Conservatives and Empathy

[uscitizen]

There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.

For conservatives, of course, there is a reason.

The prospect of an American citizen starving, going without healthcare, or living in squalor acts as an incentive for all to do better. It’s the conservative doctrine of fear, the only real motivator.

Fear does seem to be the major right wing motivator.
Just watch the upcoming presidential campaign for further proof of this.

 

[Bern80]

There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.

For conservatives, of course, there is a reason.

The prospect of an American citizen starving, going without healthcare, or living in squalor acts as an incentive for all to do better. It’s the conservative doctrine of fear, the only real motivator.

Fear does seem to be the major right wing motivator.
Just watch the upcoming presidential campaign for further proof of this.

come on dude. u know better than to purport a myth that the right holds the corner on fear mongering. As a point of fact it was the left that last engaged in it when the President promised us that we were headed for economic ruin and default if we didn't allow him to borrow more money. The right doesn't fear monger so much as politicians in general fear monger to get votes.

As for empathy, a perceived lack of it by the right is not what the left is really concerned with. It's just another redefining of terms for the sake of transparent rhetoric. So if I think I'm better off keeping more of what I earned and I don't trust the one authority who has the power to take it involuntarily from me to efficiently and effectively or actually even has any real obligation to fix all of societies so called social problems....... then yeah you can call me un-empathatic. THAT is what the left really means by lack of empathy. And that's fine. All I ask is that you submit your new defintion to Miriam-Webster for review.

 

[Unkotare]

Empathy is the ability to imagine 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.


Now whether these folks are just trying to sound like tough guys, or they're truly incapable of getting outside of their own shoes, is anyone's guess.

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.

Part of the mindset that makes on a con also limits their ability to percieve the world from any other viewpoint but their own.
They learn to go thru the motions of being sympathetic to others but it is a sham.
For instance, they will never understand that many muslims have valid reasons to hate the USA.

That was an unbelievably stupid thing to post.

 

[Unkotare]

There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.

For conservatives, of course, there is a reason.

The prospect of an American citizen starving, going without healthcare, or living in squalor acts as an incentive for all to do better. It’s the conservative doctrine of fear, the only real motivator.

Fear does seem to be the major right wing motivator.
Just watch the upcoming presidential campaign for further proof of this.

Is that why the left keeps trying to scare seniors every time a realistic approach to reforming medicare is proposed?

 

[Greenbeard]

Is that why the left keeps trying to scare seniors every time a realistic approach to reforming medicare is proposed?

You probably missed the 2010 elections. (Hint: it wasn't the left scaring seniors about Medicare reform.)

As it is, when one party takes the extraordinary step of proposing to end the Medicare program and all but four of its members in the House and five in the Senate vote in favor of it--well, it would just be irresponsible to let that pass unnoticed. The agenda the party leadership denied it had prior to the 2010 elections ("Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, the minority leader, has praised Mr. Ryan but said the Roadmap would not be a part of the Republican agenda this fall.") has been amped up on Tea Party steroids and is now the official party line. And that's a matter of public record.

All the whining and hand-wringing in the world won't change that.

 

[Christopher]

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

A government can have empathy? How?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

You guys keep posting this crap like a badge of courage or something. Speaking as someone who's actually given to charity..and worked for charity..making sure all our citizens share in the wealth of the nation should be a given.

There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.

Actually, making sure all of our citizens have the OPPORTUNITY to share in the wealth of the nation should be a given. What made this country great in the past was that we gave our citizens more opportunities to be successful than any other country on earth. We didn't give them an automatic "share" of the wealth...we gave them the means to become wealthy.

 

[Oldstyle]

Is that why the left keeps trying to scare seniors every time a realistic approach to reforming medicare is proposed?

You probably missed the 2010 elections. (Hint: it wasn't the left scaring seniors about Medicare reform.)

As it is, when one party takes the extraordinary step of proposing to end the Medicare program and all but four of its members in the House and five in the Senate vote in favor of it--well, it would just be irresponsible to let that pass unnoticed. The agenda the party leadership denied it had prior to the 2010 elections ("Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, the minority leader, has praised Mr. Ryan but said the Roadmap would not be a part of the Republican agenda this fall.") has been amped up on Tea Party steroids and is now the official party line. And that's a matter of public record.

All the whining and hand-wringing in the world won't change that.

So that ad by Democrats showing Granny being pushed off a cliff in her wheelchair wasn't an attempt to scare seniors? Really?

 

[tonystewart1]

So here we go again.

An example of the great liberal ability to percieve themselves as better than everyone else and that they know whats best for everyone.

 

[Bern80]

I think one could actually make the argument that it is the left that has less empathy than the right. While members of the right can empathize with those in a difficult situation, just as the left can, it is difficult to argue that the left has much empathy for business owners. The veracity with which the left attacks these people shows they don't have clue one what it's like to 'be in the shoes' of someone who has the responsibility of managing and operating a successful business and the stress that surrounds it (much of it government induced).

 

[dcbl]

Is it more empathetic to believe all people have the same abilities and can rise above circumstance ? Or to support policy that hinders such?

All people do not have the same abilities, come from the same point in life or have the same means.

That's total nonsense.

Each according to his ability and each according to his need?

Yeah! That seems like a GREAT plan!!

 

[Oddball]

The healthcare issue has NOTHING to do with empathy or a lack of it. You are all deluded if you think the right doesn't want the same thing you do. We all want access to health care.

Not sure if you were trying to illustrate the OP's thesis so brilliantly or if it was accidental.

Illustrating would be showing my lack of empathy. Believe me I am more empathatic than most. I just don't translate that empathy as you do to mean taking money from some to give to others as the best and only course of helping people.

...under the arrogant pretext that the left's view of "empathy" is so pure and righteous that it needs to be imposed upon everyone else by force.

