‘Love your enemies’ policy is not so far-fetched
In a recent article, I opined that “all sides need to stop the cycle of hate.” The feedback I received, and my own personal feeling, was that my sentiment was a bit naïve. We may read in hallowed texts we should “love our enemies,” but who does? On the international stage, we regularly see provocation needs to be met with strength if America or any nation expects to be respected. It may not always be hateful, but an “eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” seems to be the more recognized way to respond to our enemies, both at home and on the world stage.
Just look at recent events. When Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, Israel responded with force, as expected. After 9/11, we responded with what was thought to be the appropriate retaliatory response to the horrific attack on us. A look further back in history suggests that’s the way it’s always been.
Conventional wisdom is this kind of naivete, to “love our enemies,” sounds good but that both on an individual level and on a macro level it is a sign of weakness. Now I’m no history scholar, so bear with me, but I decided to think of examples in history when “stop the cycle of hate” policies were implemented and surprisingly, it wasn’t hard to do.
In our own American history, some profound examples come to mind. In his second inaugural address, President Abraham Lincoln understood the need to stop the cycle of hate. “With malice towards none, with charity for all… to do all which may achieve a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations,” he so eloquently assured the South as the war was winding down. At Appomattox, Grant permitted Lee to ride out with dignity and sword in hand, not vanquished, a visual affirmation of Lincoln’s desire to usher in a real peace.
Nearly 100 years later, at the end of World War II, the victors, learning from their mistakes after World War I, helped rebuild their defeated enemies, setting the stage for an era of relative peace and prosperity for the democratic nations of the world that continues to this day. More recently, Martin Luther King Jr., in his long march toward justice, ushered in historic changes, truly showing by example how to break the cycle. Inscribed for all future generations to see at the Washington Mall are his words, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.”
Turns out, there are plenty of examples of how stopping the cycle of hate has worked just fine. In retrospect, it seems real peace between nations has happened ONLY when those who hated each other decided to drop their swords or annihilated the other. Let’s not choose annihilation. Meanwhile, these recent conflicts? Well, one needs to look no further than the aftermath of our 9/11 response or the humanitarian disaster in Gaza to see the “eye for an eye” approach has flaws.
Perhaps “love your enemies” as policy is not so far-fetched as it may seem. Might it have any chance in our national discourse? We could start by tuning out those voices who foster hatred toward another. We may not love each other, but we don’t need to be hating each other. Our political differences should never have taken the form of hate. We’re all Americans and share this bountiful heritage. Policy differences are just that, policy differences.
What you’d find if we tried to “love our enemies” is that we were never enemies. We’ve been caught up in a fog created by those who benefit either politically or financially from making every political encounter a cage fight. These provocateurs are betting we will let “the shadows of our own desires stand between us and our better angels,” as Lincoln warned before the Civil War. We stand on the cusp of another civil war over policy differences and a hatred being fostered that doesn’t need to be.
Our culture is littered with thugs and tough guys. We look down on those who teach humility. Our heroes are fighters, winners, even haters. We have bought into the idea that “love your enemies” is naïve and foolhardy. Even devout Christians, who would never say Jesus is wrong, act like they think Jesus is wrong by following those who built their political and media empires on hating their enemies.
The critics are right. “Love your enemies” is naïve. But we should be asking ourselves who is the bigger fool, one who at least attempts to “love their enemy,” or one who has bought into the hate ideology that pervades our culture?