Guilt by association

And the Pharisees and the Scribes murmured, saying, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."
--Luke 15:2

The Republican campaign continues to gasp with alarm over Obama's association with Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obviously, the Republicans are grasping at straws to attack Obama's credibility, and obviously there is no evidence that any radical or racist views by either man somehow rubbed off on Obama, affecting any decisions he would make in the future.

But that isn't really the Republican argument. Republicans argue that Obama's willingness even to associate with these men -- regardless of any effects on Obama's policies or opinions from that association -- is sufficient in itself to prove his lack of good judgment. In other words, one must not merely think correctly himself, but must also not associate with those dangerous people who do not think correctly.

Consider also McCain's outrage -- real or feigned -- at Obama's willingness to talk to the Iranians without "preconditions." And at Obama's meeting with Palestinian leaders when he visited Israel last summer.

A common psychological thread runs through these attitudes.

I sense that many Republicans feel a compulsion to keep themselves (and others) free from any contamination that might result from rubbing up against the wrong sorts of people, ideas and even thoughts. ("He is not one of us!") And they feel this need especially acutely in their leaders. On the other hand, most Democrats, I suggest, feel that exposing themselves to every idea, however outlandish, and to every sort of person, however different, can be only neutral at worst -- and highly valuable at best. If you work the streets as a politician or activist in the black south side of Chicago, for example, you want to learn what motivates the people you are serving, even where those motivations may be unpleasant and despicable. If this means working with 1960's radicals with whom you disagree, or attending a church led by a firebrand pastor -- so what?

Similarly at the governmental level. If the Iranians pose a serious threat to American interests, Democrats believe we should try to understand what motivates them. Does Iran have legitimate interests that motivate its actions, interests that possibly could be satisfied in a less frightening manner? Is the Iranian government motivated by years of American support for the Shah, and, if so, can we do anything to defuse that long-simmering hostility? Is Iran motivated by fear of Israel? By a desire to be a leader in the Muslim world? By nostalgia for the glory of the Persian Empire? Can we help them satisfy any of these psychological needs or compulsions without compromising any of our own interests or the interests of our allies? Are Iranian leaders simply irrational anti-Americans, beyond any hope of rational debate? If so, that would be useful to ascertain as well.

Simply labeling the Rev. Wright or Ayers as dangerous radicals, past or present, should not put those men off-limit to any future contact by responsible citizens. Simply labeling Iran as "evil" -- besides being a gross simplification of any person's or any government's motivation -- does not warrant isolating it from any future contact with our government.

But less interesting than these policy conflicts themselves is the difference in psychology between Democrats and Republicans that may give them birth. As a liberal Democrat (and as an attorney who knows that solutions to most disputes can ultimately be negotiated), my own psychological makeup makes it hard for me to imagine how a policy of "Know Not Thy Enemy" benefits anyone, government or individual. Also, as a brief glance at history suggests, enemies have a way of morphing into useful allies virtually over night.

But not if we have insulated ourselves from all human contact with them in advance.