Guilt and approval by association

Can we slow down?

I had an exchange on Substack yesterday that embodies why I write this column, so please bear with me. I remain concerned that we are losing the ability to engage with each other in anything other than the most sweeping and too often dismissive manner. If you catch me doing this, please ask for details on my arguments to prevent us from descending into a zero-sum world. As the beauty of Earth Day yesterday indicated, ours is a most complex and diverse world.

I responded to Heather Cox Richardson’s “Letters from an American” on Pope Francis’ death yesterday with these words.

“The Pope showed caring as I want my leaders to care, though I am neither Catholic nor do I agree with the strictures his faith imposes on some. But he had compassion, empathy, and experience. Others prefer attacking the needs of those these people profess to protect.”

I do not agree with many of the Church’s positions, but I separated this particular Pope because I respected his humanity. Subsequently, I have seen lots of conversations on his “humility,” but that wasn’t my focus yesterday morning.

About twenty minutes later, another reader retorted

“Billions of people have compassion, empathy and experience Cynthia. He was the head of an organization that promotes the patriarchy and is the reason abortion is illegal in most of the red states.

When there is a Pope that recognizes that women are equal or superior to men by allowing them to be priests, cardinals and bishops and even pope, then perhaps they will be recognized as legitimate.

The Pope refused to endorse Kamala Harris for President. His endorsement could have made the difference in the 2024 election.”

I don’t know the individual, nor have I ever exchanged any ideas with this fellow (his name appeared male). He is entitled to say whatever he wants. I think some of his comments are factually correct, while I question a couple of his assumptions, much as you may question mine at times.

My point today revolves around my answer to his post.

“And I said I do not subscribe to the strictures of his Church. But I prefer not to ignore the light of decency he provided considering everything else we are seeing. I am well aware of his positions as I grew up as a non-Catholic in Catholic South America and I did research in Argentina during the Guerra Sucia. His endorsement would likely have done nothing to the election. Tragically, people wanted to support what they wanted to hear.”

I italicized the message I was attempting to make with this interlocutor. We are tending towards throwing out everyone who disagrees with us these days as if they were evil because we don’t like the positions they associate with—or, too often, assume they associate with because of institutional links. This classic “guilt by association” has consequences. I should add that permission by association, accepting someone as like us because of superficial reasons, is an equal behavior, I suspect.

As this exchange indicates, the Left and the Right behave this way. My evidence, of course, is that I rarely meet anyone on the Right talking about “the patriarchy,” although I am embracing a sweeping assumption in that comment alone. On the other side, simply accepting someone as a member of particular party or civic network is hardly evidence of that individual’s integrity.

We almost invariably risk deferring to shorthands about others based on their links and characteristics. This behavior is precisely the sin we see the administration commit regarding incarcerating or deporting people without due process; they are telling us their decisions rely on tenuous evidence which may well be too sweeping as to be meaningful.

We do it at home and certainly abroad. We should not ignore its implications, either.

Why?

A significant reason is that broad interpretations based on untested assumptions are a faster way to live our busy lives. We are brushing topics so broadly as to ignore nuances, some of which are invaluable for our hopes.

Unfortunately, when 340 million people take the more negative approach, the consequences are profound. Often, those consequences set into motion steps we don’t anticipate.

None of that is to say everyone is good—that is far from my point. Nor am I immune from making broad assumptions about someone based on superficial, if any, evidence. But by slowing down even a smidge, I can take time to differentiate on some things.

Stopping myself from making broad generalizations may not create cosmic peace, but it may benefit me and those around me. It’s worth a try, at least.

Thank you for your time today. I welcome your reactions and, more importantly, suggestions on this topic. I do not have all the answers. Please circulate if you find this valuable.

I appreciate those who subscribe as your financial support offers me greater opportunity with this column. $55 a year or $8 a month make a difference so please consider subscribing.

Earth Day had a magnificent sunrise. The second one below was a good one today as well.

Be well and be safe. FIN