Charity can
help avoid the mire of polarization
Amazing how readily we find fault.
Steven Covey says we get our "emotional jollies" by
pointing out fault in others. I always heard we put others down to
lift ourselves up, but this never made sense to me. Not sure why.
Likely because I wasn't asking why I found fault
with others. I just did it. If I did ask why the answer
would be sure and certain: "I found fault because there was
fault to be found. Why need there be more explanation than that?"
Why indeed?! I'm trying to sort this
out because so often it seems we try to explain an action based on
motives instead of accepting it as an action. And this seems wrong,
except it is not.
There's the old relational wisdom that
says we tend to judge ourselves on intent and others on their
actions. That is, we excuse ourselves because we mean well and
disregard possible good intent when assessing the action of others.
But what can happen when we obsess over
motive? We excuse the action and fail to hold the actor accountable.
This is a two-edged sword in controversy. I'll take a public figure
as an example and see if I can work this out.
James Dobson served the American public
for many years, trying to help us all think better about family and
the things that matter most. He had his faults, like all of us, one
being his leaning more and more into politics. It made his work more
difficult I think but I always assumed he did it because -- here
comes motive to explain and justify -- he felt the political arena
could help him further his mission.
During the Clinton Presidency a scandal
erupted around Clinton's alleged 18-month sexual relationship with Monica
Lewinsky. This sordid affair, mixed with any number of other
misdeeds, gave major ammo to his opponents. In the mix of the 1996
Presidential election Dobson and others made the earnest case that this flaw in Clinton's personal character disqualified him for the presidency.
Adultery, with the mitigating factors of doing so in office and with
an intern no less, was an offense so egregious one could never vote
for Clinton in good conscience. Character matters and we must not
compromise.
Fast forward to June of 2015 and one
Donald Trump declared himself a candidate for President. Easily half
of the electorate couldn't believe he was serious. But he was serious and
because -- I assign motive again -- he was Republican and at least
ostensibly promoted traditional values, the Evangelical mainstream and
right embraced him.
Now the fight was on. Trump's life openly ignored traditional values. Twice divorced, his various
escapades in business and family put him in the same broad moral
category as Clinton, some would say worse. Granted he did not violate
said norms while in the White House, but that's a small
detail in a political scrum.
So in 2016 we had that same voter base
– largely Evangelical Christian and social conservatives –
deciding they could overlook Trump's sullied personal life. Character
matters, yes. But some things matter more.
Many in what we might call the
evangelical left, saw red: “Dobson and the Evangelical right is just
doing this because they want political power!” Or likely more to
the point, and more charitably: “Dobson supports Trump because he
thinks he is best for the country.” But both deal with motivation,
not the fact in hand. Why, exactly, did Dobson go in for
Trump? Not sure. Probably several reasons. Why must we assign motive?
Another axiom says something like this:
“Never assign ill will or malice as an explanation when
ignorance or a simple mistake may do.” This seems a minimum of
charity. We can surmise motive, and it is deeply human to
do so, often very charitable. But why always go there? Why not
just observe the action and deal with it?
So how did much of the Evangelical
world assess Dobson's support of Trump? They charged him with gross inconsistency; some even use
that overplayed word hypocrisy. “He said character matters for
Clinton, he doesn't think so with Trump. He's a hypocrite!” Or
worse, “He's a liar!”
Really? Is it possible we just deal
with the action and allow that maybe, just maybe, he simply changed
his mind? Maybe he overplayed his hand in the mid-90's and since came
to believe he can't let his scruples rule out a candidate with whom
he agrees philosophically. Maybe his motive is good in a tortured
situation, dealing with multi-layered hierarchy of values. Ya think?!
Maybe the comparison between the two
candidates is not one-to-one in Dobson's view.
Maybe we should just deal with the facts on the ground and
quit assigning motives that allow us to disdain. We have enough
trouble knowing our own motives in difficult matters; pray tell how
we can know the motives of others? And besides, I thought the great
mantra governing all of life was “judge not.”
Dobson was no fan of Clinton, and I can
presume he liked Trump for some inverse reasons he disliked
Clinton. And Dobson apparently decided he could live with Trump's
character issues regardless of what he had said about Clinton in
1995. Was an explanation in order? Maybe. But I am not sure most
would even care. They had already decided his motives were sullied and he
was a hypocrite.
There's a lot of fault to be found: planks and specks and a cruel vortex of exchanging barbs. When we
step in that arena we step in quicksand. So we should stop and
remember: beside the plank in my eye that keeps me from really seeing
the speck in yours, there is a mirror. Find fault if you must, but
start with yourself and you'll find you have enough problems to keep
you busy for a lifetime.
Finally, I'll admit this is about
heroes and the desperate need for them. Dobson was a hero and like
all heroes – and all persons alive – he had faults. Newsflash: he
even made some serious mistakes. But in this world of shocking
polarization and devastating loss of friendship due to these kinds of
disagreements, I'm trying to hold on. Dobson was one of my heroes and
if I can – if the analysis and charity and judgmental habits will
stretch far enough – I am going to keep it that way.
I hope my dear friends on all sides can
find the grace to do the same with me. And I'm not even a hero.