A terminal loss of empathy


I’ve long considered one of my personal strengths to be my ability to empathize with those I disagree with. Now, for the benefit those of you who haven’t yet heard Rush’s monologue on the topic, “empathize” does not at all mean the same thing as “sympathize”. To empathize, means, in a nutshell, the ability to understand the arguments and thought processes of others, even as you might vigorously disagree with them.

The gun control crowd, for example, is a simple case. Get rid of guns, get rid of gun crimes. And legally owned gun is potentially a stolen gun, so, safer to just make gun ownership illegal. I’ve probably oversimplified that somewhat, but I think I generally got the gist, and at any rate, I doubt any of the gun control advocates would actually disagree with either of the two previous statements. Of course, we on the right know full well that “getting rid of guns” simply isn’t that easy, that even if we did somehow manage it, something else would replace them as the weapon of choice, and that in the meantime law-abiding citizens are being placed at a major disadvantage to the better-armed criminal element.

The point of that last paragraph was to demonstrate an exercise in empathy, an explanation as to why the other side thinks their arguments are correct, even as we might strongly hold otherwise.

Unfortunately, I see empathy rapidly becoming a lost art.  Every time you hear — and we have all heard this more times than we care to count — that criticism of President Obama is necessarily rooted in racism, you are hearing a person with no interest in empathy. You are hearing a person who refuses to accept even the possiblity that the opposition is arguing from a rational standpoint.  That person does not know what we’re really thinking, and to all appearances doesn’t want to know.

It is hard to know what to do with such people. How do you deal with a person who seems to be absolutely and irrevocably convinced that you are evil?

But it gets worse.

Lately I’ve become aware of a new breed on the left, what I’ll the Unfathomable Left, a group with a mindset that I have to admit I find entirely baffling.

Personifying the Unfathomable Left is MSNBC’s newest prime-time host, Cenk Uygur.  Just to cite one example of his mindset: Cenk has asserted, without the slightest hint of irony, that Barack Obama is more conservative than Ronald Reagan was.

Just ponder that a moment.  It’s one thing for someone to be far enough left that even Obama does not satisfy their desires for leftward activism.  On that score we here at RedState might even sympathize; few if any viable GOP presidential prospects for 2012 really deliver the level of unabashed conservatism we would like to see.  It is the lot in life of the activist to never be satisfied.  That much one can grasp.

But to trace the recent political history of the United States from 1989 onwards, and decide that it represents such a radical shift to the right that the standard bearer of conservatism of the 1980′s would be on the radical left fringe today…?  Try as I might I cannot wrap my head around it.

And lest one be tempted to chalk Uygur’s point of view about some fairy tale about the Reagan years that might be his only source of knowledge about that era, I note that, the name of his Internet show “The Young Turks” notwithstanding, he is in fact my elder by several weeks.

Even though I never had the opportunity to vote for the man, I remember quite clearly what the Reagan years were like, how he conducted himself in office, what he accomplished, what the criticisms of him were, and so on.  So from where does Cenk Uygur derive such a radically different recollection of that era from my own? We lived through it together. Yet it feels like we spent that time on different planets.

Try as I might, I cannot empathize with Cenk Uygur.

A recent thread I saw, I think it was on Facebook, drove the point home that empathy is slipping my grasp.  A conservative on Twitter made the following observation (from memory, possibly paraphrased): “The Left wants to see the Right censored, while the Right wants to see the Left keep on talking.”

Again, perhaps an oversimplification, but what do you want from 140 characters.  But we understand what it being said here.  How long have we heard the cries from the Left that Fox News needs to be taken down?  How long has the Left taunted us with the idea that they might try to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, thus badly hamstringing if not outright imploding conservative talk radio?  As for us on the right, sure, we cheered as Keith Olbermann took a fall, but we always wanted it to be — and wouldn’t have been nearly as satisfied if it hadn’t been — the result of MSNBC finally deciding that he was just too much of an albatross for them to endure financially.  And yes, we would like to see federal funding pulled for the likes of NPR and PBS, but anyone really think those institutions will simply blow away in the wind for lack of that source of funding?

Yes, some on the Left are of the mindset that federal funding is the basic way of showing support for something, and that therefore pulling said funding is effectively the same thing as trying to destroy it.  So, if one were to put the above tweet up for comment by a liberal audience, one would expect such arguments to appear.

But what I saw instead when someone actually did just that, however, threw me. There was no discussion, no attempt to point out the flaws in the statement, not even the citing of potential contrary examples like I just did. No, their reaction was unanimous and the mirror image of my reaction to just about anything Cenk Uygur says: “Buh?”

From their point of view, nothing could be any more obvious that the exact opposite of the tweet was the truth of the matter.  So obvious was it, to them, that it didn’t even merit the slightest hint of discussion.  At most, just a general agreement that the more conservatives are allowed to talk, the more rope they produce to hang themselves with (new tone!), which of course explains why the highly expressive Tea Party movement only resulted in driving the independents ever deeper into Democrat hands and thus allowed them to extended their majorities in Congress last year… oh wait.

