Sometimes, motive is the issue

     One of the "rules" of journalism, and -- in a different context, politics -- is to never let it get personal. Stay away from questioning motives and stick to the facts.
     Issues, not personal feelings.
     But the world has changed in so many ways that it may be time to reconsider those cardinal rules, because sometimes motive is the issue.
     I do not like most of the rules of politics. It seems that most of the rules require people to break more important rules if they want to participate in the processes.
     For me, rule number one is, Do not be a hypocrite. Stop and think how tough that rule is for politicians.
     Rule number two is, Don't take anything from anyone if they expect some kind of favor in return.
     Rule number three is, Be prepared to catch hell from both sides once people figure out that you are not an absolutist supporter of their deepest, most fundamental, and emotionally charged values, be they liberal or conservative. An addendum to that rule is, forget about the support of the middle if you're catching hell from extremists; those in the middle tend to sit quietly by and let things play out.
     Rule number four, Be willing to change your mind and your position if the facts indicate you have been wrong.
     Which leads me to a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson: "In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock."
     It's a thin line to walk. It requires some public relations skills. Those who are good at it, like FDR and Ronald Reagan, are both loathed and loved, but they do what they have to do to stick with those principles.
      Others, less skillful, like Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, occasionally look silly or shallow, or arrogant, when they might really have character traits that most of us would admire, if we sat down with them one on one.
     I am too willing to see the best in people for a little too long, but I have a reputation for being something of a cynic. That's because I have never been able to completely put aside consideration of motives -- what people say is often not what they really mean, nor what they truly value. If someone is talking to mislead, or acting to manipulate or take advantage of a trust, that hypocrisy must be exposed.
     Partisans don't like people who point out the hypocrisies of their kind. They like team players. Zealots demand discipline and a closing of the ranks. Their success relies on the fact that too many people find it all too much to think about; apathy is their ally.
     They argue that they are merely holding true to their basic values.
     Too often, in my work in journalism and then in public office, I have learned that the debates and dialogs among or between people with different ideals devolves into nothing more than the most cynical of games -- the desire to win and be rewarded with power, status, or money. Rule number one for most in business, professional sports and politics.
     But it is a violation of my rules numbers one, two, three and four.
     Issues are important to examine and debate. But motives are important if you value real integrity, and sincere efforts to make things better.
     The news media has abdicated, for the most part, reporting actions that clearly expose motives. The cable pundits and bloggers and people who call or write anonymously are left to define for us the motives of others, but what are their motives? Good newspapers and broadcast journalists have allowed others to preempt their purpose;  we have let the zealots dismiss us as "mainstream press," and that's too bad.
     Motives are worth reporting on, when the facts become clear. And motives should show up in the news columns, not just on the editorial page, or the web sites of professional news organizations.
     I retain faith that most people, if they understand true motives, have the facts, will make good judgments about the people and ideals that we as a culture, a nation, will follow.