The detriment of the doubt: the politics of suspicion

It is often observed that all the world's major religious faiths embrace a form of the Golden Rule: that you should treat others as you would expect to be treated. This moral code might even be the called the foundation of civilization -- what divides us from the nature's "red tooth and claw" rule of "dog eat dog."

In daily civilized life, one aspect of this is what was once widely called "the benefit of the doubt." Assuming that most people were basically honest, you could extend trust to others that they weren't consciously lying to you. In turn, you'd be extended the same trust unless and until you violated that trust. In fact, civilization rests on this fragile assumption. We could hardly function if we started from the assumption that every encounter and transaction in our daily lives was fraught with peril: that we risked being poisoned every time we dined out or purchased food, that we were in danger of being cheated or endangered every time we purchased or used a product or that the people we routinely encountered in the street were likely to rob or victimize us.

It is not that there is no evil or dishonesty in the world. But "the benefit of the doubt" treats these as exceptions, not the rule.

That may be waning. One increasingly hears angry, bitter talk about others and their motives. In these tough economic times, all bankers are greedy swindlers, all politicians are robbers and crooks, everyone in government is dedicated to recklessly tax and spend, all conservatives are crazed anarchists, all liberals are socialist power grabbers etc.. Sometimes it is all just infotainment -- the rehearsed diatribes of Keith Olbermann on the left or Glenn Beck on the right. Sometimes it is the practiced rhetoric of demonizing your opponents at televised "hearings" where no one listens or in political campaigns where 30 second commercials feature grainy photos of your opponent that morph into photos of Osama Bin Laden.

But this cynical manipulation creeps increasingly into the vocabulary and attitude of people who aren't paid to tear down others. It just seems to come increasingly naturally. The shrill denunciation of others is now standard fare on talk radio, Internet comment boards and fiery emails. Why give anyone the benefit of the doubt? If they disagree with you or are a member of any identifiable group you disdain, then the assumption is that they are evil, stupid and/or greedy. The "benefit of the doubt" would at least grant that they may simply be mistaken. The "detriment of the doubt" assumes that "they" are out to get you, so go after them faster and harder.

This poisonous polarization now seems entrenched in Washington and Sacramento. Lately, we see more and more of it at home as well.

Ventura, like most cities, has long had a handful of "gadflies" who inflate their self-importance by showing up at public forums to rant about one topic or another. Several have made numerous runs at public office. They have a certain "folk hero" appeal, the underdog "fighting City Hall." A couple of others specialize in spewing their vitriol in local newspapers, including the online version of the Ventura County Star.

What's troubling, however, is the rise in others adopting their tactics. Opponents are "idiots," "clowns," "racists" or "thieves." Local public officials are branded as ruthless schemers who should all be tossed out. The goal isn't to persuade -- it is to rid the town forever of those who oppose you. The solution to complex problems is to blame someone, to blast someone, to fire someone or to recall someone.

Perhaps this too shall pass. The law of karma has not been repealed. Those who break the Golden Rule do not live serene or happy lives. They must live with their anger, bitterness and mistrust. While they may have their day, as Lincoln observed, "you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." The wisdom of the ages sides with the angels, not with those who demonize others.

None of us is perfect. All of us make mistakes. In public life and private conduct, we are all subject to criticism and accountability. But "the benefit of the doubt" goes further in both than its opposite. Ronald Reagan never had any illusions about his adversaries in the Soviet Union. Still, in dealing with Mikhail Gorbachev, he adopted the old Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify."

It's a good standard. If we can't trust others, if we don't treat them as we'd like to be treated, if we stop at nothing to get our way, everyone ultimately loses. The "detriment of the doubt" hurts us all.

Have a nice day!