christianity has at its core this notion of God being the one that burns it all down. You can read more about how problematic this is from Dr. Barbara Rossing in her 2005 book “The Rapture Exposed.”

All of this leads to toxic polarization being a threat to the very foundations of democracy. “…due to heightened suspicion and distrust, some of the things we do that we think are fully reasonable and justified will be perceived by the other side as undemocratic. They don’t understand our fears and concerns, or see them as hugely overstated – and so what we see as defensive actions in support of democracy they’ll see as unjustified aggressive actions against democracy.” (Pg. 158). We see this play out very clearly in our present political situation. On the left, we hear about the threats to democracy in Project 2025 along with statements by Donald Trump about being a dictator on day one. And on the right we hear about the threats to democracy in Joe Biden’s policy proposal to bring about term limits and other changes to the Supreme Court.

So what do we do? You might think we need more education, facts, stats, etc. “The ease with which people arrive at different narratives can help explain why education and attempts to correct wrong beliefs may not do much.” (Pg. 184). I tend to agree with Elwood on this. We aren’t lacking in facts, data, verifiable information. We are awash with a ton of it – maybe that’s part of the problem. It’s overwhelming. And when people are overwhelmed, they look for simplicity and simple answers.

“In order for us to turn back the tide of toxic polarization in America, we may need some critical mass of people to see toxic polarization as a problem, and to see the wisdom of actively trying to reduce it.” (Pg. 194). Indeed. But that’s easier said than done. “The endeavor to reduce political contempt can seem weak and boring. In polarized societies, the bridge-builders will usually be disrespected by people on both sides. They’ll be seen as oblivious and ineffectual and weak by many, and even considered dangerous traitors by some in their political peer group.” (Pg. 195).

Elwood offers a few ideas for us to engage in (Pg. 196-7):

• We can avoid acting in polarizing ways.
• We can talk more to others about this problem.
• We can engage with the other side’s more rational beliefs.
• We can push back on divisive behaviors of people who are politically similar to us.

All of these have to do with relationships with people, not with a focus on being right. Elwood talks about cultural change being the important aspect here. He sees this, as opposed to systemic change being the key – not that systemic change isn’t a part, but he’s arguing that culture change will drive systems change, rather than the other way around. So much of this goes to another point that runs through the book – toxic polarization exists because people don’t trust one another. If we deal with that, we’re going to move in the right direction. Here, Elwood offers several things that for me are ultimately about building trust across boundaries. Here’s a few of his ideas:

• We can mainly influence “our side” – we really don’t have influence over the “other side” because there is mistrust. (Pg. 203)
• be skeptical about the ideas around you. “Withhold judgement when we hear or see anger-producing stories.” (Pg. 207)
• Try to speak accurately and persuasively. “We should avoid using language that we know will anger the other side for not good reason and for no practical benefit.” (pg. 208)
• Consider whether our actions are helping or hurting. “You should be willing to consider that you might be part of the problem.” (Pg. 210)
• Push back on divisive behaviors and stances on your side. (Pg. 213)
• Push back on polarization with organizations. (Pg. 214)
• Be more forgiving. (Pg. 214). Ideas can be judged to be good or bad. We wade into troubled waters when we start to judge people as good or bad – especially large groups of people.

Ultimately, this is about seeing the humanity in others. As a Lutheran pastor, I often talk about how Jesus calls us to love our enemies. That requires two things – to see the humanity of our enemies and to see how our enemies are more like us than we prefer. If we can do that, we can be more forgiving, merciful, and gracious to our enemies. In short, we can treat them more humanely and in the course of doing so, we are also treating ourselves more humanely, as well as loving God. Our job isn’t to change others, but instead to invite people into a different way of being and relating with one another. What they do with that is up to them.