For some reason, we seem to find great joy in the often ostentatious pronouncement that another is “one of us” — or actually, even, “not one of us.” It’s as if the declaration is accompanied by a significance that will somehow indeed sway others to our side. For example…
Prior to their Christmas recess, the Senate Democratic caucus gathered, discussing what issues that could promote, especially to deflect focus from Obamacare. When Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) suggested inequality as a populist motivator, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reportedly responded with the following: “You know, we have a strong ally on our side in this issue — and that is the Pope.”
In other words, “he’s one of us.”
Also…
As some have noticed, there is a current debate over the extension of unemployment benefits — whether we should add the expense to the deficit or figure out how to pay for the benefit prior to distribution. (Note: ask me later about the effectiveness of ongoing unlimited unemployment extensions.) Nonetheless, Pres. Obama had this to say about the issue: “Just a few days after Christmas, more than one million of our fellow Americans lost a vital economic lifeline – the temporary insurance that helps folks make ends meet while they look for a job. Republicans in Congress went home for the holidays and let that lifeline expire. And for many of their constituents who are unemployed through no fault of their own, that decision will leave them with no income at all.”
In other words, “they’re not one of us.”
From my limited perspective, it seems as if persons of all persuasions attempt to add to the perceived validity of their point by the association or the intentional disassociation with other people. It’s the same reason Michael Phelps sells Subway sandwiches, Aaron Rodgers does his infamous discount double check, and Tea Partiers are rhetorically cast as extremists. We enjoy the idea of eating like Michael; Aaron makes us look at car insurance differently; and who wants to be labeled an extremist?
The Intramuralist’s observation today is that such intentional associations are often unfortunately manipulative and/or dripping of minimal hypocrisy at best. For example…
While Pope Francis may articulate compassion for the impoverished better than most, he is certainly “not one of us” when comparing his abortion stance with that of the Senate Democratic caucus.
While congressional Republicans went home without enacting continued legislation on unemployment, congressional Democrats also went home under the Democratic leadership of Sen. Reid. Note that Pres. Obama declared his message during his vacation in Hawaii.
Know that I am not opining any specific stance on any of the above issues. I am simply stating that averred associations with specific other people — and averred disassociations — are intentional, but they are not always genuine nor sincere. Too often the association is solely designed to persuade.
May we continue to be wise, looking past persuasion and rhetoric, observing what is good and true and right.
Respectfully,
AR