Supporting Someone Isn't Supporting Everything They Have Ever Done.

Human beings are complex. Our evaluations of human beings should be complex too.

One of the most toxic modes of thought that became alarmingly pervasive during the presidency of Donald Trump was the notion that a person’s supporters inherently also support everything that person has ever done or said in their life – either in public or even in private.

“But how could you support a president who said ‘grab them by the p***y?’”

Because I recognize that every single human being on Earth has said and done morally suboptimal things – and that human behavior is complex. I recognize that great people can do terrible things, and terrible people can do great things. I am not a moral absolutist in my evaluation of human beings, or groups of human beings – because human beings are not, have never been, and never will be morally absolute.

To reduce someone – anyone - down to a couple soundbytes, or a couple fiery tweets, or some video dug up from years ago, instead of evaluating the entire body of their work, is reductionist and short-sighted.

The only way to evaluate others is holistically. None of us can be reduced to one shortcoming or excellence, defeat or triumph, flaw or virtue – we are the sum of near-infinite parts. The best we can do in the evaluation of others is to practice discernment and decide whether, when assessing the good versus the bad, that person has enough ‘good’ in them for us to admire the whole of their character.