Of all of the phony tactics used as political smears, my least favorite is guilt by association. I’m tired of it. I’m tired of hearing the defenses against it.
Nobody is immune from it. Jesus of Nazareth himself would be exposed to an attack using guilt by association. Indeed, he would be especially exposed to it:
And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Guilt by association, the choice of Pharisees everywhere!
I assume this is about all of those damning photos of the Clintons and Trumps yucking it up together at a wedding.
Clearly this is misused, but really it depends on context. Jesus was dining with people who had been deemed unclean, not sneaking off to the house of ill repute at night.
There’s almost no end to examples.
Just because individual X supports candidate Y does not necessarily mean that candidate Y supports individual X. You can use that logic to prove that Hillary Clinton is a Maoist just as easily as to prove that Donald Trump is a fascist.
I’ve never really been a big fan of public disclosure on campaign finance for that reason. I really cannot completely argue against disclosure on the grounds of making an informed decision. But really it just turns into an opportunity for gotcha-points about someone giving a donation that the campaign had no control over. Followed by half-assed media coverage about some tangential figure. Not that I necessarily oppose disclosure laws, I just categorize it as a necessary evil for public confidence in government.
What nonsense, Dave. You don’t think there’s any data to be mined from the fact that the American Nazi Party supports Trump? That doesn’t suggest to you that he’s speaking words they want to hear? You figure, what, the Nazis just picked him by flipping a coin?
You say you’re best friends with Jeffrey Dahmer and Dylan Roof? Well, then come on in and meet the wife and kids!
Of course people are judged by who they hang out with, who supports them, and who opposes them, it is absurd to pretend otherwise. You see your neighbor chatting amiably with the local crack dealer and that doesn’t set your radar off? If you meet a guy who hangs out at the same bar the mafia frequent you just shrug?
Not to mention the fact that you’ve spent years now obsessing over the Rahm-Hillary connection, pinning his sins on her and vice versa. The entire case against Hillary rests on guilt-by-association, and despite supporting Hillary myself, I don’t for a minute deny that her closeness with Wall Street is pretty clearly an indicator that she is not a serious opponent of theirs. Right?
Some discretion and judgment needs to apply as always, and obviously in a court of law association must be largely dismissed, but the idea that there is nothing at all to be learned by who a person associates with is ridiculous. If you hang around drug dealers we can make a guess that you are okay with what they do. If I know your friends are pedophiles, guess what? I don’t want you around my daughter.
And by the way, your biblical example is rather poorly chosen. The Pharisees were perfectly right about Jesus, he was hanging out with lowlifes, he was a dangerously disruptive force, and the fact that he chose association with outré elements points to that intention to disrupt. With the sole exception of old Adolf himself, no one has inspired more anti-Jewish violence, so the Pharisees were perfectly correct to spot Jesus as an enemy of their faith. In fact Jesus was openly opposed to the existing religious power structure.
How about this Bible quote instead:
Proverbs 13:20
“Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise,
but the companion of fools will suffer harm.”
Or:
1 Corinthians 5:11
“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”
Or:
Proverbs 22:24
“Make no friendship with a man given to anger, nor go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare.”
Or:
2 Corinthians 6:14
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”
Or, if you want something secular, take your pick on attribution, but let’s go with Ben Franklin:
“If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”
Agreed. This is way overused. If it is your lifelong BFF from the inner circle, then maybe you can make a case, but someone you met once or twice, or just because someone is voting for you doesn’t make you guilty.
michael-Yes, Nazis are probably going to vote for Trump, but then they aren’t ever likely to vote for a Democrat. Trump isn’t any worse or better because they want to vote for him. He is awful because of what he is and what he represents.
PD-Campaign donations are not just an association. It is money given with some expectation in return.
Steve
@steve, “It is money given with some expectation in return.” Who told you this? Trump?
I think there is some truth to that for local government where I think the argument for disclosure is stronger. Also, local government usually has a fairly large number of non-obviously ideological issues to address. If you want the federal government to support or oppose fracking regulations, you pretty much know which party to support nationally.
Part of my belief system is that I think a lot of campaign spending is useless, so I don’t value knowing who is spending their money foolishly.
That’s right.
Everything alright in the spittle spewing critics section?
I assume this is about all of those damning photos of the Clintons and Trumps yucking it up together at a wedding.
Trump has provided the explanation that they were there because he paid them to be there, with the expectation that he would at least get access if not favors in the future. Has the Clinton campaign had anything to say about the matter?
…
As to Nazis supporting Trump, the communists ARE supporting Hillary, and they’ve managed to kill a lot more people through the years than the Nazis. So where’s the outrage from our favorite shaper of young skulls full of mush? There isn’t any, because Commies want to kill all the right people. And, of course, all frogs, because nothing is so dangerous as a fascist frog, and in the interest of safety all frogs should be exterminated. (And by frogs, I mean frogs, and not Frenchman. Although the fascist frog ringleader IS named Pepe….)
The guilt by association thing, though, is a hoot. I now know, for example, that the love Fascists, Nazis & White Supremacists have for Pepe the Frog means all frogs are guilty of same and should be exterminated. As should all gorillas, because of Harambe. And all anime Japanese schoolgirls, or people that dress up like such for cos play, or fetishize them. And all female pop stars, because of Taylor Swift’s guilt by association. Sorry, Babs, the Commies are going to have to kill you too!
Frankly, it’s the only thing that matters now. Of course, who/whom _IS_ usually the only thing that matters in politics, historically, so this is merely a return to normalcy.
Steve:
1) White supremacist groups are using Trump to recruit members. But whether they might have voted Democrat or not is irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether guilt by association has any validity. Is it useful to know that a future POTUS is beloved by the KKK and the American Nazi Party? Is it not useful to know that a Trump presidency will empower the worst people in society?
2) The rest of your argument might have some force if we lived in a world of perfect transparency where all judgments could be rendered on the basis of complete factual dossiers. Of course, that’s not how the world works. We may independently conclude that Trump is a pig, but that says nothing about the utility (properly judged) of other indicative data.
3) Neither you, nor Dave, nor anyone else can get through life without accounting for the company people keep. If you see three guys in gang colors walking toward you, do you tell yourself you have insufficient data to justify crossing the street? You know nothing about the three individuals approaching, you only know their association. And yet, you cross the street.