Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Conservatives Are Waging a War on Empathy -- We Can't Let Them Win

By George Lakoff, AlterNet. Posted June 1, 2009.


Conservatives are trying to redefine empathy as irrational personal feeling. In fact, empathy is the basis of our democracy and must be defended.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by George Lakoff

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack -- on President Obama's central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.

There are several fronts: Empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup.

Conservatives believe that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and so their attacks may seem irrational to Democrats, a last gasp, a grasping at straws, a sign that the party is breaking up.

Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on.

Let's start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn't empathy a good thing?

Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others -- not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.

Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy -- a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the President's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis.

The president wrote of empathy in The Audacity of Hope, "It is at the heart of my moral code and it is how I understand the Golden Rule -- not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes."

President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all. That is at the heart of everything he does.

The link between empathy and democracy has been established historically by Professor Lynn Hunt of UCLA in her important book, Inventing Human Rights. Hear her speak here.

The link between empathy and progressive thought is spelled out in my book Moral Politics and in my new book The Political Mind, just out in paperback.

In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a major desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. A justice has to take empathy into account because his or her decisions will affect the lives of others. Before making a decision you have to put yourself in the shoes of those who your decision will affect. Similarly, in judging causation, fairness requires that social causes as well as individual causes be taken into account. Empathy forces you to notice what is crucial in so many Supreme Court cases: systemic and social causes and who a decision can harm. As such, empathy correctly understood is crucial to judgment. A judge without empathy is a judge unfit for a democracy.

President Obama has described Justice Sotomayor in empathetic terms -- a life story that would lead her to understand people who live through oppression and deprivation and what it does to them. In other words, a life story that would allow her to appreciate the consequences of judicial decisions and the causal effects of living in an unequal society.

Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of "justice." It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.

But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their "empathy" is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, "justice is not about empathy." Reframe the word "empathy" and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama's central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gop, democracy, cheney, obama, conservatives, gingrich, justice, david brooks, lakoff, sonia sotomayor, empathy

George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Empathy in General OK; As Judicial Philosophy Unfair
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Jun 1, 2009 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Care about your community, refugees in Africa and Pakistan-fine. Almost too much to process. We do the best we can, to paraphrase John Lennon. If I help you, in a pinch, you'll help me. The golden rule, the tribal bond, the basis for species. Love, love, love.

But you don't want judges deciding cases in a republic of laws enacted by popularly elected bodies on the basis of empathy. Equality before the law goes out the window. The cute kid, the white kid who looks like the judge's own kid, the sexy defendant and the swarthy plaintiff all become actors in a Hollywood drama, not a process that seeks to be as objective as possible. That's why precedent in so important in AngloSaxon law. Did I say AngloSaxon law? To all those empathetic Latino women out there who want to be on the courts of the United States, that is what our law openly is and is supposed to be. AngloSaxon law is good. It is better than Mexican law. Look at the United States. Look at Mexico or Venezuela, a paragon of arbitrary "law" that depends on the empathy Mr. Hugo Chavez has for a company or individual caught in his Kafkaesque justice system.

If I'm in court, I want justice,not empathy.

Lakoff is ignorant of what US or Anglo Saxon law is. Of course if he wants to impose Cuban or Zimbabwe law on the US, he is free to lobby Congress on the matter. Unlike Cuba or Zimbabwe, he won't be shot or jailed for trying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Breast-feeding! Hah! Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» What a horse's ass. Posted by: weathered
"Survival of the Kindest" is an effective rebuttal...
Posted by: Plenum on Jun 1, 2009 2:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Give this a try:

Article "Darwin's Touch: Survival of the Kindest"
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-to-be-good...

Paragraph 3 from the article - (...) "Survival of the fittest" was not Darwin's phrase, but Herbert Spencer's and that of Social Darwinists who used Darwin to justify their wished-for superiority of different classes and races. "Survival of the kindest" better captures Darwin's thinking about his own kind.

Paragraph 4 from the article - (...) Darwin argued for "the greater strength of the social or maternal instincts than that of any other instinct or motive." His reasoning was disarmingly intuitive: in our hominid predecessors, communities of more sympathetic individuals were more successful in raising healthier offspring to the age of viability and reproduction -- the sine qua non of evolution.

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-to-be-good...

Or just search for "Survival of the Kindest" in your favorite web-browser...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nice guys finish last Posted by: Ignatz deFyre
» I feel sorry for you Posted by: Hiroak
Judges should be impartial
Posted by: BeckyD on Jun 1, 2009 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy.

President Obama is wrong. Our representative republic (we are not a democracy and never have been) is based not on empathy, but on an understanding that each individual human being possesses inherent, inalienable rights. Our founders, for the most part, believed these rights were God-given, not something that derives from the ability of others empathize.


God help us if our rights only exist because other people can put themselves in our shoes. What happens when they no longer can? I can't empathize at all with the person who walked into a church and killed a doctor this weekend, and yet he still possesses rights and is entitled to a fair hearing before the bar of impartial justice.

Empathy is important, and it has its place, which is in the home and in private charity. I don't want my government, and especially not my judges, to be empathetic. I want them to be blind, as the statute of justice is blind, to race, class, economic status, religion. To favor none. To interpret the law based on the original meaning of the legislators, or the Constitution based on the original intent of the framers. If the original intent is no longer functional in our modern society, there's a mechanism in place to change it - the amendment process, not judges 'making policy.'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Judges should be impartial Posted by: Spiritgirl
» RE: Judges should be impartial Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: Judges should be impartial Posted by: liberal_christian
Winger psychology
Posted by: Perry Logan on Jun 1, 2009 3:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right-wingers have authoritarian personalities, and empathy is very threatening to these types.

