Conservatives and Empathy

[Oddball]

I'm guessing someone has read George Lakoff.

I have charged conservatives with a lack of empathy and felt nothing but sympathy for their lack of empathy and I have never intended to use it in a pejorative manner. Often times when I have charged a conservative with lacking empathy I've prefaced it with something to the effect of "I do not intend to hurt your feelings and I understand how it could seem that way, but consider it from their perspective. Practice empathy." They always take offense and frequently get irate further demonstrating their lack of empathy.

Pity isn't empathy and Lakoff is a piker.

 

[Bern80]

I think there are a few explanations of why the right lack empathy. The strongest argument is how they are raised.


In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it. ref ref

I'm guessing someone has read George Lakoff.

I have charged conservatives with a lack of empathy and felt nothing but sympathy for their lack of empathy and I have never intended to use it in a pejorative manner. Often times when I have charged a conservative with lacking empathy I've prefaced it with something to the effect of "I do not intend to hurt your feelings and I understand how it could seem that way, but consider it from their perspective. Practice empathy." They always take offense and frequently get irate further demonstrating their lack of empathy.

Posts like this only convince me more that it's the left wingers of this board that don't have the first clue what empathy is, let alone who does or doesn't have it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm guessing someone has read George Lakoff.

I have charged conservatives with a lack of empathy and felt nothing but sympathy for their lack of empathy and I have never intended to use it in a pejorative manner. Often times when I have charged a conservative with lacking empathy I've prefaced it with something to the effect of "I do not intend to hurt your feelings and I understand how it could seem that way, but consider it from their perspective. Practice empathy." They always take offense and frequently get irate further demonstrating their lack of empathy.

Pity isn't empathy and Lakoff is a piker.

That is true, and empathy in and of itself is not necessarily a virtue. I can and do empathise with the man who is provoked to rage and violence sufficient to cause harm or injury to another. I can empathise with road rage or anger that wants to do violence to a kid throwing a temper tantrum.

But empathizing with the dynamics involved does not translate into tolerance or excuse for violence that causes injury or pain or risks the life or well being of another.

I can an do empathise with being frustrated at not being able to find a job--been there, done that, trashed the T-shirt. I can empathise with longing to be like some who don't even bother to check prices but just pick up whatever looks good to them at the market. I don't know how many times I looked at the rib roast or rack of ribs and passed them by because they were budget busters. I can empathise with the young person who can't afford a nice apartment or a good car or an Ipad or a vacation. Been there too.

But empathizing with the longings and frustrations of others does not translate into justification to just give up, to unlawfully take what another has, to demand that others, via the government, provide me with what I want.

It is not empathy that suggests the 'rich' man should have less and the government should give the poor more. That is something far more sinister and dangerous than any lack of empathy could produce.

 

[Ava]

Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.

Then again, the left has shown themselves to be in possession of the tiniest hearts out there -as evidenced by the widely circulated annual lists of political types who give the most and least to private charities- so it's little surprise that they'd project their callousness onto everyone else.

True. And at least we can spell...empathy. ( "lack of empthy" from OP )

 

[derk]

Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.

Then again, the left has shown themselves to be in possession of the tiniest hearts out there -as evidenced by the widely circulated annual lists of political types who give the most and least to private charities- so it's little surprise that they'd project their callousness onto everyone else.

True. And at least we can spell...empathy. ( "lack of empthy" from OP )

Lack of empathy for the OP.

 

[hippie2049]

Pity isn't empathy and Lakoff is a piker.

It's tricky empathizing with those without empathy.

 

[code1211]

The Democrat "solution" to the rise of Medicare cost is to cover less of those of those costs by reducing the amount that a provider may charge.

To repeat what's already been said a dozen times.

The Democratic approach thus far has been the EHR incentives (and the Regional Extension Centers that have been helping providers to adopt the technology), shared savings, paying for value instead of just procedures, reducing preventable hospital readmissions, the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Initiative, greater transparency through the various Compare tools, bundled payments, quality reporting, reducing hospital-acquired conditions, the creation of the IPAB, improving patient safety, a host of new tools for fighting fraud, and so on. These are about changing the way Medicare does business to get more value out of the health care system and thus stretch health care dollars further.

