It's the EMPATHY, stupid!

[rudy23]

This is why we should be easily winning the great debate in this country, and why we should win it every time. Our side has empathy, theirs has none. If there's one word that summarizes what it means to be a Democrat, it's empathy. Instead of getting dragged down into the particulars of these debates, which are always framed by the right, just call them out for what they are--barbarians who are incapable of empathy.

Empathy is one of the primary things that seperates us from animals. Without empathy, our civilization is reduced to a bunch of animals fighting for food. We should remind people of this every time it's appropriate.

Jesus was the embodiment of empathy. Empathy is the foundation of the golden rule, which is the foundation of every major religion.

Democrats have empathy for people who don't look like themselves, for people who have less, for Iraqi civilians who have done nothing to deserve the death and destruction that surrounds them, for Katrina evacuees, for people wrongly accused of a crime, for the sick, for people of a different sexual orientation, etc., etc.

Republicans who want an "every man for himself" society are animals who aren't capable of functioning on any level higher than self-gratification.

This is a concept that most Americans believe in. It's a concept that can be reduced to one word. We should be selling ourselves on this--we're the party of empathy. Society will function a lot more smoothly if people who understand other people, and wish to ease their suffering are in charge.

[DistressedAmerican]

1. Don't Discount The Empathy Shown By Animals!

It is usually far greater than that shown by the far right.

On the broad point, you are completely right. Why else do you think Bush trotters out "compassionate conservative" before screwing the poor?

[coffeenap]

2. Bumpersticker idea: Got empathy? Vote Democratic! nt

[Jed Dilligan]

3. Empathy also allows us to be cruel

We share the gift of empathy with certain great apes, who also possess (like us) "Machiavellian" intelligence--and the unique ability to make war.

So I would say that the Republicans can feel our pain, but they want it to be worse and worse and worse. They are actually attacking the parts of themselves that they hate, and increasingly I wonder if those parts are the gay parts.

[IdaBriggs]

4. I'm not sure I agree with you about "empathy."

I think its important, but I think its more about "justice" and "being fair."

I want everyone to have the same opportunity to live good lives -- I want them to get the best education, regardless of their income level, or the color of their skin, or their gender, or any other superficial nonsense. I want them to have access to the best medical care, regardless of any of the above. I want social safety nets in place that help people by giving them a hand UP instead of a hand OUT.

To me, its more an issue of practicality than empathy. When I pay for good schools in my neighborhood (even if I don't have children), I am investing in *MY* future by getting good fellow citizens who will go on to become doctors, lawyers, electricians, and teachers. By making sure good medicine is available for everyone, I ensure that its also there for when someone I love needs it.

By watching out for other people, I also watch out for myself. Frankly, I think the real problem is that Republicans are short sighted fools who can't think beyond "today" -- its when we "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst" by getting the best information on everything -- how we impact the planet, and what we can do about it, for example -- that things get better.

My latest theory is that most Republicans who "hate big government" simply flunked their high school Government class where they should have learned about concepts like "checks and balances" and the fact that *WE* are the government, so hating "the government" is really about hating yourself.

Again, I think its less about "empathy" and more of "enlightened self interest." :)

[calmblueocean]

5. I think this is a point that often gets lost.

The truth is that there are many, many people in America who have very little empathy, who draw their circles of concern with a radius of one, or even zero, people. I've known a number of parents who've said, "When you're 18, your on your own," or "My parents never helped me go to college." This situation is rougly analagous to the choices we make nationally between investing in our people, or only rewarding the wealthy. You don't have to be very empathetic to realize that helping your kid get through college will likely benefit you when you are old and need someone who can afford to help take care of you. Likewise, investing in a system that helps everyone get ahead is ultimately more productive than one which only a few do. I've always thought of progressive policies simply as wise government. The fact that it happens to be kind government as well is just a wonderful bonus.

[IdaBriggs]

6. I like the way you said that --

"I've always thought of progressive policies simply as wise government. The fact that it happens to be kind government as well is just a wonderful bonus."

