Contempt, Common Ground and The Coddling of the American Mind

I had two pieces run in "The Coddling of the American Mind Movie" Substack about obstacles to finding common ground. Part one dropped the day of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

AI-generated image

Bear with me. I’m going to attempt to cover a lot of ground. I want to share about two recent pieces of mine published in “The Coddling of the American Mind Movie” Substack¹ discussing former Obama speechwriter David Litt’s memoir, “It’s Only Drowning: A True Story of Learning to Surf and the Search for Common Ground.” I am also hoping to discuss my attempts at engaging David (before getting blocked on Substack) and being accused of a “hit job” by former CNN journalist Chris Cillizza. I’ll also try to show examples of contempt in the comments section of The New York Times and share some wisdom found in an excellent book, “Do You Still Talk to Grandma?”

This is a lot, but the through line through all of it is the role contempt plays in our national politics and our personal relationships. And how, if we don’t work on our contempt problem, I’m afraid we are headed for a national divorce.

What is Contempt?

For decades, researcher Dr. John Gottman has studied marriages using short recordings of couples engaged in disagreements. The short segments (roughly 15 minutes) are analyzed, and an emotion (disgust, sadness, neutral, stonewalling, etc) is assigned to every second of the interaction.²

Based on these 15 minutes, Gottman can predict with 90% accuracy whether the couple will be married 15 years later. The emotion that, when it appeared, likely signalled a doomed relationship? Contempt.

As Gottman describes:

…contempt was the worst. Contempt is criticism, but with an aura of superiority, and you’re talking down to your partner… And it turned out that contempt was the best predictor of relationship breakup of all.

Gottman also notes contempt doesn’t just poison the relationship, it poisons the body:

….we also found that the number of seconds that somebody listened to their partner be contemptuous toward them predicted how many infectious illnesses they would have in the next 4 years.

The body politic in America is not healthy. You can see contempt everywhere in our daily life.

David French, in a piece for The New York Times, noted the jarring juxtaposition of Erika Kirk’s grace and forgiveness toward her husband’s assassin during Charlie Kirk’s memorial service, and the contempt-fueled speeches like Stephen Miller’s:

You are nothing. You are wickedness. You are jealousy. You are envy. You are hatred. You are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing.

These lines got cheers from the crowd.

Contempt has been a driving force of this administration: contempt for undocumented immigrants, contempt for transgender Americans,³ contempt for anyone who opposes Trump.

But because Trump’s behavior is so abhorrent, I worry those who oppose him have given themselves license to heap contempt onto anyone with differing views, regardless if those views come from a place of hate.

Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?

A few months ago, former Obama speechwriter David Litt wrote an op-ed for The New York Times titled, “Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?” In the op-ed, David recounts snubbing his brother-in-law, Matt (whom he has known for a decade), after Matt chose not to get a COVID shot. David saw it as a “civic duty” to be intentionally rude to him. The differences between these two were vast (in David’s mind) but the COVID shot made David pull away even more.

Matt is not revealed to have any bigoted, racist or homophobic views. It’s not entirely clear what his views even are, but because he has some right-coded interests like listening to Joe Rogan, the reader is apparently supposed to fill in the blanks.

But when David needs to learn how to surf, and realizes his family member is his best chance at getting what he wants, he relents on his relational quarantine. Matt, who comes off as incredibly gracious, teaches David how to surf and David comes to see the error of his ways when it comes to shunning his family member.

David asks an important question: “What has all this banishing accomplished? It’s not just ineffective. It’s counterproductive.”

The op-ed was…not well received.

The Apostle Paul reminds us, “There is no one righteous, no, not one.”⁴ But Paul had never encountered the comments section of The New York Times. And the comments section of David’s op-ed was especially righteous.

The top comment, with nearly 4,800 “recommends,” read in part:

Human decency should never be up for negotiation. If someone supports or defends cruelty—whether through apathy or applause—they are not simply holding a different opinion. They are making a moral choice. And we are allowed—obligated, even—to make our own choice in response.

The next one with 3,300 recommends:

I will continue to shun people who knowingly support cruelty, corruption, and dangerous incompetence.

The next one with 2,900 recommends:

Let’s keep it simple. REPUBLICANS voted for and continue to support an administration of dangerously inept miscreants who are ruining the Great Society that My Country once was. Did you ever meet a liberal who spoke favorably of Civil War? Do not normalize evil.

And on and on. You have to scroll down pretty far to see a comment with a different perspective. Can you spot the contempt in the above comments?

(For an excellent breakdown of the op-ed, you can read one of David’s former colleagues in the Obama White House, Johanna Maska, who thought his New York Times op-ed was condescending and counterproductive.)

