HOW CONTEMPT DESTROYS DEMOCRACY

A podcaster and professional poker player calls for a return to civil discourse in this political commentary.

Like most political liberals, Elwood was devastated by President Donald Trump’s election in 2016. In his anger and confusion, he says, he turned to social media, posting “long winded, righteous” screeds on how voting for Trump “represented a failure of a basic morality test.” He even designed a line of “Trump is Garbage” bumper stickers that he sold online. Looking back on his initial response to the election, Elwood notes that while he wanted people to feel “judged and shamed” for electing Trump, his rhetoric made his Republican acquaintances even more entrenched in their support of the president. The author, writing as someone who’s fought in the trenches of America’s culture wars, says that the “fog of war” has blinded both sides of the aisle and has fostered a “vicious cycle” in which “extreme emotions help create extreme beliefs, which in turn create extreme emotions.” As a retired professional poker player, Elwood is a keen observer of human behavior who’s written multiple books on how to read other people’s “tells.” He now hosts a podcast, People Who Read People, that focuses on human behavior and psychology. Drawing on his lifelong fascination with the human psyche, Elwood encourages those on the political left to make a sustained effort to understand Trump supporters. For instance, he notes how many liberals see Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric as explicitly racist, but some Hispanic Trump supporters interpret the same rhetoric differently.

The author asserts that having contempt for Trump may be “warranted,” but he cautions against making broad accusations against rank-and-file Republicans, which may make them retreat to more extreme beliefs. Understanding one’s political rivals, he writes, “doesn’t mean agreeing, or supporting, or condoning” them. Elwood acknowledges the role that Trump played in ratcheting up extreme rhetoric nationwide, but he argues that it is up to his opponents to create an alternative narrative that eschews “contempt and fear.” In addition, he makes an effective case for why combative discourse erodes the public trust. The final chapter offers practical advice on encouraging depolarization; he urges readers, for example, to push back on extremism on their own side of the political aisle and to “engage with the other side’s more rational beliefs.” Three appendices offer resources for further reading and examples of what the author sees as polarizing language. Readers on the right may disagree with Elwood’s personal politics (“Trump is a very dangerous person”), and those on the left may disagree with his neoliberal emphasis on civility. Still, the book does make compelling arguments, based on astute observations and backed by solid research. This brief, accessible book is complemented by an array of full-color diagrams, charts, and screenshots from X (formerly known as Twitter). Its conversational writing style makes for an engaging read, but the lack of clear divisions between chapters makes its stream-of-consciousness approach a bit dizzying at times.

A well-argued, if occasionally disorganized, vision of political politeness.