Agree to Disagree in a Constructive Way

Seems likes it’s becoming increasingly more difficult in the current political climate to “agree to disagree.” But can we disagree in a way that’s not destructive? Can we at least try to not be downright contemptuous to those with opposing views?

That’s the question being discussed by economist Arthur Brooks, who says politicians, in particular, are creating the climate of contempt. And the damage is being hoisted upon the average American.

“We have leaders who are encouraging us as citizens to treat each other with contempt,” Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, said during a recent Facebook Live discussion from the Aspen Ideas Festival, an annual event held by the Aspen Institute in Colorado. “That’s a really dangerous business, building power on the basis of contempt and division. …

“The most destructive way to disagree is to treat your interlocutor with contempt. We have to get out of that particular habit. We have to demand leaders aren’t going to do that,” he said.

Sociologists describe contempt as a phenomenon in which individuals hold the conviction that other people are utterly worthless. It’s more insidious than disagreement or even anger, Brooks says.

“Anger you get over … contempt you don’t. If I treat you as a worthless human you’re never going to forget that,” he said, citing the work of marriage counselor John Gottman, who can watch a couple on a video for five seconds without the sound on and predict with 94 percent accuracy whether they will stay together or divorce based on physical expressions of contempt.

Nationally, 86 percent of Americans say they believe the country is more politically divided than in the past, according to the Pew Research Center. That’s the highest percentage ever to give that response since the question was first asked in 2004. At the same time, A CBS poll said a majority are optimistic that Americans of different political views can come together and work out their differences.

Brooks said that Americans in general have long been able to hold political disagreements and still treat each other respectfully.

“We all love somebody who doesn’t agree with us politically,” he said.

The obsession with national politics not only is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned, but also is to blame for the cult-like partitioning of Americans into political tribes. Fortunately, many political leaders at the state and local level on both sides of the aisle are solving problems without the distraction of creating heroes and villains.

Brooks says it comes down to being able to “disagree better.”

“The positive change starts with us.”

Do you think that Brooks is correct, and can anything be done to improve the divide?

Watch the video to hear more of Brooks’ views on the political climate and free enterprise as well as how he went from a classical musician to a world-renowned economist and researcher on happiness.

How to Reinvigorate the Marketplace of Ideas

A fierce competition of ideas is vital not only for the future of the free enterprise movement, but also for the future of American society. Intense debate and rigorous argument are the proving ground for good ideas and good public policy.

But the marketplace of ideas needs to have principled competitors, and few politicians in Washington seem to understand and articulate the core principles of free enterprise, much less apply them to policy.

Still, one simple point that is often neglected in heated campaign seasons like this one is this: No matter which side you’re on, the vast majority of your political opponents are actually not stupid, nor are they evil.

Let’s not mistake this for some milquetoast assertion that disagreement is in itself wrong, that everything should be settled easily by simple consensus. You hear that around Washington sometimes. I don’t buy it, and you shouldn’t either.

But there’s also a middle ground between consensus and the way Washington too frequently operates. The “polarization industrial complex” fans the flames of bad-faith accusations in order to drive up audience numbers and profits, and it’s no surprise that so many of us start to feel a bitter cynicism about the other side of the aisle. Political disputes give way to personal animus and we hardly even realize it’s happening.

Giving in to these feelings and allowing ourselves to caricature our opponents can seem to offer some short-term catharsis. But something in our core militates against it. Deep down, we know that most progressives, most conservatives, and most independents seek to improve the country and lift up the vulnerable.

In addition to being simply inaccurate, caricaturing our opponents also carries a practical cost. It erodes away the civil disagreements that are so vital for building up the competition of ideas. Innovative thinking is attenuated and political gridlock becomes more entrenched.

Declare Independence From Contempt

So what’s the solution? How can we start a revolt against the politics of contempt?

I offer an old tactic to try out. Actively make a personal effort to substitute kindness for contempt. When you feel especially frustrated or angry in a conversation, deliberately try to marshal up a sense of brotherhood to take those feelings’ place. You’d be surprised how quickly answering hostility with love can turn an entire interaction upside down.

Case in point: Shortly after I published my first book for mass consumption, Who Really Cares, I received an email from a reader. My first reaction: Hey, someone actually read my book! But when I opened the message, I was greeted by a point-by-point attempt to rebut my whole thesis. The criticisms were scathing and — I thought — unreasonable.

At first, I was infuriated. I started drafting a thorough reply. But then I realized that an aggravated response was going to accomplish nothing. Instead, I responded with a note thanking the reader for picking up my book. I expressed gratitude that he had engaged with it so thoroughly.

His reply came quickly. It was about as shocking as the initial email: He immediately softened. He responded with kindness himself, sanding down the rough edges on a few of his critiques. He even proposed we get dinner together the next time I was in his hometown.