Not as easy a soundbite as your "policy of do nothing" bullshit, but that's life. We'll all just have to take solace in results.

Liberals love complexity. It shrouds the truth from review. However you want to package the lies of the Democrats, the truth is that the method to save dollars that the Democrats employ is to simply reduce the amounts paid to the doctors.

In this industry advice piece, it exhorts doctors to find ways to harvest more money fronm non-government sources if they want to maintain their cashflows.

The question is unanswered. What happens when the providers refuse to offer care for the reduced rates?

Poor planning and platitudes don't get the job done.



As Medicare Payment Reduction Takes Effect, Physicians Need to Look at Options -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians

As Medicare Payment Reduction Takes Effect, Physicians Need to Look at Options
How to Cope With Lower Medicare Payments in Your Practice
By Sheri Porter

Posted: 6/18/2010, 4:15 p.m. -- As of June 18, CMS began processing Medicare claims with dates of service of June 1 and later with a 21.3 percent physician fee cut. What does this mean for physicians, and how can they minimize the effect on their immediate cash flow?

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-...ents-new-medicare-patients-medicare-providers

“This is a very serious problem for us,’’ said Dr. Lynda Young, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society. “Obviously we recognize the need for cost cutting, but the depth of the projected cuts is really going to have a serious impact on access. Physicians are going to say, ‘We can’t take any new Medicare patients because we just can’t survive.’ ’’

 

[code1211]

I remember watching a newscaster talking to a woman in her twenties several years back and asking her what could be done to help the handicapped.
Her response was that they should be executed.
The newscaster asked her how she could be so callous and her response was to be taken aback and say that she considered herself to be a nice person.
That woman clearly had a lack of empathy toward others and I am sure fits right in with the likes of Glenn Beck and the ultra-right wing conservatives.
There is no empathy from the uber-rich. They are simply money addicts and consider all others to be no more than bugs. They want this nation to be turned into what the third-world nations have for a work force. No unions. No decent wages. No irritating government regulations for the safety of said workers. No environmental regulations. All such things hamper.....more riches.

Bill Gates? Carnegie? You're an idiot.

 

[editec]

I see that most of you right wing cranks are still confusing empathy with sympathy.

It really doesn't really surprise me that you cannot even imagine what the difference really is.

In fact that that's exactly my point about the blindness that I think many of our RW cranks have.

Talking about empathy to some of you is like trying to describe COLOR to a colorblind person.

 

[chanel]

It's such a bogus semantic argument. It's like saying "Who loves more? Men or women?" Can anyone define "love"?

I have deep respect for the do-gooders of this world. There are people who contribute time and money to their communities, schools, and all different organizations. I have far more respect for people who "empathize" with people they know, rather than blathering about the plight of those they don't.

Personally, I have more "empathy" for abused and neglected kids than I do for a 20 something without health insurance.( Heartless I know.)

 

[Oddball]

I see that most of you right wing cranks are still confusing empathy with sympathy.

It really doesn't really surprise me that you cannot even imagine what the difference really is.

In fact that that's exactly my point about the blindness that I think many of our RW cranks have.

Talking about empathy to some of you is like trying to describe COLOR to a colorblind person.

Empathy doesn't come from compulsion and bureaucracy, Skippy.

Talk about blind.

 

[Bfgrn]

I can't speak for how anyone else was raised Bf. I was raised to be as non-dependent on others as possible. I was raised Catholic, but no longer ascribe to any organized relgion, nor do I believe that one needs to be religious to have a good moral compass. You don't need god to have things like integrity, personal accountability or generosity.

I know the debate over the general welfar clause as well and do acknowledge that Hamilton's somewhat borader view has prevailed. Unfortunately winning, does not always equate to being right. It is simply better, despite whatever altrusitic intentions government may have, for their spending power to very specific and very limited. It also makes sense that Hamilton's view would prevail. Let's face it, financial discipline is hard. Look at how many people in our country are in debt. Most individuals eventually have to do something about it. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. But a government doesn't have that constraint. It can simply vote itself more money, or even have more of it printed. The interpretation of the general welfare clause was broadened for no other real reason than because government could. It gives them more power and power is we all know is rather addicting.