A lot of the right's creepy rhetoric about liberals is based on a fear of our ability to feel empathy. Liberals are "bleeding hearts." They're "soft on crime," soft on illegal immigration, soft on terrorism, insufficiently predisposed to violence.

As any lefty knows, wingers love to use soft, wimpy imagery when talking about liberals--the better to emphasize how brave and tough they are.

Needless to say, when liberals exhibit unequivocal strength--taking action on crime, immigration, or foreign policy--they are spoken of as Nazis. Wingers never notice this 180-degree shift in rhetoric.

In the cartoon world of right-wing psychology, liberals are soft because they feel empathy for their fellow human beings, and the right are hard as nails because they don't. Empathy is a clear sign of weakness.

(Yes, there seems to be a creepy sexual angle to this. But I'm not going to discuss it before breakfast.)

The flip side of the right's fear of liberal empathy is their belief that cruelty is toughness.

Wingnuts confuse meanness with toughness. They think that if they're doing mean, even sadistic things, they are being tough. This explains why they badmouth everyone in sight. They think their tendency to character assassination makes them tough.

Rush Limbaugh doesn't think he's mean. He thinks he's tough. He and Michael Savage and Glen Beck and Ann Coulter and the whole randy crew think they're hard as nails--I'm sure of it.

I have no doubt Republicans think the Bush Administration's use of torture shows how tough they are. This is winger psychology--like a cartoon of real psychology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your Ideas on "Frames" Are Ok, But...
Posted by: Geno1190 on Jun 1, 2009 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, I'll buy that the attack on empathy (as Republicans are framing it) is a vicious slam against anyone who identifies themselves as "progressive," left-wing populists, etc., but I don't buy into any of Obama's rhetoric on the subject. After learning of Obama's continuation of quite a bit of Bush's policies (via Truthdig, Common Dreams, World Can't Wait, and other alternative news organizations), I don't believe he's the "reformer" you think he is... and I don't believe that any of the other Democrats are either. I believe we need the more open, vigorous third parties now more than ever... especially since the Democrats keep backing down on basic human rights issues. (ex.: the torture "debate")

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bollocks: Obama is a decoy shakedown & so is this column
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Jun 1, 2009 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is about as "progressive" as Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman which is to say, in name only. Whether it be unconditional support for a FISA spy state, the "Wall Street Bailout" looting of the nation or sham 9/11 "war on terror" of 1,000 LIES , Obama is an obvious flunky for Organized Corporate Crime.

How does that "empathy" card work with a million plus Iraqis murdered at Iraq genocide Incorporated for naked Big Oil supremacy over the region? Likewise for the thousands killed at Afghanistan and Pakistan, not for “Al-Qaeda” (alias Al-CIAda) but for command of blood money Big Oil pipelines and a global heroin trade.

How does "empathy" work for the destruction of single payer insurance that Obama's regime gutted before it even had a chance at Congress?

It also turns out that judge Sotomayor is more about “a wealthy member of America's power elite than she is the “Latina from a blue-collar family” .

As others have said, Obama is barely more than a smarmy play-actor bought and paid for by the very Wall Street ruling class jokers that created the meltdown and brought the world bogus 9/11 "war on terror" at immense profits for themselves and their corporate crime class. The fact that the Obama regime appears "better" than the idiot puppet GW Bush White House is hardly more than a surface delusion created for the gullible.

It’s this kind of supposed “progressive” psychobabble that encourages people to do nothing in place of abolishing the de facto one-party republicrat system under a private monopoly “Federal Reserve” Corp money system that poisons everything it touches. This is a snake oil Washington-MSM farce that perpetuates domestic injustice with global genocide under economic ruin – all for the vast and cozy profit of what amounts to a Fascist overclass.

Empathy?

The way it’s used here “empathy” is decoy emotional garbage for a slogan as empty as “Hope We Can Believe In”.

Valid empathy demands valid results for real social justice and action to take back democracy from Organized Corporate Crime rule. The Fascist ruling class came to power by “Federal Reserve” Corp (not federal, zero reserves) control of Wall Street and thus Washington and the state houses. Control is maintained by rigging of the MSM and brainwash “education” that is the constant propaganda arm of the ruling class

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

do you need empathy to respect the rights of others?
Posted by: Suzon on Jun 1, 2009 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure that you do. There are plenty of people who understand, accept and admire people similar to themselves. But are they able to extend that understanding, acceptance and admiration to everyone?

Until everyone can reasonably rely upon their inalienable rights being respected, no one can.

Limited empathy can be a dangerous thing. Egalitarian empathy is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

elections have consequences
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Jun 1, 2009 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
dude, Conservative can't stop a freaking thing because they don't have the votes. Y'all clame to be so brilliant however fail to released simple civics of our government. The Democrats run the show so direct all comments to them.

have a nice day

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

perhaps
Posted by: aislinnluv on Jun 1, 2009 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
empathy is a path to better understanding of the situation that led to whatever case is being heard by the Court. Being able to get into the mind of the actors in a case does not necessarily mean one will rule in the favor of those you understand; it merely means you can see what factors played a part. Sometimes (yes,think about it) the Court is called on to hear cases that go against past rulings or laws that seemed, at the time of enactment, to be correct. If we merely clung to precedent and did not consider what others felt and experienced (empathy), there would still be slavery, we would still have Prohibition. Being able to understand how a mother might feel that her baby is possessed by the devil (unceasing crying) doesn't determine a ruling of justifiable homicide in the infant's death at his mother's hands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess that Compassionate Conservative logo
Posted by: babka on Jun 1, 2009 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
didn't work out too well for the war profiteers/new Crusaders. "Empathy" as they would define it is so "I feel your pain"....and that's, like, so: nellie.
The conservative schtick is all butchness....especially for those manly guys who have only daughters to show for their procreation. Small wonder the front page of the Globe is all about Obama's masculinity. If he's too O.J. he can't get elected - once elected, he'll take the hits as did the cheerleader who preceded him. These are the "sane" men - the thinkers...those minus doubt...the ones who will have no qualms about pushing the button for the final conflagration. Feeling - walking a mile in the other person's shoes - especially if that person is a child of Allah, would be so counterproductive in a military economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservatives shmonservatives...
Posted by: Tweck9 on Jun 1, 2009 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives, conservatives, Republicans, Republicans, evil evil blah blah blah.

