Too often today, when issues are debated and discussed, the conversation devolves into calling into question the motives of whoever is involved and perceived to be at fault. However, most of the time, we have no real way of knowing a person’s motives. We can only go on facts. We can only know what they did or didn’t do. How can we know what they were thinking when they did it? We shouldn’t be making judgments on things we know nothing about. It seems to me that this would be a good and sound principle to go by. Calling into question a person’s motives does nothing but inflame the other side and drive a wedge further than there was before. The bottom line is that we cannot read thoughts. We have no idea what someone is thinking, except for what they choose to express. And in many cases, the conclusions that are reached about a particular person go beyond what they actually expressed. A prime example of questioning the motive is when it comes to political discourse. If you listen to those on the right, Barack Obama is a socialist who is hell bent on turning this country into a socialist state much like what they have in Europe. Or, there are even some who say he wants to turn the country into an Islamic Caliphate. Has the President actually said either of these things? Has he written somewhere that this is his agenda? What’s happening is that some people are extrapolating extreme outcomes, based solely on certain policy decisions and other actions. Logic and reason don’t seem to enter the picture with these people. Why would Obama want his daughters to live under the oppressive control of an Islamic state? It doesn’t even make sense. As far as socialism goes, sure, he has some socialist type leanings, but so do many on the left. But this doesn’t mean he, or they have bad intentions. Even if they want a socialist type state, that doesn’t make them evil. Some people genuinely believe that capitalism isn’t the way to go. Does that make them evil schemers hell bent on the destruction of the United States? I would argue not. And in most cases, they just support policies that are just a little more left than what some of us would like. But that doesn’t mean they want to move all the way to socialism. The same goes for attacks that the left makes against the right. The so-called war on women, in which the right is supposedly engaging, is ridiculous. That rises to the level of questioning the motive. Supporting certain policies does not mean that one has something against the fairer sex. And the truth is that there are many women who consider themselves on the right. Are they waging war against themselves? The right is routinely charged with racism. And in this case, even actions don’t seem to matter. George W. Bush had Condoleeza Rice as his chief foreign policy advisor. By all accounts she was his closest advisor. She happens to be a black woman. In addition to this, Colin Powell was his Secretary of State. Yet when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Bush was accused of not caring for black people. He was accused of purposely leaving those people without help simply because of their race. At the same time, their do nothing and corrupt black mayor, Ray Nagin, did nothing to help, and it was actually more his job to help than it was Bush’s. But Bush was considered a racist simply because he’s a Republican. There is really nothing new here. We always seem to see the faults in someone that we disagree with, that we tolerate in someone we support. And why is this? It’s because we assume that our enemy has bad motives, therefore his actions take on a different significance, as opposed to someone we actually support. It can be that same action, but one is evil for doing it, while the other is not. Leaving politics now, this issue of questioning motives is unfortunately part of our private lives as well. I confess to having an issue with road rage. I don’t pull guns on people or otherwise confront them physically, but I can be quite aggressive in moves I make with my car, in an effort to send a message to the offending driver, registering my disapproval with whatever wrong they supposedly did to me. And I’ve been known to show them a particular finger on occasion as well. I’ve thought about all of this and realized that many times my anger comes from my assumption that they have a certain motive. Most often I realize that I’m interpreting some move they make as an act of aggression, when in fact I have no idea what their intention happens to be. I react to what I see as some sort of challenge, when it most likely is no such thing. I’m questioning their motive. I’m assigning a motive to a simple action that they make with their car. Sure, sometimes I may be right in that assumption, but most often I suspect that I’m not. This next one may provoke a strong reaction in some, that may even cause them to question my motives. Many in society take what is actually a reasonably negative view of sexual predators, especially those who hurt children. But the disturbing aspect of this is the idea that every single one of them is the same as the next. Sure, some predators are unrepentant and willfully keep going about their merry way destroying lives. But for others, this is an affliction of which they desperately want to be rid. But many condemn all sexual offenders as being unworthy of continued existence in this world. Isn’t this questioning their motives? Along these same lines, a criminal can express remorse and declare that he’s turned his life around. What is the response of the public so often? They would say he’s just saying that so that he can get paroled. How do any of us know that though? Do we know what that person is thinking? Do we know what’s in their heart? The answer is a very clear no. I mentioned that some would possibly question my motives in writing what I just did. Some would take from that that I want to be soft on criminals. Some would assume that I have a loved one in that situation and that’s why I feel that way. In other words, they would doubt the sincerity of my position, just because they have strong reactions to the position itself. And that is actually the heart of the matter right there. We tend to overreact and question the motives of those with which we have strong disagreements. It’s like we feel the need to put distance between ourselves and them. But why should we? Why must we seek to make enemies of those with whom we just have a simple disagreement? The bottom line in all of this is that we cannot read the thoughts of one another. We have no idea what a person’s intentions are unless they clearly state them. We have no idea what is in someone’s heart. We have to judge solely on actions. The debate would be so much more productive and civilized if we did so. We could understand each other so much better than we do now. Question not the motive. In most cases, we have no idea what it is anyway.