I agree that the founders would be appalled at the extent to which the government and corporations are intermingling. But don't for a second think that means they would be all for all of the entitlements we have established since their time. The founders were leary of the altruism of government. They knew that road to tyranny is paved with the best of intentions meaning despite how compassionate or kind policy x may sound it really is best for government to stay the hell out of it.

Bern, you keep emoting without any facts.

HERE are the FACTS:

We tried a charity only approach...it FAILED. Maybe conservatives feel the elderly and poor need to beg.

Medicare has lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. It has increased life expectancies and given our ancestors who worked, fought wars and built a better America for our benefit a dignified end of life.

Not only is Medicare a HUGE success for the elderly in America, it is MORE cost effective that private insurance. This comes from a CONSERVATIVE...

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

2003

I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

* Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

* The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

According to the Urban Institute's Marilyn Moon, who testified before the Senate Committee on Aging, Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

* The average income of Medicare beneficiaries is closer to the poverty line than many of us working folks would like to believe: According to government statistics Moon cites, more than 90 percent of retirees covered by Medicare earn less than $32,000 per year for individuals or $40,000 for couples. In 2003, Medicare beneficiaries will spend an average of 23 percent of their income on health care!

Moon argues somewhat convincingly that Medicare has been a success. While not necessarily denying that certain reforms might be needed, she stresses the importance of preserving three essential tenets of the program:

1. Its universal coverage nature creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest.


2. It pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick.

3. Through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care.

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.

William Ralph Brody

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

I'm not emoting anything. It's you who is failing to see reality. Facts? It is an undeniable fact that our government has far more power than it had at the time of the founding. The founders knew what too much governmental power meant for a citizenry because that is what they fled from. You on the other hand are the one changing the subject completely in order to avoid what you know to be true. Try actually responding to what I said first, then we can talk about whether a system that is going to be bankrupt can somehow be called efficient.

FACTS are 'reality' Bern. You keep repeating what you feel, or misinformation that you have been indoctrinated with.

I have provided facts, you emote opinion.

I noticed your signature line. THESE FACTS should really blow up your dogma...

Ronald Reagan looted Social Security.

Looting Social Security

By Paul Craig Roberts

Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and “unsustainable.” They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson’s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Years ago with stagflation defeated and a rising stock market, I favored privatizing Social Security as a way of creating a funded retirement system and producing greater savings and larger incomes for retirees. At that time Wall Street was interested, not for my reasons, but in order to collect the fees from managing the funds.

Had Social Security been privatized, I doubt that Wall Street would have been permitted to deregulate the financial system. Too much would have been at stake.

After the latest crisis brought on by Wall Street’s dishonesty and greed, trusting Wall Street to manage anyone’s old age pension requires a leap of faith that no intelligent person can make.

Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderly’s old age security.

Social Security, formerly an untouchable “third rail of politics,” is now “unsustainable,” while the real unsustainables–a pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terror–are the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

More

Paul Craig Roberts - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see that most of you right wing cranks are still confusing empathy with sympathy.

It really doesn't really surprise me that you cannot even imagine what the difference really is.

In fact that that's exactly my point about the blindness that I think many of our RW cranks have.

Talking about empathy to some of you is like trying to describe COLOR to a colorblind person.

And it seems to me that you leftwingers are accusing rightwingers of something of which they are not guilty. We have provided numerous examples of empathy resulting in wrongheaded policy and programs all of which have been thoroughly ignored by the leftwingers. It doesn't fit your road map of blame and your self righteous assumption that you are somehow more compassionate and noble because you can 'empathize' with the less fortunate and if the rightwing could do that, they would see things differently.

And we eeeeeeeevul rightwingers have called bullshit on that. Seeing that empathy converted into sympathetic action is not always a good thing is not the same thing as not having empathy.

 

[Greenbeard]

Liberals love complexity. It shrouds the truth from review. However you want to package the lies of the Democrats, the truth is that the method to save dollars that the Democrats employ is to simply reduce the amounts paid to the doctors. [...]

Posted: 6/18/2010, 4:15 p.m. -- As of June 18, CMS began processing Medicare claims with dates of service of June 1 and later with a 21.3 percent physician fee cut. What does this mean for physicians, and how can they minimize the effect on their immediate cash flow?

