How I Learned that I Wasn’t Thinking Clearly.

Their stories provoked my sympathy.

On Countdown With Keith Olbermann and in the New York Times, I heard from or read about hardworking people, desperately seeking work, who would lose everything if unemployment benefits weren’t extended. These were my avatars of the long-term unemployed. Because of them, I strongly supported extension of unemployment benefits.

But some of my friends had a different point of view. To them, the long-term unemployed were long-term slackers who had no reason to look for work, because it was too easy to suck on the government teat. I discounted my friends' point of view, and I'm sure they discounted mine.

Then I had a conversation with a friend, a former employee. She talked about her brother. Her brother is out of work, and he is not seeking a job, because he is happy to coast on government support.

I knew then that I had stumbled. I had ignored something obvious. That is: you rarely err when you embrace complexity over simplicity in human affairs.

That is: the long-term unemployed fit no simplistic mold. How people respond to loss of their job is as varied as human beings. How people respond to government benefits depends on who they are, and one person is different from another.

Certainly, I know complexity in my profession. Lawyers are mostly different. Some are ethical. Some aren’t. Some work hard. Some are lazy. There’s a smart-stupid continuum. Some care about what happens to their clients. Others look at clients like a trapper eyes a pelt. I like some lawyers very much. Others I loath.

I’ll bet you can say the same thing about your profession.

I comprehend complexity among people I know, so why do I discard it when I think beyond people I know?

Real people have a way of extinguishing avatars. I understand that the gay community has agitated for its members to reveal their gay-ness. Usually, it's harder for people to reject civil rights for gay people when they know someone who is gay. Vice President Cheney’s daughter is gay, and he supports gay rights; though if you didn’t know about his daughter, you wouldn’t expect him to take the liberal position.

But here’s complexity again: gay people can be anything from loving to predatory. And sometimes the same person has both qualities.

In our ideological battles, skirmishes are fought over the idea of who a group is. No radio talk-show host talks about the diversity of Hispanics. Instead, for example, LA’s John and Ken boil over with rage about some odious Hispanic criminal. But it’s not fair to Hispanics to tout the worst of their kind as emblematic of all of them. That’s not fair to illegal immigrants either, John and Ken's nominal targets. Nor Muslims. Remember, complexity.

We’re suckers for oversimplification. In an ideological age, we seek confirmation of our beliefs. Avatars are handy when it comes to confirming our ideologies. Sometimes, these avatars are called stereotypes.

And they aren’t fair.

Not to oversimplify, but Americans cherish fairness. It may be appealing to decide an issue based upon an unverified over-generalization, but we can’t do that if we cherish fairness.

How do we then make up our minds about controversies if we can’t rely on simplistic stereotypes?  We just have to think harder, probe more deeply. Maybe we should think longer on fewer issues. Unless you’re running for office, there’s no disgrace in confessing, "I don’t know. I just haven’t made up my mind yet." I respect a person who confesses that he or she has suspended the act of forming an opinion, pending more facts and more analysis. I’m exasperated with people who are certain without a basis for their certainty.

Uncertainty is underrated. It’s proof of humility.

So, let me boast of my humility: I've decided that I’m not at the end of my analysis of the issue of aid to the long-term unemployed. Two ideas move me toward my former position, however.

First, without generalizing about who are the long-term unemployed, studies show that payment of unemployment benefits stimulates the economy very effectively. This is true because the aid-recipients spend the money. In contrast, rich people who get tax cuts that they don’t need statistically tend to save a higher percentage of the money, which doesn’t stimulate the economy. When we help the long-term unemployed, we help ourselves.

Second, I think of Abraham. Abraham famously bargained with God and got God to agree that if there were among the people of Sodom ten righteous men, then, for the sake of those ten, God would spare that city. (Genesis 18.) That shows how God is willing to show mercy to the unrighteous to show mercy to the righteous. Amen to that. (Also remember the story of the tares and the wheat (Matthew 13).)

I infer, therefore, that it's better to suffer the slackers for the sake of the conscientious, than to let fall the conscientious lest we help slackers. My friends who are atheists don’t see the point in settling issues by citing the Bible. But there's wisdom in that book.