Those who only read David’s op-ed may get the impression that Matt is a MAGA right-winger. He is not. Matt is not even registered to vote. When asked who he would’ve voted for in 2016, Matt replies, “Probably Trump or Bernie Sanders…Because they’re the most entertaining.” Matt is not revealed to have any hard-right political views.

Is surfing with him really normalizing evil?

The reaction is not surprising. While David ultimately came to a different conclusion about cutting off family members, it appears many of his peers have not:

• In response to the question, “Do you think having opposing political views is ever an acceptable reason to cut off contact with a family member?”, 40% of Harris voters said “yes” compared to 11% of Trump voters. (The Argument)

• “Democrats (23%) are almost five times as likely as Republicans (5%) to say they’ll spend less time with certain family members because of their political views.” (Axios)

• “Among liberals under 45, 74% thought it was OK to end a friendship over politics. When it came to all other ideological groups we looked at, fewer than half agreed. But notably, young moderates and conservatives were still much more likely than older ones to say they’d end relationships over politics.” (The Argument)

As Josh Barro observed about some of the above stats:

At least these days, liberals are much more fixated than conservatives on politics as a barometer of morality. To have the correct political views is an important part of what it is to be a good person, and if a person has the wrong opinions, that’s a moral offense, and a valid reason to cut them off.

Understandably, people (myself included) are alarmed about the actions of the Trump Administration: the crackdown on political enemies, the attempted censorship of Jimmy Kimmel, the reckless cuts to vital services. But it’s not just January 6 rioters who are being cut off; it’s the non-voting, Bernie-curious, live-and-let-live surfer brother-in-law.

Treating people like moral inferiors is not a recipe for success, personally or politically. And cutting them off certainly isn’t going to increase the likelihood they come around to your way of thinking. There are multiple factors for the 2024 election outcome, but I can’t help but feel these attitudes and behaviors contributed to outcomes like this:

If only we had scolded more…

David’s op-ed was written in service of promoting his memoir, “It’s Only Drowning.” And scolding, condescension and contempt is rampant in this book, and it ultimately leads to little common ground being discovered.

How to Relate to Your Moral Inferiors

I was asked to write a post for “The Coddling of the American Mind Movie” Substack after commenting on a thoughtful piece from Dr. Michael Ziffra, which drew lessons from the op-ed on how to heal relationships. But I felt the actual book painted a different picture than what David was presenting in his op-ed.

I opened my first piece with a moment midway through the memoir. Using Gottman’s definition of contempt as “criticism, but with an aura of superiority,” see if you can spot the contempt from David. It’s subtle.

Maybe it was the way my brother-in-law was echoing the kind of post-truth, non-logic logic that, when employed by people like Joe Rogan or Donald Trump, put our public health and our democracy at risk. Whatever the reason, my mind was building toward a snap.

What triggered this? Matt had said, “you can find studies that say both things,” about whether soy lowers testosterone. “It’s like anything.”

This leads to a righteous inner monologue:

No, you cannot find studies that say both things about anything. That’s the whole point of studies—to find out the truth. And just because someone claims to have done a study that proves the earth is flat or climate change isn’t real or a vaccine isn’t safe doesn’t mean every study is equally valid. Some people are worth listening to, and some are not. End of story.

For the record, Matt did not suggest the Earth is flat. And the popular male health service “Hims” notes on their website that studies have come to different conclusions about soy, but more robust studies suggest no effect for moderate soy intake.

This comment, which most people wouldn’t even think twice about, causes David’s mind to start “building toward a snap.” It’s not that Matt perhaps has a layman’s understanding of studies or that he still has doubts about soy, it’s that he is tearing the very fabric of our democracy asunder!

The book is filled with moments like this. There’s the time Matt chooses frozen pizza over baby squid and David takes this as a divide between globalism and populism and “those who embrace the terrifying hugeness of the world and those who fight to shrink it.” There’s the time David sees a sticker on Matt’s truck and assumes Matt is part of a right-wing militia (Matt doesn’t even own a gun).

Rather than show any curiosity toward his family member, David instead describes him in deeply uncharitable ways, describing Matt’s views and interests as “unhinged,” “fundamentalist," and “some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard in my life.”

In the end, David does not find common ground but has to settle for “neutral ground.”

This dynamic is far too common. People will speak of their relatives in the most uncharitable terms, clearly condescending to them. And when those friends or relatives don’t respond well to being lectured and talked down to, they are written off as unwilling to find common ground. Or cut off completely.

But common ground might actually be possible if people stop approaching conversations with an aura of superiority.

The reason I’m so frustrated with “It’s Only Drowning” is because the book feels like an enormous missed opportunity. This could have been an inspiring story that demonstrated two people actually discussing their differences and coming to a better understanding. But David’s contempt got in the way.