You left out that part.

 

[MoistTrout]

Considering organizations like the Jaycees and the Shriners have a conservative foundation, and have done more to actually help people than any "progressive" government program I can think of, I'd say there isn't much merit to the base of this thread.

Empathy is not a bleeding heart. Empathy is recognizing the situation someone is in and understanding what they need to do to get out of it. Maybe more importantly, it doesn't go into things with a blind eye.

Anyone reading this can debate with themselves if I would be considered a conservative or not, but I don't have a problem with people getting assistance of some kind. I don't even have a problem with some of that assistance coming from the federal government.

What I do have a problem with is the way these programs are run, the fact that is has become "free money", and the regulations that go along with some of this so called assistance.

I believe I have commented on this site before about the difficulty in getting a blue collar job. Have you applied for a factory job, or something of that nature lately? I'm old enough to remember when you could put in an application, sit for an interview, and start work all in the same day. Now, it can be a month or more before you even make it to the floor for one of these jobs, and it's another week or two before you get an actual check. It's all because of the regulations that have been put in place. Someone relying on government assistance can't afford to get a job because of the regulations, so they stay on government assistance. Frankly, I think there are some people who want it to stay this way.

It's like setting someone's house on fire, preventing them from getting to water, then wanting to be praised because you show up with a bucket of sand.

Are there people who would be considered conservative that are heartless and just don't care? Sure. It would be silly to assume there aren't. It's just as silly as assuming that all liberals are champions of the needy that want to help people better their lives.

 

[MoistTrout]

There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.

For conservatives, of course, there is a reason.

The prospect of an American citizen starving, going without healthcare, or living in squalor acts as an incentive for all to do better. It’s the conservative doctrine of fear, the only real motivator.

The establishment of fear... You mean like:

"They want to take away social security!"
"They don't want you to have health care!"
"They want you to die!"

Something along those lies...er, I mean lines?

 

[mudwhistle]

Empathy is the ability to imagine 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.


Now whether these folks are just trying to sound like tough guys, or they're truly incapable of getting outside of their own shoes, is anyone's guess.

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.

Pure hyperbole.

You seem to see only in black and white.

Democrats are compassionate souls and Republicans are evil rat-bastards with no soul whatsoever.

Many of us have family members that are poor, disabled, or in a group that Democrats claim to want to help.

Problem is Democrats only seem to want to keep them in their current state rather then get them out of it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Not sure if you were trying to illustrate the OP's thesis so brilliantly or if it was accidental.

Illustrating would be showing my lack of empathy. Believe me I am more empathatic than most. I just don't translate that empathy as you do to mean taking money from some to give to others as the best and only course of helping people.

...under the arrogant pretext that the left's view of "empathy" is so pure and righteous that it needs to be imposed upon everyone else by force.

You left out that part.

Empathy.....in other words....feeling sorry for someone.

Yes, the left has cornered the market on that....and on using it to their advantage.

 

[Oddball]

Empathy is the ability to imagine 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.


Now whether these folks are just trying to sound like tough guys, or they're truly incapable of getting outside of their own shoes, is anyone's guess.

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.

Pure hyperbole.

You seem to see only in black and white.

Democrats are compassionate souls and Republicans are evil rat-bastards with no soul whatsoever.

Many of us have family members that are poor, disabled, or in a group that Democrats claim to want to help.

Problem is Democrats only seem to want to keep them in their current state rather then get them out of it.

...and trot them out them as political props, to cynically claim that they have the market cornered on empathy and compassion.

 

[2twsted4colorTV]

So here we go again.

An example of the great liberal ability to percieve themselves as better than everyone else and that they know whats best for everyone.

Not only that, but they know what is best for everyone else, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily think it's best for THEM.

I have empathy for people who truly believe the government is going to fix them with free housing, free medical care, free food, etc. Of course they can't see that's the reason they are living in poverty and are made to believe they can't be successful. I am 4 years away from Medicare and I wish to God I didn't have to sign up for it, even though I've paid into it, I don't like it. if I'm poor I want to be poor all by myself of my own doing and not because I've been on welfare forever.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Ah, THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, leftists are really caring and empathetic...As long as they don't have to foot the bill for their "generosity" themselves.

That's horse shit Oddy. Get bent.

Unfortunately it's true. Really who or what is stopping any of you from putting this empathy you preach so righteously to others into action? Who is preventing you from putting YOUR money where your mouth is and helping all these poor souls? If you want to help people so badly, GO FUCKING HELP THEM. Hell I'll even support a change to the tax code to help you out. If you really think government has to have more money, I will gladly support legislation that allows anyone to give as much money beyond what they owe in taxes as they want. Certainly enough people must feel as you do and would certainly open their wallets like I'm sure you would right? Of course you won't you fucking hypocrite.

No new legislation needed. There are already numerous cases on record where somebody got a twinge of conscience and sent a large check to the government to pay for taxes they owed and no doubt over looked somewhere down the line. Or some yokel doesn't have anybody to leave his estate to so leaves it to the United States of America. The government accepts all such windfalls, no questions asked.

So of course Uncle Sam would accept and be most grateful for any donations anybody wants to send in to help out.

As Oddball pointed out, all serious studies conducted have concluded that conservatives, more than liberals, are more likely to contribute to the less fortunate not only money and property but also they give more blood, donate more time to charitable causes, and poorer conservatives contrbute proportionately more than do the rich.

So who is more empathetic? Those who give of themselves and their resources? Or those who are more generous with other people's property/money than they are with their own?

I suggest that our more 'generous' friends who think the government should take more money from the people to provide to the less fortunate should put their compassion where their mouth is and provide that extra money. Those same studies say they make a bit more than conservatives do so they have the means to do so.