Maybe I shouldn’t have been so surprised. My friend the Dalai Lama teaches often about the value of answering anger with love. And growing up, it’s what I learned in Sunday school. Matthew 5:44 tells to pray for our enemies and those who would seek to persecute us.

Here’s the hard truth: The forces of division and polarization won’t be vanquished by one politician riding in on a white horse. The marketplace of ideas can only become less toxic from the bottom up. Fixing our politics begins with each of us treating our political adversaries with greater dignity and more respect.

Again, you might think this sounds a bit “out there.” This nation has been through a lot these past years, and the frustrations are understandable. But consider this: be open to the idea and appreciate the sentiment. Then try to act on it, and see if the outcome is better than the other route.

How Should the On-Demand Economy Protect Workers?

Are you a worker in the on-demand economy? Do you pick the hours you want to work, change who you occasionally work for from time to time, and get most of your work through the matching of your services through technological apps and other forms of digital on-demand requests? Basically, are you an Uber driver or something like that?

These are the new workers. They’re not quite independent contractors who can set their own prices and choose their clients nor are they traditional employees who work “9 to 5” or at the employer’s will. So do they need the traditional protections that workers in the “old” economy created through the years in public policy?

One study last year proposed coming up with a new set of rules for these “independent workers” to give them some of the protections and benefits that traditional workers get on minimum wages, overtime pay, non-discrimination, family and medical leave, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, health insurance, and pension benefits.

Among the suggestions: The new “independent worker” classification would allow employees to unionize, and task employers with providing health and disability insurance through contributions to the Affordable Care Act exchanges, paying the employer share of FICA tax payments, and withholding income tax payments.

But a new report on “The On-Demand Economy and Worker Benefits and Protections” suggests that these demands may be over-correcting in a new economic era that is still developing. In other words, the study is a little bit of overkill.

An important reason for exercising some caution in public policy regarding worker protections is the very real prospect of unintended consequences from steps intended to help workers. In particular, the proposal to create a new third category of worker – the “independent worker” – could inadvertently result in a loss of income and social protection for the people the policy is intended to help.

Today, employers must choose to either hire workers as employees or engage with independent contractors to get the services they need to run their businesses. If employers are given a third choice that entails less expense, less long-term commitment, and fewer risks, it would seem possible that the main effect would be to encourage more employers to redefine their workforce to fit within the new model. This could mean a larger migration of people out of employed status and into independent worker status than from independent contractor to independent worker.

After all, there are far more people who are currently employees of firms than who are working as independent contractors, and thus far more potential for migration out of employment than out of independent contracting. In addition, the combination of proposed benefits for independent workers would raise costs on employers well above what they are today. Harris and Krueger’s proposed requirement to pay a 5 percent fee for health insurance on all compensation earned by independent workers would be the equivalent of a new tax on this sector of the economy. Employers will be unlikely to pay much of this tax, as they will adjust the compensation levels of their workers and also raise their prices. The net effect, however, will be to squeeze the ability of the new firms to run their businesses as they can today, which means these firms will contract or grow less rapidly than they would without the new costs and restrictions associated with independent workers. This will mean reduced incomes for those people who would have been willing to engage with these firms without the added protections of independent worker status.

The report acknowledges that workers do need protections, but suggests that many potential solutions are already in place. Author James Capretta notes that independent workers are already required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Additionally, retirement accounts and health insurance are available to workers who may not have it provided by employers. Increasing the “portability” of job-based benefits, as has already been proposed for the overall workforce, would free up workers to move from position to position as it suits them, thereby enhancing the on-demand economy.

As for workers compensation and unemployment insurance, these are two areas where changes could help both firms and workers.

The best alternative approach to improving the financial security of workers in the on-demand economy is to allow them to set aside resources that they could later tap during a period of lower earned income. Firms could be asked to facilitate independent contractor contributions to a 401(k) plan that could also serve as a cushion during periods of lower earned income. Conditions could be established for withdrawing funds without penalty to allow individuals with a history (above some minimum) of independent contractor income to supplement their incomes during periods of lower incomes. Those who access funds in this manner could be required to repay the amounts when their incomes, as shown in tax filings, exceed a certain threshold.

The Aspen Institute’s Future of Work Initiative, which funded the report, says it is built on the idea that “the economic landscape is changing far faster than our system of workplace protections and benefits has been able to keep pace – requiring fresh ideas for how to revitalize our social contract and restore the promise of work.”

Do you think independent workers are being taken advantage of in the on-demand economy, or is this a refreshing new opportunity to keep capitalism on the front burner of the U.S. economy?

Read the full report on the “On-Demand Economy and Worker Benefits and Protections.”