Michelle Obama, campaigning for her husband during his first run for the Presidency, beamed at an audience of supporters in Milwaukee. “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country,” she told them. Some people wondered if she meant what she said. Had there been no time prior to that day when she was proud to be an American? Her conservative critics assumed the worst.

“She was an adult when we won the Cold War without firing a shot,” noted one columnist. “She was an adult for the last 25 years of economic progress…. I don’t think the American people think on the whole that the last 25 years of American history is a narrative of despair and nothing to be proud of.” Another pundit asked, “Can it really be there has not been a moment…when she felt proud of her country?” Other critics weighed in with harsher judgments, accusing the future First Lady of being unpatriotic.

But then Mrs. Obama received help from an unexpected source. Laura Bush, the First lady at the time and a Republican, refused to see something sinister in Mrs. Obama’s words. “I think she probably meant I’m ‘more proud,’ you know, is what she really meant,” Mrs. Bush said and went on to point out that “being the spouse of the President…everything you say is looked at and in many cases misconstrued.”

Laura Bush did something that is rarely seen in political circles today; she gave Michelle Obama the benefit of the doubt and attributed good motives to her rather than negative ones.  Far more often, we see political adversaries doing the exact opposite to each other. Someone speaks against Black Lives Matter and is denounced as a racist; someone speaks in its favor and is accused of being a cop-hater. Someone advocates gun control and is accused of subverting the Second Amendment; another person opposes gun control and is accused of contributing to gun violence in the country.

Not only do we not give our political opponents the benefit of the doubt, we assume the worst about them. We assume that if people have lifestyles or political views different from ours, they must be nasty, corrupt, arrogant, or otherwise bad human beings.  To put it another way, we overgeneralize about the behavior of people with whom we disagree.

During the 2016 campaign, a young African-American man went to one or more Trump rallies and offered hugs to the people attending. A camera followed him as he opened his arms to men and women alike. In the video shown on The Huffington Post, the Trump supporters rejected this man’s advances; one even threatened to punch him. The same man went to a Sanders rally, again offering hugs to the people attending – and received friendly embraces from them all. The article that presented the video pointedly asked: “Do you want a world filled with love or a world with pre-judgment and hate speech?”

The most-obvious problem here is the possibility that the video was edited to omit positive behavior by Trump supporters or negative behavior from Bernie Sanders’ fans. Indeed, in the article, the man admits he received warm welcomes from some people at the Trump rally, but the video left these people out. A bigger problem is the answer begged by the article’s question. Based on a handful of examples, we are asked to conclude that Trump supporters are filled with prejudice and hate. It isn’t just a matter of them having uninformed opinions or poor judgment. They must be reviled as malicious, bigoted individuals who seek to harm people different than themselves.

Coincidently, as animosity in the 2016 campaign increased, a man in the high-profile world of professional sports found himself attacked for a controversial decision. Colin Kaepernick, quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, refused to stand for the national anthem at an August pre-season game and stated he wouldn’t be standing during regular season games either. “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he said in an interview. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.”

While some supported Kaepernick’s right to remain seated during the national anthem, many others attacked his character. He’s a “whiny, indulgent, attention-seeking crybaby,” declared one critic while another denounced him as an “uneducated idiot.” Even those who begrudgingly acknowledged his right to protest assailed him for ingratitude. A New York Times letter-to-the-editor writer identified Kaepernick as one of numerous celebrities and pro athletes “who do nothing to improve conditions, putting down the country that has given them the opportunity to get to where they are.”

Like The Huffington Post article about Trump supporters’ hostility to the “hugger,” Kaepernick’s critics want me to overgeneralize; they want me to believe the man is stupid, ignorant, and ungrateful based on one decision he made on one issue. By the way, although the quarterback’s no-stand decision apparently stemmed from recent events, it might also have tied into Emmet Till’s murder, Jim Crow laws, lynchings of helpless African Americans, and other tragedies that are a sad part of America’s racial history.

I would like to conclude this essay with some sound advice on how to reverse the types of behavior discussed in the previous paragraphs, but the best I can do is repeat the three guiding principles I cited in my February 5 blog:

–          I never make a public statement without signing my name to it or otherwise identifying myself as the author.

–          I try to treat others as I would like them to treat me.

–          Unless the person is a close friend or family member, I don’t presume to know the motivations behind his or her behavior.

These principles have served me well. They may do likewise for you.