And meanwhile the "conservatives" in the White House are trashing the planet in the name of the coal industry, hob-nobbing with health insurance companies, sleeping with Wall Street executives and dropping bombs all over the place.

Maybe we should shut up with all the whining about Republican hate spew, and focus on the problem at hand: The smarmy, corporate Democrats currently sleeping with the corporate profiteers.

Or are we satisfied to allow ourselves these forrays into distraction?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What you mean "we," Troll-face Posted by: AdamSelene40
"Empathy" means ''emotional' which means 'Hormonal'
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jun 1, 2009 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what they are trying to say in a not so round about way- but Liddy in his Primitive Male Syndrome hysterics let the cat out of the Bag.Talk about people who need a 'Mothers Lil' Helper' and a Giant Midol!
And Brooks point is Key- Those who lack Empathy ARE Sociopaths.These are your Hitlers, Bundy's, Mansons.The conglomerated doctrine of Right wing and their supporters- Xenophobic, Misogynistic,Hell bent End of Dayers(Gee sounds just like the Taliban ah?)
How long will Real Republicans allow themselves and their party to be held hostage by this group of Psychotics? Will it take some executions for War Crimes, Treason,or Terrorism before they seek Liberation? Are they ready to be co Defendents not only in the Eyes of this nation and the Global community, but in the eyes of God too?
When Republicans, will you decide these Hatefilled criminal fanatics have asked too much, gone too far?
The Republican party has become a spineless appeasers to the most vile elements of Our society.
Funny side note:
The external structures of 'pussy' 'Dick' and 'asshole' all carry a negative connotation regarding a personality trait.
But the internal structures of words/phrases like 'guts','heart', 'Intestinal Fortitude' all carry positive connotations.
Would it then not follow that 'Balls' is more indictive of a negative trait, and 'Ovaries' should warrant inclusion into the realm of admirable attributes?
so perhpas instead of saying the 'Repugs have no Balls'- we should be saying the 'Repugs have no Ovaries' (guts,heart or fortitude).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ...Only Dems, have empathy? Posted by: jvaljon1
- - - - I Hope it doesnt spread over the world
Posted by: Anthhh on Jun 1, 2009 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Human beings are defined as "monsters " in the US Law dictionaries.

Trying to be Human is a crime in this time of the ANTI-HUMAN aka "ANTI-CHRIST".

In the USA, displaying natural feelings when you have them is looked at irrational and even un-natural..immature ect.. ie..Ambulance Medical Team. EMT's DO NOT ALLOW A TRAUMA PATIENT TO SCREAM IN PAIN OR CRY. They will prefer to risk a trauma patient death of a heart failure than allow him/her to use his natural mechanisms..the act of screaming which serves to release the stress and evoke sympathy, awareness and assistance.

If the EMT would like the victim to be quiet in order to establish cooperation, or to get information, he CAN do it while letting the person cry. It would just take special psycological training.

How many trauma casualties have died of heart failure at the hands of a EMT ambulance medic telling them to "shut the fuck up"?

In many other cultures, this doesnt occur yet. People are still allowed to be people. all their lives and not just when they are one year old. being told that showing motion is immature.
-People in USA are actually afraid to show emotion in everyday because it isnt shown on TV except when presentd as "Freak". . . Thats usually the scene your eyes want to tear up..
___________________________

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, conservatives are doing this. But we look to be following zealously along behind them.
Posted by: Beck on Jun 1, 2009 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure why this happens, why an opposing political or social force takes an objectionable stand, and in the course of protesting it, it's actually copied. I don't read much on either side that sounds empathetic. Empathy seems to be a very mature emotion, one that can disturb the holder of it. It doesn't look as if any purely ideological people like having their inner worlds disrupted, with another point of view introduced, and that's what empathy does. It makes clear the messiness of cultures like our diverse one, and the impossibility of enforced cohesion to any single, pure point of view. Empathy disallows, for one example, the kind of polarized objectification of torture victims that both sides are indulging in.

In some recent reading, I've become aware how much our society is like the time in history when Rome conquered the Grecian world. The Romans thought the Greeks hopelessly fragmented, with too many independent trains of thought, too many city-states that operated too independently, no purity, no cohesion from a single, central ruling philosophy. The Romans considered themselves the only people pure enough and moral enough to rule. They appeared to be quite successful in cleaning things up to their satisfaction, for quite some time.

It seems as though in no situation must people be more cautious than when trying to balance out or even overcome forces which seem to be evil. It appears to be far easier than is apparent to start co-opting your opponent's worse tendencies while working against their policies. Self-reflection in such situations seems to be the most difficult, possibly even unnatural course of all. But history is full of instances of well-meaning, idealistic-turned-to-ideological people becoming over time people virtually identical to those they oppose. Knowing and enumerating your opponent's faults is never enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Emapthy is essential to survivalo
Posted by: daw13 on Jun 1, 2009 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What makes homo sapiens really different is our ability to empathize. Thus can we form effective groups of self-actualized people all with something unique to contribute. Only through empathy can we connect and only through connectivity can we adapt effectively. True enough, empathy is only hardwired to extend to our in-group, about 150 max. But nature has also given us the ability to extend emotional empathy when the logical part of our brain perceives the necessity. In the world we humans have created for ourselves, unless we expand empathy to include "others," we don't survive. The time has passed when our in-group can disregard the needs of others without real peril. Once powerful enough, we no longer are. In simple terms: the idea that our military can kill whomever they wish, or simply allow them to die, without placing us in physical jeapordy is absurd. But somehow, this absurdity is not well advertised -- on the left.