You're under the impression that physicians face these cuts because of a Democratic law? They don't. The SGR that threatens to slash Medicare physician payments every year was passed by the Republican Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. A greater appreciation for complexity might have prevented that mistake, which still hasn't been resolved, aside from short-term overrides.

 

[BDBoop]

Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.

"[T]rying to measure a life of poverty as a collection of stuff isn't really going to come close to measuring that same life as a whole life."

Category: But we knew this already, why does it now matter?

Note my new category of thought, I have always wondered what goes into making a person of conscience and what goes into making a conservative? So the piece below struck me again as well, 'I already knew that.' But a Fox conservative talking head learning something still is worth a thought, if only to say why did she not know that before she knew that. How is it we know anything.

'Falling into the empathy gap'

"Fox, of course, would be the very same news network that endorsed a comparison between birth control and "pedicures," so this is no small change of heart on Kelly's part. The Family and Medical Leave Act, under which she received her post-birth benefits, was introduced by a Democratic representative, approved almost entirely by Democratic legislators (with Republicans voting almost entirely against it*), and signed into law by a Democratic president - and Kelly, believe it or not, doesn't think the bill is liberal enough. As tempting as it is, though, just to deride her for lacking the sort of minimal empathy that we expect from children, I want to add a little bit of a wrinkle to Savage's analysis."

Rust Belt Philosophy: Falling into the empathy gap

I saw the title and thought "Oxymoron much? Empathetic Conservatives HAS to rate right up there with Military Intelligence!"

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberals love complexity. It shrouds the truth from review. However you want to package the lies of the Democrats, the truth is that the method to save dollars that the Democrats employ is to simply reduce the amounts paid to the doctors. [...]

Posted: 6/18/2010, 4:15 p.m. -- As of June 18, CMS began processing Medicare claims with dates of service of June 1 and later with a 21.3 percent physician fee cut. What does this mean for physicians, and how can they minimize the effect on their immediate cash flow?

You're under the impression that physicians face these cuts because of a Democratic law? They don't. The SGR that threatens to slash Medicare physician payments every year was passed by the Republican Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. A greater appreciation for complexity might have prevented that mistake, which still hasn't been resolved, aside from short-term overrides.

Which was signed, without any quibble, by a Democratic President who then took full credit for achieving a balanced budget and has been given credit for that and a good economy by the leftwing ever since. He deserves props for signing it. The GOP deserves props for passing it. Both share responsibility for unintended consequences that are inevitable in any large scale piece of legislation.

And none of that has one iota to do with anything re empathizing with the less fortunate.

 

[Greenbeard]

Which was signed, without any quibble, by a Democratic President who then took full credit for achieving a balanced budget and has been given credit for that and a good economy by the leftwing ever since. He deserves props for signing it. The GOP deserves props for passing it.

Oh good lord. "The Balanced Budget Act" was a name. It didn't actually balance the budget. The fact that its primary budget balancing mechanism--cuts to Medicare physician payments--is manually overridden by Congress every year or two should be the first clue to that. As I've pointed out before, the BBA was actually adding to the deficit in the first year that the Clinton Administration registered a surplus.

Looking back at the CBO's analysis of the Republican's Balanced Budget Act in 1997, the deficit impact at the end of the '90s/beginning of the '00s was supposed to be:

• FY98: Net increase in the deficit of $200 million
• FY99: $12.6 billion in deficit reduction
• FY00: $35 billion in deficit reduction (note that some of the Medicare cuts that were to account for this reduction were eliminated by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999)
• FY01: $18.2 billion in deficit reduction

In reality, the large deficit reductions in the BBA were scheduled to start taking place in FY02 and thereafter (two-thirds of which was to come from cuts to federal health spending in FY02 and virtually all of which was to come from those sources in subsequent years). When Congress began overriding those Medicare cuts manually in 2003--the "doc fix" to cope with the BBA's broken SGR formula that we're still stuck with today--the deficit reduction potential of the BBA was officially rescinded.

The budgets of the late '90s owe nothing to the BBA. The balanced budgets (ha?) of the mid-'00s would have, if the BBA had actually been capable of doing what it promised.