You can read more of my analysis of David’s book in part one of the series for TCM, “How to Relate to Your Moral Inferiors.”

How to Relate to Your Moral Inferiors

Engaging with David Litt

Somewhere along the way, David blocked me on Substack. I can only guess as to why. (Blocking people on Substack doesn’t scream, “searching for common ground,” but I digress.)

After reading the book, and before my pieces for TCM were published, I commented on one of David’s posts about the book, sharing some of my critiques but also noting I enjoyed his first book, and deeply appreciated the message he’s trying to share. David liked my comment and graciously responded. (You can find screenshots of the interaction here.)

I also continued reading David’s posts. One post I thought was particularly insightful, especially in light of the Charlie Kirk assassination, was a post from last December about the assassination of the UnitedHealth CEO, Brian Thompson, titled, “My Hot Take is that Murder is Bad.”

My Hot Take is that Murder is Bad

Not only did David denounce the shooting and the cheering of political violence, but he even critiques Ta Nahisi Coates, a popular figure on the left:⁵

Coates is making an interesting point. But the extension of what he’s saying, an extension he certainly doesn’t shy away from, is that there’s no difference between someone who murders you and someone who puts you in the position where you can be murdered. That the violence of institutions is not, as Kennedy said, “another kind of violence,” but is in fact the exact same kind of violence.

That’s a huge intellectual step toward justifying violence. And while in that book, Coates never says that violence is often the answer, he argues that non-violence is often not the answer, which is essentially the same thing.

I found the post showed a willingness in David to critique his own side, and commended him for that in the comments:

This is a great article and one I wish I had encountered earlier. I was alarmed after the CEOs assassination that some (including a few in my social circles) seemed to have a blasé attitude about political violence on the left. This critique of the left really shows a lot of intellectual consistency.

I would be shocked if any of that was why I got blocked on Substack. So what was it?

That Time I Got Accused of a “Hit Job” by a Former CNN Journalist

Not long after the above exchange, David appeared on Chris Cillizza’s Substack to talk about the book. David had appeared on a whole variety of outlets, from NPR to The Today Show. By this time, I had formed my opinions about the book and left a long comment that, in my opinion, was tough but fair.

Chris disagreed and, rather than engage with any of the substance or examples, chose to dismiss the entire comment as bad faith and end his reply with:

Honestly, this feels a bit like a hit job on David for no real reason other than, I suspect, you don't align with his more liberal beliefs. Which, of course, proves the point he and I made in this discussion: People act and judge in bad faith -- and don't really listen if they think they are going to disagree.

(You can see screenshots of the exchange, including my second response.)

Let me back up to say I have actually spoken to Chris before. I was a paid subscriber for a while because I value Chris’ insights. That allowed me to have a 15-minute 1x1 with him that I was able to turn into a Substack post where we talked about his favorite political reads.

Chris seems genuinely curious about the world and is able to shoot for objectivity. Most of the time. But he doesn’t seem to be aware that he is accusing me of the very behavior he is guilty of—judging in bad faith and not listening if you think you are going to disagree.

As I noted in my second piece, plenty of reviewers who shared David’s politics also took issue with David’s tone and behavior:

I was inclined to like this book from the author’s writing on substack and a general affinity for his liberal political/ professional background but holy hell, he is so arrogant and judgmental… We get very little insight into the BIL as the author focuses almost entirely on what he himself thinks the BIL means by a look or a movement. I wonder if the author relates to all people this way, from within his own bubble.

A part of the problem is, I don’t think Chris actually read David’s book. You can read more about why in my second post for TCM, “That Time a Former CNN Journalist Accused Me of a ‘Hit Job.’”

That Time a Former CNN Journalist Accused Me of a "Hit Job”

Do You Still Talk to Grandma?

A book I’ve found enormously helpful in understanding and hopefully countering the phenomenon of cutting people off is Britt Baron’s book, “Do You Still Talk to Grandma?” In this insightful read, Britt “offers a path to holding on to our deepest convictions without losing relationships with the people we love.” As a black lesbian pastor who grew up in a traditional evangelical environment, Britt certainly has experience in this area.

In the book, Britt urges people to go beyond the binary, black-and-white thinking of heroes and villains:

Perhaps the most enticing part of binary thinking is that it creates a world in which we can be right. We can eat, sleep and breathe on the right side of the line. We can be continually and eternally good. We can have the right theology, the right ideology, the right parenting method, the right language, the right kind of activism, the right everything, so that we will only ever land on the side of the hero and never the villian.

Binary thinking leaves no room for complexity, for viewing people as individuals who may be on a journey. Binary thinking leads to the belief that someone holding any views in the “bad” category can be grounds for dismissing them.

