Midwest Memo
Assumed?
by Alan Shultz

Years back I had my law office at the end of a long, narrow, winding corridor in a quirky little office building I owned. Because I was at the end of the hall, and because it required conquering the labyrinth to find me, folks kind of burst into my office relieved to be at the end of the maze.

On one particular afternoon a client arrived on the scene flinging my office door wide open. He stepped into the waiting area, closed the door behind him and addressed me in a loud, resonant voice. This was a gentleman much my senior and for whom I had a great deal of respect. A world traveler, a lecturer with credentials, a big and reasoned thinker, he was someone I trusted and admired.

He was in my office for legal help.

But apparently, some kind of first things first was in order.

And so it was, that as he entered my office to solicit my advice, this greatly accomplished man announced to me precisely what I thought on a particular subject of controversy brewing at that time.

My visitor that afternoon did not ask me my opinion on the subject. This client did not debate me on the subject.

He did not ask for my thoughts or opinion.

We did not venture or happen upon the subject matter in the course of other dialogue.

He simply walked into my office and told me, in not uncertain terms, precisely what I thought about a matter that I actually hadn't given thought to, a subject that was not really on my radar.

"I know you agree with me and support... blah, blah, blah."

And the fact of the matter was, when push came to shove, I did agree with his position on this particular controversy. But that wasn't the point, was it? He wasn't interested in my opinion. And he certainly wasn't interested in debate or discourse.

I stewed about that particular afternoon for many afternoons to come. I stewed because I just didn't get the point about why one adult would treat another adult in this manner. This particular issue of controversy was not relevant to the legal manner for which the client was consulting me. The subject wasn't a matter of contention between us. It wasn't even a previous source of conflict or discussion amongst us.

It was simply something about which this guy felt passionately.

And maybe he didn't want to think his advisor could possibly think differently.

I don't know.

What I do know is this: we assume, we presume... a lot.

I get a lot of mail, outrageously presumptive stuff from both the Republicans and from the Democrats. Surveys and solicitations, they send them all the time. And they pander and presume and assume. It's kind of embarrassing that folks are viewed by these people as so shallow, so one dimensional, so predictable.

If you recycle then you must think this way. If you support this charity that must mean you vote this way. And on and on it goes.

I haven't been in a good political debate in a long time. It's my fault. I play it too close to the vest and frankly, I don't see the point anymore. People think what they're going to think. But my posture is kind of passive, and a neutral canvas is one others feel the need to paint.

So, instead, I feel like I get lectured on politics a lot.

But, what the matter? At least I can take great comfort in one thing. I know you agree with me.