It is not politically correct to charaterize imperialism's victims as potentially capable of retaliating in devastating manner, but much evidence indicates this to be the case. I would like Dr. Lakeoff to address this reluctance of progressives to allow the public to know how empathy is not only about morality, it is also about survival.

The real right wing message is: forget about empathy, our side can prevail. Our gang may operate immorally if you consider all humans to be equally important, but they will keep you physically safe. Do you really care about outsiders? This is the issue Lakeoff must address, it seems to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE SOTOMAYOR WILL ASSURE IMPARTIAL ACCESSES TO THE COURTS
Posted by: IsidoroRDL on Jun 1, 2009 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I write as an independent federal civil litigation sole practitioner who for the past three decades has litigated against the negligence and malfeasance of the government employees, i.e. Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417(1995). Thus, I support Sotomayor’s confirmation based on her decision in Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation, 229 F.3rd. 374 (2000), rev’d 534 U.S. 61 (2001), to provide impartial access to the courts for Constitutional violation by government employees and contractors acting as government instrumentality.

In Malesko, Sotomayor, writing for the court, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working as an instrumentality of federal government for violations of constitutional rights. She found that a "Bivens" action permits suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations. Her position is consistent with the holding in United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882), which states that,

[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to Rehnquist lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.

However, the Supreme Court reversed her ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens doctrine could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. This holding increases the limitation on the people to have access to an impartial court and jury trial to challenge malfeasance, negligence and criminal acts of the government, its employees, and agents.

But, Thomas Jefferson stated more than 200 years ago, "[t]he germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

In this context my past litigation confirms an on gong criminal conspiracy of present and former attorneys in DOJ and judges in the Judicial Branch to intentionally violate Congress’ delegations under the Rules Enabling Act and the Judicial Conference Act to deny access to an impartial court. The evidence is that have conspired declare themselves absolutely immune from suit for tortious and criminal acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1204, and 1523, by government attorneys and judges to cover-up and deny me access to an impartial jury trial under RICO for the criminal obstruction of my statutory rights as a father and for issuing and enforcing a void order to deprive me of my right of employment in retaliation seeking to enforce my federal statutory rights, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Ed.-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Ct. Of App. No. 07-5234 (Feldman, J.), and, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. and Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. NCMEC, et al., D.C. No. 03-0120 (Roberts, J.)(http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).

Consequently, Sotomayor’s confirmation would slow the transforming of our Republic into a legal tyranny permitting the legal profession to immunize the government.

Sincerely,

Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why aren't we quoting Alito more to fight this?
Posted by: scootmandubious on Jun 1, 2009 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During his own confirmation proceedings, as has been widely reported on progressive websites, Samuel Alito said the following:

"...when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position...

"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

In effect, Justice Alito said the same exact thing. Let's put the right-wing on the defensive for a change. If it was okay for Alito to say it, why is it similarly unacceptable for the sentiment to be uttered by Judge Sotomayor? Could it be because of her gender and ethnicity?

I am tired of the hypocrisy. Make the right-wing explain why Alito's remarks were okay if Sotomayors comments are not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As I said before on this site
Posted by: willymack on Jun 1, 2009 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rethugs know Sotomayor is a done deal. It's FUTURE picks they want to head off. The same old crap about "activist" judges and "racist" leanings will be repeated ad nauseum, so the concepts stick in our minds. The REAL activist judges were those who set aside Constitutional laws and restraints, and allowed neocon stooge bush to steal the 2000 "election". That crime goes unpunished to this day, and led to 911, phony wars, treason, war crimes, crimes against humanity and theft on a scale unheard of in our history.We really love to put people into prisons in the USA, but it's almost always little people with little money or influence who get locked up, while the REAL crooks continue to raise hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, Perish The Thought!!! Posted by: jvaljon1
Proof that they are sociopaths.
Posted by: frankly1 on Jun 1, 2009 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Denial of empathy as a necessary element in just decisions is simple proof of a sociopathic mind. The essential core of the sociopathic psycology is to place yourself ahead of all others and to deny empathy and compassion.
The creed of the conservative is a simple one...I got mine, don't ask how I got it, I'm keeping it, I want more, I want a lot more and fuck you if you don't have yours!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Empathy Is The Root Of All Good! Posted by: QQOblivion
THE HUMAN TOUCH
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 1, 2009 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one would admit to NOT being empathetic. It would dehumanize them. It's not possible to be a good judge of any kind when you take the people out of the equation. So empathy in the broadest sense is just as important as the law degree. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama bin Lyin'
Posted by: AdamDanky on Jun 1, 2009 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish that idiot Obama would go jump in a lkae or off a cliff or something!

RT
Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama bin Lyin' Posted by: Solar Wind
Some thoughts why many Xtians have a hard time with empathy - part 1
Posted by: pelican beak on Jun 1, 2009 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Love your neighbor as yourself," was Jesus' most important instruction how to live - which of course requires empathy, seeing oneself in others - to pull off. In Mat 25:31-46, as He was preparing for His date with some wooden timbers, He was quite clear that God will only allow into heaven those who help others in need - which is to treat others how you'd like to be treated in your times of need.

