The eCrozier

Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. – Niels Bohr

I’ve always loved this Niels Bohr quote, not only because it’s amusingly true, but because it sounds like something Yogi Berra would’ve said and not Bohr, who was a famous theoretical physicist. The future, indeed, is hard to predict, as is most anything dealing with human beings. We humans are complicated creatures and our choices (and the motives behind them) aren’t always easily understood or explained. It’s tempting for us to describe another person in over-simplistic terms or reduce an explanation of that person to one that’s purely binary: good or evil. Our own human experience, if we’re paying attention to ourselves, should caution us about such an over simplification of any other person (or ourselves!) and we should be equally cautious in reducing their whole life to just one descriptor.

Enter Paul Manafort. As I have read various news sources about his current trial on charges of tax evasion, money laundering, and working for a hostile government, I’ve wondered about his childhood. Did his mother and father love him? Did he feel and experience their love? As an adult, has he had friends or just people with whom he does business (there’s a difference)? How did he get to this place sitting in a courtroom facing such charges? Was it a series of small, moral shortcuts with each one making the next one easier? He’s been a lobbyist for 38 years working for many Republican candidates, but also regularly working for foreign leaders many of whom have (or had) unsavory reputations for serious human rights abuses (e.g., Jonas Savimbi in Angola, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, and most recently, Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine). When he was representing and promoting these foreign leaders to our government, did he not care about the way they treated their own people? Was it only about his paycheck regardless of the human consequences? Is his morality only based on a ruthless social Darwinism? I’m really curious about him.

The Washington Post writer Robin Givhan isn’t curious. She’s clearly made up her mind. In the Post’s Arts & Entertainment section on August 2, her headline read: “Paul Manafort’s ostrich jacket pretty much sums up Paul Manafort.” In that opinion piece she wrote: “The jacket is an atrocity — both literal and symbolic. It’s a garment thick with hubris and intent.” Now, I realize this is an opinion piece and not news coverage, but Ms. Givhan has reduced Paul Manafort’s life to one gaudy jacket. He has apparently done a lot of unsavory, repugnant things in his life, but a tacky jacket alone, no matter how atrocious, can’t sum up a person. (Full Disclosure: I once purchased a new pair of shoes my children still believe to this day are an “atrocity”).

Paul Manafort is an easy target for those who need to feel moral superiority. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending his behavior. If he’s guilty of what he’s accused of, then he should spend significant time in prison. But he’s more than an ostrich jacket. He’s still a human being, albeit one with whom I have significant moral differences. And yet, Jesus died for his sins as he died for ours. Let’s not forget that.

+Scott