But my point with that last example is not to poke holes in their logic but to show, again, how empathy has been lost.  They simply cannot grasp our mindset and accept that it is even terrestrial in origin, any more than I can do for an increasing number on their side.

There is another word for a person for whom one has no empathy: enemy.

Nothing lasts forever. Someday, one would hope many centuries distant, even the Great American Experiment will have run its course and given way to something else. Something, one hopes, even better than what this country has had to offer its citizens, but hopefully that will not be our choice to make.

I keep invoking “hopefully” because even now I see the seeds for the eventual fracturing of this nation being planted.  It is partially expressed in the very name of this website, Red State, which stands in contrast to its opposite, the blue states.  While some pundits may try to gloss over the distinction with the glib assertion that most states are just varying shades of purple, that is merely an effect of our more mobile society.  In this day and age people with wildly differing political views could easily be next-door neighbors.  Depending on their level of sociability they might not even know it.  Just a few weeks ago, someone living less than ten blocks away from me had the “honor” of having his crude insult direct at Andrew Breitbart retweeted by Breibart for the world to see.  It was a stark reminder to me how someone can be your neighbor, yet live in an entirely different world.

We, as a nation, are fast entering a very Disunited State.  And it pains me that, for all these words I have written about it, a cure for this condition eludes me. I’d suggest a striving for honesty, but how can we do that when we cannot even agree on what Truth is?  What good does it do to tell the Left to stop lying about racial motivations within the Tea Party when to all appearances they believe in them wholeheartedly?

Annoying advertisements notwithstanding, I have see the true end of America.  It won’t happen next year, it probably won’t happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen, and now I have seen a vision of how it will happen.

Alas, I am out of answers.  I can only hope those yet to come will have more success.


Category: , ,

RSS feed

11 Comments Leave a comment

I am not sure if I an agree that it is worse than before

kyle8 (Diary) Tuesday, March 29th at 5:07PM EST (link)

In the day that I grew up in the 60′s and 70′s, and especially before that in the 40′s and 50′s, There was supposedly a much less partisan, and a more polite political climate.

But that is mostly not true, People in general were more polite than in our modern culture, but what seemed like a less rancorous politics was mostly because the left had near total control of everything.

There was no conservative media, there were few true conservative politicians in either party, There were only a handful of conservative academics and no conservative think tanks.

Even so, the left showed no empathy at all. The left never had the slightest compunction against comparing any and all people to the right of them as Nazi’s and the KKK.

I remember even when I started college in the mid 70′s hearing conservative economics such as the work of Milton Friedman being treated with total scorn by professors without an ounce of his learning and understanding.

The political left have always been a nasty lot, incapable of introspection or higher thoughts.

“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle

Agreed

aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, March 29th at 5:31PM EST (link)

Remember Noam Chomsky? Gore Vidal? Did those guys have class? Not really; they just had the one-party media to cover for them.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

William F. Buckley had class

leftylurker (Diary) Wednesday, March 30th at 2:06PM EST (link)

I didn’t like some of his earlier writing, especially on race, but he repented and got on with things.

He was an amazing figure, and a conservative that I agreed with often. We need more people like that.

What do you think of Larry Lessig? He’s pretty clearly a liberal, but also pretty clearly an amazing thinker.

 
 
 

Very well-written.

heartlander (Diary) Wednesday, March 30th at 1:31AM EST (link)

Great insights, clearly expressed. Keep up the great work!

I don’t know the answers, either — but you’ve done a very good job here of spotlighting the questions.

“The still, small voice of God in every human soul is the greatest ally of the pro-life cause, and why it will ultimately prevail.”
–Donald R. McClarey

 

Yes, the decline in civility in five years is extraordinary

civil truth (Diary) Wednesday, March 30th at 1:53PM EST (link)

When I adopted my screen name, I thought that rational discussion between right and left was still feasible. However, the number of leftists will to converse rationally has sharply diminished.

What has happened is that the left has adopted a secular religion with its dogma, but has decided that rather than rely on persuasion and free choice, it will borrow the age-old methodology of persecution to stamp out heresy.

Thereby once again validating the oft-quoted Chesterton statement “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.” [Don't know if this is genuine since I haven't found an attribution to his writings yet.]]

Which means that you have to ascribe malign motives to your opponents to justify to yourself why you can’t discuss things with them, or convince yourself that they are too ignorant to even have something worth saying. Not to mention begging the question when needed.

This is a bit disjointed, but the bottom line is the insecurity that plagued the old Soviet Union that you can only feel safe when you’ve stamped out any opposition.

Which is an object lesson to the left, once you tear down protections against government coercion to achieve your goals, then you have no protection when someone stronger than you decides they want to have their way.

The greatest evil…is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. -C.S. Lewis

http://www.gmsplace.com/

To clarify a bit to those from the left who may be lurking

civil truth (Diary) Wednesday, March 30th at 2:15PM EST (link)

This is not meant as a blanket condemnation of everyone on the left, though there really don’t seem to be many who haven’t fallen prey to this seduction of short-cutting persuasion in favor of coercion, at least among those dominating the pulpit.