In the book, Britt also discusses “progressive amnesia,” the tendency to forget the journey we’ve been on as if we’ve always held our current views on any given topic:

We magically and conveniently forget about a time before we came to know what we know now. We forget what it was like to be super Christian, before we understood how to use correct pronouns, before we knew there was racism in our understanding of the world… We learn something new and then conveniently act as if we’ve known it forever.

I’ve seen this most commonly in post-evangelical spaces that look down on those with theologically conservative views, even if those in more progressive spaces once held those very same views.

For an example of this, we will return to the comments sections of The New York Times. A few months ago, there was a feature on how a conservative evangelical pastor changed his views on same-sex marriage after his gay son came out to him. The piece is movingly told through multiple journal entries from the son as he comes out and the father as he wrestles with how to reconcile his religious beliefs and his son’s sexuality.

It’s a deeply vulnerable story about how the father came to not only embrace his son, but also gave up a prominent preaching job at great cost and started a new church that could be fully affirming. This is a story of deep love, sacrifice and inspiring courage.

I found this story incredibly moving. The comments section did not.

The second comment, with more than 1,000 recommendations:

I haven’t read the entire article and not sure I will. No doubt it’s moving but as the parent of a nonbinary kid with close friends in various sectors of the LGBTQIA community, these kinds of stories infuriate me. Why does it always take personal and experience for people like this to change?

The third comment with 700+ recommendations:

Another important point is that conservatives seem to lack compassion for others until they have a first hand personal experience with others, and then they suddenly ‘see the light’ and that simply illustrates their instinctive sense of selfishness and inherent lack of charity, altruism and humanity.

The fourth comment with 500+ recommendations:

This article still reflects a selfish and narrow viewpoint. But I’m glad the author has a relationship with his father today…

Again, can you spot the contempt?

The son came out to his father in 2013. Only the year before, President Obama announced he had “evolved” on the issue of same-sex marriage. At the time, 53% of Americans supported same-sex marriage. A few years before, in 2008, Obama and Hillary both opposed it, along with a majority of blue-state California voters who voted in favor of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage.

A lot of people across the political spectrum opposed same-sex marriage. And a lot of those same people are now pretending as if they were always “On the Right Side of History,” when, statistically speaking, they likely also went through an evolution.

Better Media Habits

If we’re going to work on our contempt, I think we have to work harder at understanding each other. One of the better ways to do that, and something Chris and I discussed back in the spring, is having a diverse media diet.

I’ve enjoyed Mark Halperin’s effort, “2Way” (as in “two-way conversation”), which brings a conservative and a liberal on to discuss, not merely debate, the day’s news and also invites average viewers on Zoom to ask questions and discuss the news as well. Each segment begins with Halperin calling for “Peace, Love and Understanding.”

Another media venture I’ve enjoyed is Tangle, which gives an overview of a news story, three excerpts from left-leaning outlets, three from right-leaning outlets, and then the Tangle editor’s “take.” Here are a few recent posts:

• The Government Shuts Down

• ABC Temporarily Suspends Jimmy Kimmel Show

• The Response to Our Coverage of the Charlie Kirk Shooting

I’m as stunned as anyone that I’m about to make this recommendation, especially since I am typically not a fan, but I’ve been impressed with Gavin Newsom’s podcast where he brings people on, often with polar opposite views, and has a good faith discussion with them. His first guest was Charlie Kirk.

These are just some resources, but feel free to share other suggestions in the comments.

Final Thoughts

I feel the tension in our country because I love people on “both sides,” and know them to be good, honest and decent. I have conservative family members who are social workers and have dedicated their lives to helping single mothers, foster kids, and those in need. I have a conservative friend who this weekend is speaking at a rally to end the death penalty.

I have progressive friends who have been foster parents and have made real sacrifices in their personal and professional lives to do what they think is right. I’ve had plenty of progressive friends who seek out differing views—one even read a whole book by Ted Cruz.

In the spirit of finding common ground, I’ve been reading an excellent book co-edited my friend Karen Keen, “Christlike Acceptance Across Deep Difference: Constructive Conversations on Sexuality and Gender.” The book has lots of wisdom on how to approach difficult topics with grace, especially a topic as thorny as sexuality and gender. I’m looking forward to interviewing Karen about the book, and I look forward to posting that interview in the coming weeks.

1. It’s the Substack based on the documentary based on the book by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff.

2. While I was writing this (and I swear I thought of this example independently), Arthur Brooks published an excellent piece in The Free Press that also used John Gottman’s work on contempt.

3. I am linking to the executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The EO went beyond just stating policy, but stated that those who are transgender lacked humility and integrity.

4. Romans 3:10

5. Yes, I’ve read “Between the World and Me.” No, it did not change my life. I think Coate’s is the epitome of binary thinking, which was on display in his recent discussion with Ezra Klein.