Yet my very common experience has been that self-professed Xtians base their identity on answers to loyalty oath questions (such as, "Do you believe Jesus was the Son of God who gave His life to cleanse our sins?"), than on actually following His instructions how to live. It is a system custom-made to attract shallow dishonest people (who will simply answer, "Yes"), and churches are quite happy to have it that way. They keep these shallow dishonest people spiritually infantilized, happy to be part of the church social network system, and happy to have the bogus credential of being a "values-oriented American," and churches reap huge tax-free wealth keeping it this way. That's one level where American Xtianity destroys a capacity for empathy.

Yet a deeper level why many Xtians find REAL empathy in practice so foreign and alienating lies in the Xtian metaphysical structure itself. Their view is that at rock-bottom reality, we each have separate discrete "souls," following completely independent paths, and what really matters is where YOUR soul ends up. Yours may go one way, your neighbors' may go another; God will decide. In this view, there is no sense of collective "we" among soul-bearers in the functioning human endeavor, apart from what gets cobbled onto this fundamentally individual-alienating understanding.

Each Xtian is actually only out for their own. Xtianity is especially appealing to very selfish people, and attracts them in large numbers by positing that we're all selfish sinners. It constructs a discrete-soul metaphysic which tells we cannot be anything but that, and then offers a path to Paradise that never helps folks to actually become unselfish. Those who don't suffer that selfish outlook in the first place are inclined to pass Xtianity by. I contrast this with beliefs from Buddhist sects that our sense of separateness from one another is merely an illusion; that we are actually all part of one reality playing a game with itself. By this metaphysic, it is easy to see why one should love one's neighbor as themself - the sense of separateness is not real. Quite literally, how I treat you IS how I treat myself.

The Xtian metaphysic gets around this by the construct of "doing what will please God." At best, a Xtian merely loves their neighbor in obedience to God's instructions, so they will get their selfish wish of entry into eternal Paradise. Xtianity employs a really long convoluted way around to encourage folks to treat each other well, and it's no wonder that faith has historically fallen off the wagon and horribly abused folks who are too honest in the first place to go along. A Xtian world would be one in which selfishness reigns, and the symptoms of selfishness are explained away.

Xtianity supplies a lot of propagandistic window-dressing to appear loving and kind, but its rock-bottom worldview is anything but. That's why we see a huge swath of its followers opposed to empathy from the judicial bench. If one lacks the genuine capacity to see themself in others, all that's left to fall back on when trying to interpret law is the flawed arrogant attitude that somehow people today can magically divine law-writers' original intent several hundred ears ago (when the laws weren't even written by people in unanimous agreement over a single intent), and then the mechanistic attitude that the role of justice is simply to impersonally mete out decisions based purely on whatever their previous arrogance divined to be that intent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When Americans believe 'everybody else' is inferior...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 1, 2009 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no opinion about Obama's choice of Supreme Court Justice.
Her work will create her legacy. She replaces a 'liberal' justice.
at best, we can hope for the status quo

but this article hits on a sound point:

... that American mainstream *culture* is at war with empathy. Watch any TV channel long enough (perhaps PBS might break away from that mold, but then the creepy 'funding' & interest in 'war history' would suggest otherwise)

Violence, disrespect, cultural xenophobia, 'might makes right', 'zero-sum games'... the US is Number One at teaching a miasma of 'cruelty wins', 'winning is everything'... 'do anything to ensure your 'team' wins'... its really quite frightening how efficiently the US cultural media saturates Global entertainment
...with a repetitive dehumanizing drumbeat of consumerism, narcissism & greed.

The World won't become a better place, until Americans learn their respectful place in it:
& that's not standing on top & 'raining Freedoms' down on everyone else.

=====================
"Enemy" - Jack Johnson.

"After we spoke I had a Dream that I broke
The Teeth from a Mouth of a Snake
That I choked on the teeth
They were mine all along

I picked up the pieces when I woke up
Put them in a Boat made of Things that I don't want to See
I blew on the sail
Watched it drift out to Sea
The further it drifted the closer it came to me
I can't explain

So I took it apart built a billion boxes
There was only one key

You might think I'm your Enemy
But that don't make you mine
And all I have now is empathy
I wish that you'd stop trying
Oh, please stop lying


Stop la la la la la la la
La la la la la...

I put Hatred in a box then I locked it
The strongest one I made
I buried it all, grew a Tree without Thorns
And sat beneath the Shade

You might think I'm your Enemy
But that don't make you mine
And all I have now is empathy
I wish that you'd stop trying
Oh, please stop lying
Please stop la la la la la la
La la la la la..."

=====================

perspective, people.


Perspective.

The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEDT

FREE podcast

"... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice..." ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.

"Violence can only be concealed by a Lie, & the Lie can only be maintained by Violence." ... "Any man, who has once proclaimed Violence as his Method, is inevitably forced to take the Lie as his Principle" – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

call a spade a spade
Posted by: Talleyrand on Jun 1, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Empathy is a fundamental aspect of human progress. The right wing hates it, because it generally implies workers rights, basic human rights (like health insurance), etc... I think, though, we would all be better served if, instead of using the term "conservative", people would start calling the leftovers of the republican by their real name: neo-Nazis. The Nazis, too, made a point of being anti-empathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Empathy is an Asset, Though NOT a Conservative Asset
Posted by: nobyjingo on Jun 1, 2009 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although, not a conservative asset, Sotomayor having the ability to understand motives is an asset for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the Dept. of Justice. Empathy to understand motives that caused a violation of the law is not at all the same as not understanding the law, or not abiding by the law; Sotomayor being empathetic, hopefully will be a benefit to people who come before her that have violated the law through trickery, deceit and mental stress, because one who is mentally abused, deceived or tricked into violating the law is not a hardened criminal, like those that consistently violate the law that have assure themselves that their dominance will support their right to violate the law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Video of Barack Obama on the Importance of Empathy
Posted by: edwinrutsch on Jun 1, 2009 12:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've compiled a video of Barack Obama talking about the importance of empathy. You can view it at the link below. Seeing all his comments on empathy in one place helps to give an overview of his thoughts and feelings on the subject.