And I agree with you! :)

[RufusEarl]

7. I agree as well!

[rudy23]

8. You can fine tune the argument, but in simple terms, I think...

it's the main difference between the sides. I think you can be empathetic, and still act in your own interest. Where the right has really gained the upper hand, is by turning this strength into a weakness, and painting the left as hippies, or "bleeding hearts" who want to give everything away. We need to reclaim this as a strength, because it's the foundation of what we stand for, and "empathy" is the simplest way to put it.

I would like to see people on the left play this card more often. So many arguments just come down to this simple question--should you care about what happens to other people?

Example: When debating the Iraq war, you rarely hear anyone talk about the 100,000+ estimated Iraqi civilians we've killed since we've been over there. Is the left afraid of looking soft by neglecting to make this part of the debate? Do we even have to have a debate on why killing 100,000 people is a bad thing?

Do we even have to have a debate on why the government should help people who lost everything to hurricane Katrina?

Do we have to have a debate that we don't want mothers to have to decide which sick kid they can afford to take to the hospital?

The right has reframed these debates at their foundation, to where the question now is, "Should we be forced to care about people we don't know?"

That's why we need to unravel these arguments at their foundation, by answering "Yes, we should care about people we don't know. That's the mark of any great civilization, and anything less is barbaric, satanic and animalistic. (or whatever colorful adjectives you can come up with)"

[IdaBriggs]

9. "Should we be forced to care about people we don't know?"

Nicely analyzed!

[Breeze54]

10. You might find this of interest. Good post!

http://www.easttennessean.com/media/storage/paper203/news/2005/03/24/Viewpoint/Empathy.Influences.Political.Party.Affiliations-902497.shtml?norewrite200606261460&sourcedomain=www.easttennessean.com

Empathy influences political party affiliations
By: Josh Chambers
Issue date: 3/24/05 Section: ViewPoint

Last week I introduced the idea that empathy may be one of the key factors that explain why some occupations tend to lean either to the liberal side or to the conservative side.
This week, I'd like to expand that to politics as a whole, and how it may explain some of the two major political parties' policies.
It's a fairly well-known fact that there is no question that the Democratic Party is the more diverse of the two major parties.
Exit polls from the 2004 presidential election show that a majority of women, Latino Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and other non-Caucasian Americans, those with no high school diploma, those with a graduate degree, those who are liberal, those who are moderate, those making less than $50,000, those who are Jewish, those who practice in a non-mainstream religion those who are non-religious those who attend services "occasionally" or "rarely" and those voting based on education, Iraq, health care and the economy all voted for Kerry.
Kerry also received 75 percent of the vote for those who voted based upon which candidate "cared about people".
The point to all of this is that the Democratic Party represents the majority of virtually every demographic involved in American politics other than straight, white, Anglo-Saxon males who are Christian and attend church on a weekly basis.
This has many interesting effects. First, many disparate groups are required to work together in order to get their individual agendas accomplished. This working together helps create empathy for each other within the Democratic Party.
It's hard to convince another demographic to work with you on an issue if you don't understand that demographic's motivations.
The Democratic Party, as noted above, includes every minority group, as well as many of the poorest Americans. This drives them towards policies geared towards equality for all, and equal opportunity for everyone, regardless of upbringing.
They believe that making sure that every person is given the rights that they are guaranteed should trump trying to deny rights to someone who maybe shouldn't have those rights, such as felons or illegal aliens.
However, having a party that acts more like a coalition of groups makes it difficult for the Democratic Party to form a single, coherent platform.

The Republican Party on the other hand only has empathy towards the same, small group of people who are inside the party - those who are wealthy and/or of strong Christian faith.

Continued...

[rudy23]

12. Great article!

It makes sense that the party that celebrates diversity, is going to be more naturally empathetic than the monolithic party. I don't think this is learned, I think empathetic people gravitate to those who send the message that jives with their sense of right and wrong.

[rudy23]

11. Many repubs fit the dictionary definition of sociopath ---

1. somebody affected with a personality disorder marked by aggressive, violent, antisocial thought and behavior and a lack of remorse or empathy

It's a very simple argument. Repubs who don't care about innocent people dying, suffering, or being imprisoned are sociopaths. We can't let them frame the argument anymore. They're trying to tell us that bad is good, up is down, and in many cases we're accepting that.

Lack of empathy isn't the same as strength. It's a disease, and just because it's epidemic, doesn't mean it's okay to let it slide.