"What's my motivation?"

"When an actor comes to me and wants to discuss his character, I say, 'It's in the script.' 

If he says, 'But what's my motivation?', I say, 'Your salary. '"

                        Alfred Hitchcock

Why? Why really?

The question, “What’s my motivation?” is a cliche and sometimes a laugh line.  The phrase invokes a school of acting known as “Method” acting. The presumption is that the actor needs to understand the inner motivations of a character to present the character convincingly.

"Motivation" is central to politics. Voters attempt to make sense of politicians. I think that on the margin among swing voters not locked into a party affiliation, elections are won and lost based on the voter's overall sense of the "whole person" among candidate choices. People get "a feel" for the person. Maybe Al Gore is stiff and stuck up. Maybe Jeb Bush is low energy. Maybe Rubio is little and overcompensating. Maybe Hillary is bitchy, ambitious, and crooked. Maybe Trump is a narcissistic con man. 

Those words describe the motivations and inner character of a person. The words frame how we interpret them. In the microcosm of this blog, and in the comment sections of news websites that still have them, motivation throws the comment section into flame wars. Commenters posit motivations for other commenters. Those commenters hate it and respond in kind. 

Yesterday an anonymous commenter observed, correctly, that I complimented Biden on his management of the debt deal. He gave Kevin McCarthy space to sell it to his caucus. The comment read:

As I try to understand your long-standing contempt for him, here is my list (in progress): He is an elder statesman who rose through the political ranks (a combination of ageism, ableism and jealousy); he stutters; his only surviving child from his first family has substance use disorder; he did not graduate from an Ivy League college; he is still considered "cool" and good-looking for his age; he is humble, empathetic and not a narcissist.

Motivations are mixed and complex and likely poorly understood even by oneself. They are intensely private. Having one's presumed motivations described publicly is an invasion. That is why doing it to an opponent is an affront, an insult, and a show of dominance. "Pocahontas." "Lyin' Ted." "Little Marco."

Here is how I responded to the comment:

Dear Anonymous. 

It is impolite to posit the motives of other people, especially people you are disagreeing with. Why do I say what I do??? It must be contempt. It must be agism. I must not like his stutter or his family. That must be why.

Better policy is to describe actions, not presume motives. I notice that you read me, pay enough attention to pick up and remember themes over several posts, and you note areas of my criticism. I do think he is and acts too old to be a strong candidate. I do think he has a political problem in Hunter. I do think he is not a strong communicator able to frame issues in a way that moves the thinking of the nation.

It's better to describe my actions, not my motives for it. It would be as if I were to posit that your motives for reading me and commenting is that you are still trying to impress your schoolteachers, but have body issues and other insecurities that force you to comment anonymously, which is why you do that. Making such a guess about your motives for commenting anonymously would be hostile and impolite and totally fabricated. It would be an attempt to ignore your observations by belittling you personally. It would be foolish and wrong--but it might be effective in putting ideas into other readers' heads. Go ahead and ignore the commenter because he is still feeling bad about looking like a dope in front of his third grade teacher, plus he feels fat. Pay no attention to him.

I do what I can to discourage personal comments from one commenter to another, and I fail at it because commenters love to do it. Still, the best rule of thumb is to comment on policies, not on the presumed character and motives of the commenter.

 Labeling the motivation of others is a heavy weapon. It works too well. It is political junk food, like candy that spoils dinner. It distracts readers from issues toward imagined personalities. It is everywhere, and it is bad for us.

 

[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]