Barack Obama and a New Spirit of Empathy

A Chronological Video of Barack on Empathy. Compiled from about 38 of his speeches and interviews, etc. on the topic of empathy. (1hr 49 min)

Michelle Obama on Empathy

A video of Michelle Obama on Empathy. Compiled from 12 of her speeches and interviews. (30 min)


Edwin Rutsch

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ball Busters Are The Problem.
Posted by: melpol on Jun 1, 2009 12:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a common type of human animal that hates freedom. This animal feels most comfortable in crowds and is called a Ball Buster. Where ever you find a loner, not far behind is a crowd that tries to interfere with their lifestyle. At the present time the Ball Buster is busy trying to prevent loners from having a needed abortion. They do it not out of compassion but just to bust balls. Not one of them has offered help in raising an unwanted child, their motive is just to create hardship. They are rightfully called Ball Busters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ya Wanna Talk Activist Judges?
Posted by: Solar Wind on Jun 1, 2009 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am continually surprised and amazed that no one seems to recall the most Activist Judges of all: Those who stopped the democratic, legal, required re-count of the Florida vote in 2000 and annointed George W. Bush as our feckless, reckless, totally UN-EMPATHIC dictator - devoid of all humanity were these judges not to mention empathy. Take a good look at what lack of empathy has gotten America.

How in hell can empathy be a bad thing? Don't we all want empathy? Except, of course, for those who already have theirs and god (ha) forbid anyone else have anything at all. Cretins!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sandra Day O'Connor... Posted by: jvaljon1
» RE: Sandra Day O'Connor... Posted by: Solar Wind
Psychopathology
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on Jun 1, 2009 12:29 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly these "people" are suffering from anti-social personality disorder, also known as psychopathy.

Empathy is a very important part of adult cognition - it is essentially what separates the adult psyche from the child psyche.

Those who do not attain empathy are not only retarded morally, but also retarded cognitively.

Considering the status and position of some of these people, perhaps it would be prudent to at least consider institutionalizing some, for the safety of those they have power over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Psychopathology Posted by: kelethian
Empathy about Intellectual Understanding
Posted by: winchelenator on Jun 1, 2009 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not necessarily about sympathy or compassion, although that is part. Moreover intellectual care and understanding of the facts or situations.
Lack of empathy is to ignore the facts or rule of law.
Sociopaths have no guilt or conscience, so they can have knowledge of the facts yet be void of any emotional ties with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sociopaths? YAHOO! That... Posted by: jvaljon1
On empathy, sympathy, and the Golden Rule
Posted by: tedrowe on Jun 1, 2009 12:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no empathy in the Golden Rule. It is sympathetic and ethnocentric. It makes the self-centered assumption that what is best for us is best for others. An empathetic Golden Rule would be: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

To sympathize and to empathize are radically different things. The first requires no effort. We simply see in others what we see in ourselves. But empathy requires a mental juggling act: we have to be able to hold on to our point of view while also seeing things from the point of view of another.

Sympathy leads us nowhere. It is only through empathy that we can challenge our own assumptions about ourselves and the world, and thus make decisions that are truly effective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've heard this twice before, and I REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT--
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Jun 1, 2009 12:40 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How are these God-Damned LOSERS "defining" ANYTHING??? I'm hearing more and more about Republicans 're-defining' this, and that, and now empathy--and I'M SICK OF IT!

HEY!! YOU!!! YEAH YOU--that's the DEMS I'm screaming at now: YOU WON! You DON'T LET THESE PIECES OF SHIT DEFINE ANYTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TOILET BOWL OF HISTORY THAT THEY'RE NOW TAKING THEIR (WELL-DESERVED!!!) ETERNAL REST IN!

These shitheels need to be slapped down IMMEDIATELY, as soon as they try to 'redefine' as much as the men's room!

If they say 'empathy is irrational'--we say, "How the hell would YOU know? Republicans are AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN IRRATIONAL--NO WONDER THEY DON'T RECOGNIZE EMPATHY FOR OTHERS, THEY'RE SUCH A DUMB BUNCH OF CROCODILES THAT THE ONLY--THE ONLY! THING THEY'D ACTUALLY RECOGNIZE CLEARLY, IS THE MUD OF THE SWAMP THEY'VE LAIN IN UP UNTIL 1980, that Ronnie Dearest rescued them out of.

Empathy's 'irrational'--? GREAT! WE--America AND the rest of the world--have NO FUCKING EMPATHY AT ALL FOR THEM!!!

We should tie rocks around their disgusting 'party' and throw it overboard wherever we find it skulking! I mean, HOW STRONG DOES THE INSECTICIDE HAVE TO BE, BEFORE WE'RE RID OF THESE PAINS IN THE ASS, ONCE AND FOR ALL?????

One Republican talking point that I'll take issue with right now, is this: Ooohhh...we CAN'T GET RID OF REPUBLICANS--AMERICA'S A 2-PARTY SYSTEM!!! Or else we might become (GASP) a - a DICKTATERSHIP (As W would have put it)

Fine. Then let's get the Independent Party up and running. Whom it will greatly behoove-- --(when and such magic actually happens)--to avoid ANY semblance of the disgusting and putrid "Republicanism" that so fouled the last century and, to date, this one!

Goddam shame, is all, that this had to happen to the Party of Lincoln. Lincoln must be seasick from rolling over in his grave, when he sees how low Republicanism has fallen. It's up to us to nip their bullshit in the bud, no matter WHAT party it comes from! And here I'm talking about their Democratic shills, too--the DemoPublicans who vote with them on every count.