Rather I’m outlining the trend line that I’m seeing, and connecting it with the leftists of the 60s-70s who are the prototypes of the above picture and seeing parallels with other countries that have fallen into tyranny.

Another variant of the ethic of ends justifying the means (cutting down the protections.

But for those willing to engage with respect and speech, we need that kind of conversation. No one has a complete monopoly on wisdom.

The greatest evil…is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. -C.S. Lewis

http://www.gmsplace.com/

The left lost its way during the antiwar movement

leftylurker (Diary) Wednesday, March 30th at 2:20PM EST (link)

I had a wonderful professor, named Jack Scharr, who said that the left lost its soul when they went after Vietnam Vets.

I agree with this, I have several vets in my family, and they were not treated well. I’m happy to see the modern left treating soldiers with respect…i mean, there are the code pink whackjobs, but they are in the minority.

I really hope that things calm down. The last election brought out a lot of ugly in this country. We could use a little healing. I don’t know how that happens though. President Obama is either incapable or unwilling to help us work together, and I’m not really seeing a lot of uniters on the right either.

The left cemented its fate during the Vietnam War--

knitwit (Diary) Thursday, March 31st at 7:03PM EST (link)

when the Democrat run Congress chose to throw away the hard fought and won Vietnam War by defunding the negotiated ending which would have finalized the win and a freed South Vietnam. When they chose to deliberately turn their backs on the American lives and treasure already spent to win the war, and condemn every freedom loving South Vietnamese person to the *tender mercies* of the Communists in the North, to score political points and exercise their *power* in opposition to the President, they lost any claim they ever had to a soul. The blood that is on their hands will NEVER wash clean.

Then, they compounded their evil by denigrating and spitting on the veterans who gave the best of their lives and honor fighting in the war that the Democrat Congress threw away. The final nail in their coffin was the complicity of the 5th Estate in their evil deeds; nay, in glorifying their evil and codifying it into *truth* and teaching it to the children for generations to come.

One could make the case that everything that has happened from that point on, has its roots in the evil that was whitewashed and never ever acknowledged or exposed thoroughly to the light.

“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country”–Nathan Hale
Compromise: The art of giving to your enemy that which he is not powerful enough to take.

It was a Dem. war

renny (Diary) Thursday, March 31st at 8:04PM EST (link)

started by JFK and Johnson, but the twists of the left have turned it into Nixon’s war the way Watergate turned a landslide election for Nixon into an abdication and denial of the nation’s choice for pres. I do not say Nixon was a nice guy and didn’t deserve the impeachment movement, but he likely would never have been impeached, any more than Bubba was, but like the election he would not contest in 1960, Nixon thought more of the US than any Dem. has ever done, and he resigned.

 
 
 
 
 

I think what people are beginning to realize

runner12 (Diary) Thursday, March 31st at 6:14PM EST (link)

is that there are two fundamentally different philosophies regarding how America should be governed. On the one hand, you have those who believe in the Constitution which involves limited government and fiscal responsibility. These people would be us (conservatives).

On the other hand you have the progressive statists, who believe the government should regulate most everything and shoud be responsible for everything (neo-socialism). This group is your present Democrat Party and unfortunately some Republicans.

There is no compromise between these two groups and no middle ground. That is why we must win the war of ideas so that we can drive the neo-socialists out. The good news is that I can see small signs that we are winning the war of ideas, mainly through the Tea Party. But it wil be a hard, long fight. We cannot give up in this fight.

Let us be thankful that the lines are being drawn and that Americans are being awakened. This is what must happen for us to turn the tide in our favor.

 

Rome, all over again...

CJB68 Saturday, April 2nd at 6:10AM EST (link)

   I am reminded again of the fate of Rome, which was very much the shining city on the hill of its day.  After casting out a tyrant whose family exploited the openness of their society (compared to others of the era), they started out with a constitutionally elected representative republic.  For a while, things went relatively smoothly, though with a setback here and there.  Then came the period when they started extending their influence beyond the Italian peninsula, and took control of territories belonging to Carthage and the Hellenistic kingdoms.

   It seems to me that the sudden influx of wealth (loot and slaves acquired from war campaigning being a form of economic activity in those days) bred into the Roman system generation of political leaders which got the ball rolling on increasing corruption and further removal of the republic from its foundations.  Although there were certainly tensions between the upper classes (patricians) and lower (plebians), these were generally resolved peacefully with few outbursts of violence.  Not so, any more.

   Within a couple hundred years of the second defeat of Carthage, and after a long stretch of conquests made in the cause of gathering more and more riches to be spent on aggrandising whomever could lead the victorious army and funding his political ambitions at Rome, the republic was gone.  The bickering and disagreements between patrician and plebian had turned into outright murder of whomever in the opposition the victor decided was allowed to be murdered.  An age of dictatorship had begun.

   We all know what happened to Rome once the dictators got lazy and the funds ran out.

Delusional and Arrogant.  The Modern Democratic Philosophy.