Impugning the Other Side’s Motives Has Got to Stop

 

Seemingly long ago, differences of opinion on political matters were attributed by one side believing that those on the other side were misguided, misinformed, ignorant or even motivated by self-interest.  Sure, silly partisan charges were leveled as in “If you oppose Federal spending on education, you are against education” or, if you promoted some governmental-funded health care for the poor, you favored socialized medicine.  Demagoguery was certainly abundant as well.  Yet venom was not common.

My belief that Democrats “back then” were more likely to offend than be offended against may or may not be attributable to my own bias.  But these days, it’s hard to dispute that the vitriol gets tossed back and forth pretty equally.  And now, increasingly, each side sees dark conspiratorial motives at work.

On the right, Fox News’ primetime hosts highlight the massive influx of outsiders crossing our southern borders as being desired by the Biden Administration.  The lax enforcement (border wall not completed, etc.) is seen as more than a policy favoring open borders.  Rather, the real reasons are nefarious.  The Democrats want more immigrants, to bolster their electoral support, so they can tighten their control over [whom they perceive will vote left] America.

Democrats are hardly so farseeing.  First, the right to vote still requires (an annoying detail, admittedly, to some) citizenship which means steps will still take many years to climb.  Secondly, statistics show that if Democrats expect second generations to move in electoral lock-step, they are likely to be sorely disappointed.

Maybe many on the left don’t see the importance of secure borders because they don’t much care for their country.  What’s worth preserving?

Some on the right feel the need to impugn the motives of those on the left who favor loose immigration policies.  Why the urge to find “hidden” explanations?

On the left, CNN and MSNBC felt compelled to attribute criticism of the violent rioting following George Floyd’s death to a yearning for racist and authoritarian policies.  But does a desire for simple law and order and the resolution of disputes in a peaceful manner mean fascism is the goal?

There are plenty of obvious reasons to differ with the other side.  Can’t these merely be taken at face value?

It’s an outdated cliché, I know, for many, but a civil society needs to live by it:  “agree to disagree”.  Don’t impugn the other side’s motivation.