The Zell Millers (formerly known as Zig Zag Zell for all the times that "Democrat" voted with his Republican buddies) of Georgia--the Joe Liebermans of Connecticut--those are no more Democrats, than a crocodile could be a good dance partner.

Quit dancing with the crocs. Quit going "Oooh" at everything these pieces of shit-slime say--it's not like we don't know them for what they are! The "dark side" of America--to be held in check and OUT OF POWER FOREVER.

What this batch of pigs, now screaming over empathy are, is just that--the dark side that we all have, and that we all try to keep under control. I mean, nobody wakes up and says--I've been good, now I'll be bad? No--they had to go and STEAL THEIR ELECTIONS! Object lesson? Teach our kids--do not EVER EVER miss a chance to vote. Cause if YOU don't--THEY will!

That's how we'll control our Dark Side, should we wish to. NO MORE REPUBLICANS! Democrats and Independents ONLY. And considering what these pigs have cost America as well as the world--that shouldn't be too hard a decision. I don't know what it takes to 'de-certify' a political party--but I do know that the effort should be undertaken NOW, and never flag until the Republicans are all gone.

That's the LEAST that we owe to our kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lakoff-Brooks, 1-0
Posted by: baci&abbracci on Jun 1, 2009 12:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had read Brooks' on the NYT, and liked his prose, if not his thesis; I could not pinpoint what bothered me most, but Lakoff's article unveiled the subtle strategy behind the suave prose. God job, GL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lakoff-Brooks, 1-0 Posted by: baci&abbracci
Empathy v. Compassion??
Posted by: mythmorph on Jun 1, 2009 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello. I'm confused. How come the conservatives get to tack "compassionate" onto themselves, but "empathy" gets the bad rap? So can you be "compassionate", like those nice conservatives -- without being empathetic?

I don't think you can be empathetic without being compassionate. Were those "compassionate conservatives" closet empaths?

Someone, oh please mister, tell me the difference between the two, and, um, hello, conservatives: where did the "compassionate" go?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mpathy v. Compassion?? Posted by: winchelenator
not "conservatives..or demovatives
Posted by: Anthhh on Jun 1, 2009 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE WAR CRIMINAL PENTAGON is Waging a War on Empathy -- We Can't Let Them Win

dems and R's alike follow orders from the Pentagon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

- - The Golden Rule Permission and Likewise
Posted by: Anthhh on Jun 1, 2009 6:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Golden Rule = LIKEWISE and PERMISSION

When you love others, you PERMIT others to love you LIKEWISE (weather it be your intention to permit it, or not).

If you are killing others(and their families), you are PERMITTING others to kill you and you families. likewise.

This is the Golden Rule.
___________________________

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Canadian perspective on empathy
Posted by: rwlawson on Jun 1, 2009 7:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She makes us proud.

There is no ‘we' in identity politics

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing is more false than the empathy of the "progressive".
Posted by: Livemike on Jun 1, 2009 11:15 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many times must progressives criticise employers for lack of empathy towards their nations workers before you realise they have not empathy for the workers of other countries? How many times must them ban guns before you realise they have no empathy for the defenceless? How many times must they express their "empathy" by the use of government force before you realise that they have no other way of expressing what they call empathy? How is it empathic to deny a man a job because no minority passed the test to get that job? Empathy, in progressives speak simply means believing that people progrssives want benefitted should be benefitted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where was all this empathy for me . . .?
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 2, 2009 2:52 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the IRS twice destroyed my businesses and marriages, taking steps to assure that I would never be gainfully employed (or married)( again, and drove my son three attempts at suicide - all without the slightest vestige of legality - where was all the liberal and extremist otherwise "empathy?"

Empathy is to retaliate against BILL O'REILLY, doing exactly what liberals are accusing him of doing? EMPATHY?! I'd like to say "You must be kidding" - but I know you're not.

What is this - more "affirmitive action?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservatives Are Dualistic Thinkers.
Posted by: Libertine on Jun 2, 2009 6:49 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives tend to be dualistic, black and white thinkers. They tend to believe that most problems, even complex ones, have simple causes and equally simple solutions. They believe that if something isn't 100 percent right, then it must be 100 percent wrong.

They tend not to see nuances and mistrust thinking in shades of grey or considering mitigating factors

To them, thinking in shades of grey is evidence of "relative morality", which is anathema to them, as they champion "absolute morality", which requires a black and white mindset.

They are most concerned with upholding the letter of the law, rather than looking to affirm the spirit of the law.

It's no wonder with such a mindset that they would have trouble with empathy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservatives also practice empathy...for those like them
Posted by: Mr Nobody on Jun 2, 2009 7:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To discuss empathy, we need to agree on a definition, and conservatives do tend to bend its meaning to suit them, to suggest it is about feelings. Because today's conservatives must justify a whole host of unwholesome ideas that go against normal human emotions (torture, stripping people of their rights in the name of safety, advocating the roll back of civil rights to protect one's own interests, the exploitation of workers), the right wing must devalue feelings as inadequate for making decisions. Conservatives want to maintain the right to discriminate against others, to act in uncivilized ways, and need to cause others to mistrust their own feelings. If I don't trust my feelings because they are irrational, then how can I be sure when my gorge rises at the totalitarian policies of George W. Bush, that I have a valid case? Though my reaction may be out of a natural human revulsion for cruelty or unfairness, if my confidence in my feelings has been eroded, than I must look to the calculated rationale meant to vindicate the offensive policies (see the torture memos). However, feelings do come into play in making any decision--including feelings that one is doing the right thing or the feeling that one is objective.