 

[Foxfyre]

Which was signed, without any quibble, by a Democratic President who then took full credit for achieving a balanced budget and has been given credit for that and a good economy by the leftwing ever since. He deserves props for signing it. The GOP deserves props for passing it.

Oh good lord. "The Balanced Budget Act" was a name. It didn't actually balance the budget. The fact that its primary budget balancing mechanism--cuts to Medicare physician payments--is manually overridden by Congress every year or two should be the first clue to that. As I've pointed out before, the BBA was actually adding to the deficit in the first year that the Clinton Administration registered a surplus.

Looking back at the CBO's analysis of the Republican's Balanced Budget Act in 1997, the deficit impact at the end of the '90s/beginning of the '00s was supposed to be:

• FY98: Net increase in the deficit of $200 million
• FY99: $12.6 billion in deficit reduction
• FY00: $35 billion in deficit reduction (note that some of the Medicare cuts that were to account for this reduction were eliminated by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999)
• FY01: $18.2 billion in deficit reduction

In reality, the large deficit reductions in the BBA were scheduled to start taking place in FY02 and thereafter (two-thirds of which was to come from cuts to federal health spending in FY02 and virtually all of which was to come from those sources in subsequent years). When Congress began overriding those Medicare cuts manually in 2003--the "doc fix" to cope with the BBA's broken SGR formula that we're still stuck with today--the deficit reduction potential of the BBA was officially rescinded.

The budgets of the late '90s owe nothing to the BBA. The balanced budgets of the mid-'00s would have, if the BBA had actually been capable of doing what it promised.

You're right. It didn't balance the budget because the debt clock kept running. I should have added 'act' to balanced budget, but in fact the popular claim is that the budget was balanced and a surplus produced--remember that 'surplus' that Bush is constantly accused of erasing?

I am not attempting to argue those economics. I just intend to set the record straight in the blame game here.

And it is NOT empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the left any more than it is lack of empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the right.

 

[bill5]

Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.

I will if you tell me what it is first.

"[T]rying to measure a life of poverty as a collection of stuff isn't really going to come close to measuring that same life as a whole life."

If that means the value of a person's life can't be measured solely by material things, well duh. And?

Note my new category of thought, I have always wondered what goes into making a person of conscience and what goes into making a conservative?

I have always wondered what would cause someone so be so mind-numbingly blind/stupid as to think the two are mutually exclusive.

Honestly the left vs right gibberish on this site is so excessive/extreme sometimes it's only possible value is as entertainment value

Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.

No, Empathy is the ability to imagine and sympathize with the plight of another.

You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.

I've noticed no difference whatsoever between either the so-called left or right.

But one does frequently encounter people who are permanently stuck in their own heads who truly cannot remotely imagine another's POV, and almost without exception those types tend to be dogmatic cons.

Yeah right. That speaks for itself. Enjoy those blinders you have on, my goodness they're large.

This board should rename itself "My side right your side is wrong!" as that is the mentality which so dominates it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see no need for rebuttal to any of bill5's argument except this one:

No, Empathy is the ability to imagine and sympathize with the plight of another.

Here I gently disagree. I may empathize with the person's temptation to steal or smack somebody, physically or verbally, without feeling the least bit of sympathy for the person who acts on their temptation. In fact, knowing that the other person and I shared a feeling, desire, hope, temptation etc., does not necessarily keep me from disliking or disapproving of that person in a particular situation.

Empathy is emotionally sharing a feeling, desire, situation without necessarily condoning it or even understanding it.

Sympathy is a form of understanding the condition or behavior of another, but still does not automatically translate into excuse for that person's response or conduct or provoke a response.

Neither empathy nor sympathy may be a valid reason to respond in a particular way, however, and both can be misplaced. Misguided response based on empathy or sympathy may be far less productive and/or more destructive than might a response based on hard, cold objectivity devoid of either empathy or sympathy.

Being one who cries at supermarket openings, and also one who describes herself as a Modern American Conservative, aka classical liberal, I categorically deny that conservatives are incapable or unlikely to have empathy. I do think conservatives are more likely to be able to distinguish between empathy and sympathy and the different reality of the situation which liberals are far less likely to be able to do do. But that could reflect my own ideological bias and perception more than being grounded in any verifiable fact.