Empathy is the foundation of a republic. A republic is the remedy for the mob rule of a democracy. In a republic, we elect leaders who vow to work for the good of ALL of their constituents, not just the powerful ones. How do officials do this without putting themselves in the place of the constituents unlike themselves? They empathize. They do not lose their minds with unbridled prejudice and emotions; they put themselves in the place of others.

Both conservatives and liberals practice empathy and it affects their decisions. However, conservatives like the status quo because it serves them and, therefore, empathize with those in power and those who look like themselves. Look at conservative arguments against Sotomayor. They don't argue cold hard facts. They appeal to emotion by putting themselves in the place of white people, white males, who might be discriminated against. They empathize with people in danger who need to own guns for protection. They empathize with unborn fetuses. And conservatives want judges who empathize with their own interests (see Alito and Roberts). Conservatives try to transform the laws of this country based upon a document which is not a legally binding document of law--the Declaration of Independence. That's where you have an argument for each individual's right to life, liberty, etc. But you live in an imperfect community, and you cannot make laws based on individuals. You must make laws based on the benefit of the diverse groups that make up the community.

Progressives see the flaws in the system and empathize with those without a voice. We recognize that each ruling made has repercussions not just on the present case, but into the future because our legal system is based on precedents. Corporations are now considered people because judges in the past have ruled that businesses, with all of their wealth and influence, can be considered citizens, and those rulings have devolved into our current ridiculous system. Perhaps rather than using the word empathy, we can rephrase it to mean foresight based upon the consideration of what is good for the majority of citizens, not solely on what is good for those who have traditionally enjoyed privilege.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excessive Care Taking Can Be Bad
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jun 2, 2009 9:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a term for it... codependency.

It is not healthy. Many people who tell themselves they are being empathetic in actuality have a desire to be needed by someone less fortunate than them or someone they feel pity for.

The golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can be twisted into denying people their individual liberty.

We see that right now in the drug war and other consensual crime laws for many advocate strict punishments to keep people from harming themselves.


Respect for individual liberty should come first in my opinion: "your body, your property, your choice".

Then comes empathy if you wish. But make sure it is actual empathy and not codependency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sophist vs. Sophist
Posted by: Rhetor on Jun 3, 2009 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lakoff makes some interesting points about (bad) Democratic rhetorical strategy, but his argument against Brooks is as hollow as Brooks' position is cynical. Yes, Brooks "reframes" empathy as idiosyncratic and private rather than social, but he does this because his ideology is ultimately that of the Nietzschean will-to-power. Brooks shows his hand in his very first sentence when he asserts that the rule of law is a fiction. It's not what's true that matters, because truth is a mirage; it's only who wins. So much for ethics. But Lakoff is ultimately stuck with exactly the same view, to which he adds
the support of science. Even his title references "winning" as the ultimate desideratum. Politics-is-war is the metaphor Brooks and Lakoff equally live by.

"As any cognitive linguist knows," goes Lakoff's argument, humans are stuck in their heads, with no trustworthy access to reality beyond our "frames" (begging the question, what does "know" mean in this assertion?). Following Antonio Damasio and according to Lakeoff, we're Humean beings, brains in vats, ever talking in a fog of battling metaphors that are no more than arbitrary linguistic constructions of the world. But in such a world, we must reckon, there can be no legitimate appeals to morality or law against violence and injustice. Lakoff has no leg to stand on when he invokes categories like "truth" and "non-truth" to criticize Brooks, or to talk of "real empathy," or "real" anything. The line between skepticism and nihilism in his thinking is utterly porous, and he's thus the same kind of Nietszchean as Brooks. (And he's just as disingenuous not to say so openly.) Progressives and liberals need to be realists in opposition to the "conservative" will-to-power stance (and there is competing linguistic theory that supports realism, for those who don't want to take it on faith). Obama is a skeptic, but not quite a full-blown nihilist. His pragmatism (which irks many progressives even more than it does "conservatives") is at least hinged on hope, a hope that his core ideal--"what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart"(Audacity of Hope, p.4)--is more than some wistful brain-bound sentiment. He hopes it's a true proposition because he believes that truth is ultimately based in knowable reality, not just in our imaginations. "Real empathy" is real because it is grounded in concrete experience, like that of Judge Sotomayor, which is far more (pace David Hume and Antonio Damasio) than the experience of our own sensations, passions, and abstract ideas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sophist vs. Sophist Posted by: Morell
» RE: Sophist vs. Sophist Posted by: ruruben
Alas George is his own worst enemy
Posted by: davemcarthur on Jun 3, 2009 5:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately George lacks science and frames issues in ways that destroy his argument. Perhaps he is too embedded in the US culture?

Humans exist in a context in which we need to live in acceptance and in harmony with the universal flux. We need conserve the flows and balances that sustain us.

George makes the same error he suggests progressives”/Democrats are making. He adopts and propagates the use of the “conservative” symbol of the people who most fail to conserve our essential resources and balances.

We cannot let those “non-conservatives” and folk like George wage a war on the wonderful “conservative” symbol. The act of conservation of the resources of this plant is what enables humanity to exist and it must be defended.

Some may be interested in an inventory of sustainable uses of key symbols that I have just posted. I am aware that it can be a shock for passionate and renowned “environmental educators” to suddenly realise the beautiful vision of reality that is being despoiled and that they are among the prime agents of the destruction of the state of being we know as science.
They have become traumatised and cruel on themselves for they have lacked the compassion to smile, acknowledge its OK and be grateful that they became aware of perceived errors in their ways so all can learn from them. My concern is such that I have reconstructed my Home page
http://www.bonusjoules.co.nz/
so it features a letter enjoining compassion in folk before being linked to the inventory.

In kindness

Dave McArthur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nigyu weyuhu hiu
Posted by: ruruben on Jun 15, 2009 6:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sjkdhr kVHS to DVD Converter||VHS Converter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement