Some thoughts on this feature of many so-called “liberals.”
I wouldn’t compare them to psychopaths, though. More like sociopaths. Bill Clinton is a classic example.
[Update a while later]
Here’s some empathy for “liberals” from Frank J. — they’re mostly not exactly like terrorists:
For one thing, what do we do when we capture terrorists? That’s right: We waterboard them to get them to talk and tell us where their base is or what their secret plans are or what their favorite color is. Terrorists have information we need. With liberals, we’ll do anything we can to keep them from talking. They talk way too much as it is and often in venues where it’s completely unwelcome, and we’d just as soon waterboard ourselves as listen to them (which is the problem MSNBC has with ratings). Plus, it’s not like they have any secret plans we don’t know about. What are they going to tell us if we waterboard them?
“I’ll admit it! ObamaCare is the first step towards single-payer and a complete government takeover of health care!”
Who doesn’t know that? Liberals are too dim-witted and too arrogant to keep any of their thoughts secret. As we learned with Obama, if we want to find out what liberals really think of Americans, we just have to slip a tape recorder into a fundraiser with elites in San Francisco.
Another difference between liberals and terrorists are sleeper cells — terrorists could have infiltrated American society and be waiting to attack. Liberals, on the other hand, are completely incapable of associating with normal Americans. Remember when John Kerry tried to go hunting to appear like an American? If only terrorist sleeper agents were that obvious and awkward.
Now that’s what I call compassionate conservatism.
[Update mid morning]
This seems pertinent, particularly to the discussion in comments. Dennis Prager: Leftism as a religion:
Leftism, though secular, must be understood as a religion (which is why I have begun capitalizing it). The Leftist value system’s hold on its adherents is as strong as the hold Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have on theirs. Nancy Pelosi’s belief in expanding the government’s role in American life, which inspired her passion for the health-care bill, is as strong as a pro-life Christian’s belief in the sanctity of the life of the unborn.
Given the religious nature and the emotional power of Leftist values, Jews and Christians on the Left often derive their values from the Left more than from their religion.
Now, most Leftist Jews and Christians will counter that Leftist values cannot trump their religion’s values because Leftist values are identical to their religion’s. But this argument only reinforces my argument that Leftism has conquered the Christianity and the Judaism of Leftist Christians and Jews. If there is no difference between Leftist moral values and those of Judaism or Christianity, then Christianity is little more than Leftism with “Jesus” rhetoric and Judaism is Leftism with Jewish terms — such as “Tikkun Olam” (“repairing the world”) and “Prophetic values.”
But if Christianity is, morally speaking, really Leftism, why didn’t Catholics and Protestants assert these values before 19th century European Leftism came along? And, if Judaism is essentially a set of Left-wing values, does that mean that the Torah and the Talmud are Leftist documents? Or are the two pillars of Judaism generally wrong?
As a provisional atheist, I find this fascinating.
Let’s see, a guy who writes an 837 word screed against tipping low-wage workers entitled Thoughts On Optional And Extortional Compensation and has repeatedly said that providing for the health care of others is not his concern now thinks liberals lack empathy?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Physician, heal thyself.
If you’re a “liberal” or some other sort of statist, and believe you have a right to coerce others, that alone would indicate a lack of empathy. I don’t think many people who get off on putting a gun to other people’s heads–whether that gun is the Saturday night special of the common street criminal, or The Big Gun that is the State–empathize with the person looking down the gun barrel.
On the other hand, in addition to a strong sadistic (i.e., power addicted) component, modern American “liberalism” also has a strong masochistic (i.e., submission addicted) component. So there may be “liberals” who do empathize with the “coercee,” and kind of get off on it. (This is the kind of person who writes things such as “I for one don’t mind being taxed to pay for other people’s healthcare/education/housing, etc.”)
I don’t know if it is a lack of empathy or not, but I have noticed that when liberal comedians find themselves in the same venue as conservatives, they tend to become very nasty. Perhaps it is just a way for them to maintain a certain level of “street cred” with their fellow liberals rather than a lack of empathy, but it is very unseemly.
“Empathy, which literally translates as ‘in feeling’, is the capability to share another being’s emotions and feelings.”
How does telling somebody “I don’t care about your illness – it’s not my problem” demonstrate empathy? It in fact demonstrates exactly the opposite.
Accusing me of “sadistically wanting to coerce others” is a complete failure of empathy.
Chris G.
Explain to me how a willingness to spend other people’s money translates into empathy.
Chris, the mere fact you seek (sadistically or not) to have the government force me to care about your problems, indicates your lack of empathy.
I’ll bet that Chris also didn’t even bother to read the linked article. But he’ll claim he did, now that I’ve written this.
Just to show how empathetic I am.
Chris L. – It’s my money too. I feel bad seeing my fellow citizens go broke because they can’t pay their medical bills, or dying early because they can’t afford to see a doctor.
McGehee – the mere fact that you don’t care about other people’s problems indicates your lack of empathy.
I did read Helen Smith’s article. She argues that because some liberals don’t like conservative viewpoints, they lack empathy for conservatives. That’s not empathy, that’s disagreement about policies. (I did find her concern about tone of discussion amusing, considering the Tea Party crowd is noted for civil and polite discource.)
Ah, name calling. Clearly, it means there’s no argument, or that he just can’t make it convincingly.
Jeff Medcalf – what name-calling?
Chris G.
My point is, it isn’t JUST your money. You are trying to make other people pay for your “empathy” while at the same time you are not empathizing with others who might object. You seem to believe you live on a morally higher plain that allows you to take what other people have earmed to pay for your good feelings. That is not empathy, that is posing.
I was using “sadism” not in its more luirid, torture-dungeon connotations (although torture-dungeons seem to follow collectivism, sooner or later);* but in a general sense of “desiring to dominate.” I believe Erich Fromm uses the term that way in THE ART OF LOVE (with sadism’s flip side, masochism. being “desiring to be dominated”). I don’t think, however, one can underestimate the extent to which “liberals” get their jollies at forcing their will upon other people.
Somewhat off-topic, but there was an interesting discussion recently on the blog “So That’s Why You’re Single” about dating people of opposite political philsophies, and one libertarian (who had experienced the Gender Gap in the dating scene, as many of us pro-freedom males do) gave an interesting taxonomy of “liberals” he had encountered. Chris Gerrib, Jim and the other State-fellators who post here might want to consider where they fit in with it. As I recall, the writer broke “liberals” down into three groups:
(1) “I Want Mommy State To Take Care of Me.” (This would be the more submissive or masochistic type.)
(2) “I Want to be Daddy State.” (This would be the more domineering or sadistic type.)
(3) “I’m Bitter Because People I don’t like Have More Money Than Me.” I’ve encountered this a lot in the artsy circles in which I travel: sensitive starving artist types who resent the moneyed Philistines. There’s a strong, ill-concealed resentment-fueled sadism to this group, which wants to use the State not so much for amelioration as “getting back” at what they perceive is a kind of cosmic injustice. I would say from personal experience that this group has the least empathy of any of the three groups. I also get the feeling a lot of the State-fellators who post on pro-freedom blogs fit into this third category.
I forgot to add (see asterisk) the footnote that there’s an interesting exploration of the historic link between sadism and the Left in Erik von Keuhnnelt-Leddhin’s classic LEFTISM.
Ah, the left is always claiming they have the compassionate position and subsequent answers. In a world where words actually mean things compassion should entail, well, some actual level of compassion. You know, the well meaning and voluntary donation of one’s time and money to a cause or group that aligns with one’s compassionate desires.
Forced theft of your assets so that a 3rd party of ne’re-do-wells can decide what and how it is is spent on is not compassion. It’s an outright theft and it represent a fundamental evil of taking something that isn’t yours and using it on things that most people don’t want.
Chris L. – I was raised a Catholic, and I distinctly remember Jesus quoted as saying we should “care for the sick.”
I can understand and sympathize with arguments as to whether or not this plan will work (for whatever values of “work”) but what moral code says that we as humans should not help those less fortunate then themselves?
Maybe because liberals tend to see themselves as morally superior because they “care” (as in are willing to use the power of the state to force others to “care”) about people, they feel they have license to be complete a**holes to people they disagree with.
Chris G.
I was also raised Catholic and see myself as much a child of the Church of Rome as you do. My caring about people does not give me the right to take your money away from you to pay for my caring.
I did read Helen Smith’s article. She argues that because some liberals don’t like conservative viewpoints, they lack empathy for conservatives.
Ah, so you read it, but not for comprehension.
Bilwick1 – or the other reason you’re single is because you sound selfish? Whether you are or not. I personally pick option 4 – I want a wealthy country like America to provide a baseline level of services to all it’s citizens.
Josh – funny you mention “actual compassion” as I sit here organizing for my charity fundraiser while working on shipping a container of donated medical equipment to Zambia.
…what moral code says that we as humans should not help those less fortunate then themselves?
No moral code does so. But then, no one ever claimed it did. Another straw man.
“…what moral code says that we as humans should not help those less fortunate then themselves?
No moral code does so. But then, no one ever claimed it did. Another straw man.”
My moral code includes not forcing people to do things with their lives and property that they don’t want to do. But hey, that’s me.
Obviously Chris Gerrib comes from what one might call (after Doestoevsky) “the Grand Inquisitor” branch of Catholicism.
I want a wealthy country like America to provide a baseline level of services to all it’s citizens.
And I and others want America to stay wealthy, but the policies you advocate are fiscally disastrous, both on an individual and national level. We are heading over a financial cliff, and the Democrats are hammering down the throttle.
Rand – so you are violating your own moral code by not helping poor people get medical care?
My moral code includes not forcing people to do things with their lives and property that they don’t want to do.
Yes, my moral code opposes slavery, too. Their moral code apparently demands it.
so you are violating your own moral code by not helping poor people get medical care?
How do you know that I don’t help poor people get medical care?
Bilwick1 – unlike the Grand Inquisitor, the people who passed health care were elected. They took a vote (actually several). If you don’t like the results, you may vote them out.
If you don’t like the results, you may vote them out.
Let’s hope so. Fortunately, the prospects are looking pretty good for it right now.
How do you know that I don’t help poor people get medical care?
How would I know that you DO? Rand, I’m not the guy who wrote 832 words on the evils of tipping the bell hop. Nor am I the guy who’s argued that other people’s health care is not their concern.
Since when is paying taxes “slavery?” Since when is requiring people to show “personal responsibility” and get coverage for their own health (so you don’t have to pay for their emergency room visits) slavery?
“Bilwick1 – unlike the Grand Inquisitor, the people who passed health care were elected. They took a vote (actually several). If you don’t like the results, you may vote them out.”
Oh, they were ELECTED! Well, that’s different. That makes anything they do okay!
Still the ol’ “bread for liberty” game, with peoples’ lives and property as the pawns.
(This is others: I notice this “playing dumb” when it comes to analogy is common among State-fellators posting on pro-freedom blogs. Do you think they’re actually as dense and literal-minded as they pretend to be, or is it a discussion ploy, to divert attention from the aptness of the analogy? I notice that many statist posters like to come off as super-intelligent, and yet when hit over the head with an analogy, they suddenly become “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer” from SNL: “This strange analogy thing that you do in your world confuses me.. . .”)
Do you notice that Chris and Jim still evade the crucial point? That is, how they and their gang obtained the right to force A to pay for B’s health care?
The New Tories have simply taken the old doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and translated it into the Divine Right of Democracies.
Chris G.–
Jesus specifically said the CHURCH should care for the poor and sick. He never taught that the church should lobby the government to take over the church’s job. Jesus’ policy of the church caring for the poor kept accountability strong.
How would I know that you DO?
You have no information one way or the other. So don’t ask complex questions.
Rand, I’m not the guy who wrote 832 words on the evils of tipping the bell hop.
Neither am I. Another straw man.
Nor am I the guy who’s argued that other people’s health care is not their concern.
I’ve never made such an argument. Another straw man.
He never taught that the church should lobby the government to take over the church’s job.
In fact, I think he said something about rendering unto Caesar…
Also, since a slave is someone who is forced to labor for someone else’s good, Mr. Smith having to work to pay to support Mr. Jones, is, in that context, Mr. Jones’ slave. It doesn’t matter if the overseer is Simon Legree, or an elected Simon Legree.
Even if Jesus did teach that the State should force people to be charitable–so what? I’m not a follower of Jesus, and don’t see why Christians (whether of the Religious Right or the Religious Left) have the right to force their dogma on me.
Rand – you didn’t write this? It’s on your own site, bylined “Rand Simberg.”
lbparker – re-read the parable of the Good Samaritan. It’s not “the church” that should tend to the sick, it’s all of us.
Bilwick1 – it’s the same right that forces you to pay for an interstate highway you never drive on, or the Coast Guard that you never need, or the fire department, or national parks, or any other service rendered “for the common good.”
Failure to have insurance isn’t a failure of maintaining personal responsibility.
Failure to have insurance, or cash, or assets that can be converted to cash, and demanding free access at the hospital would be. They do send a bill.
Forced donations are not charity. If one does insist that forced donations are charity, George Orwell has a couple of books for you.
The slavery angle has come up several times, and they do fit the modern liberal view of a citizen:
1) They meet “personal responsibility” by having someone else ensure their food, shelter, clothing, education, and care.
2) They only have to make a mandatory donation of all assets to pay for the owner’s empathetic munificence.
Hell, they’re letting government take over their own moral and religious ideals of charity to the point that they’re abrogating their personal responsibility for charity. What was Joe Biden’s charitable contributions for 2007 again? $137? Pathetic.
Chris G.
So there are no real limits to the power of the state as long as it is done “for the common good” and in the name of “caring”?
“lbparker – re-read the parable of the Good Samaritan. It’s not “the church” that should tend to the sick, it’s all of us.”
Right, lbparker. You obviously missed that part of The Gospel ASccording to Gerrib. In that version, the Good Samaritan waits until the next passer-by happens along, then robs him at sword-point to get him to pay for the other guy’s medical care and shelter. Because Jesus said so! Hallelujah!
“Bilwick1 – it’s the same right that forces you to pay for an interstate highway you never drive on, or the Coast Guard that you never need, or the fire department, or national parks, or any other service rendered ‘for the common good.'”
That’s the best you’ve got? The other kids are doing it? Didn’t your mother ever tell you that just because the other kids are doing it doesn’t make it right?
.
Rand – you didn’t write this?
Of course I did. It said nothing about tipping bellhops being evil. It just said I prefer to handle my own luggage. I guess you’re still having problems with reading comprehension.
“So there are no real limits to the power of the state as long as it is done “for the common good” and in the name of “caring”?”
Apparently so, Chris L. Apparently so.
It only means I don’t have empathy for people who want to force me to care about their problems.
Because when they force me to care about their problems, it cuts into what I can devote to caring about the people who actually matter to me, and who happen to care in turn about my problems.
The fact you want to deprive me of the ability to care about, say, my own family, friends, and neighbors, suggests me you have none of those yourself.
“Of course I did. It said nothing about tipping bellhops being evil. It just said I prefer to handle my own luggage. I guess you’re still having problems with reading comprehension.”
Getting back to a point I made earlier, Rand: do you think that this reading-comprehension handicap is real or feigned? I suspect, like the denseness when it comes to getting an analogy, that it’s feigned for tactical reasons, the better to fabricate straw men.
Rand – you called it “Extortionate” in the title, and used “extortion” and “extortionate” in the 832 words of content. Extortion is a crime of force, and clearly evil. Then you argue that “Tipping waitpeople should occur only if the service is really great, not just adequate.”
You can see how I might be confused. Well, actually probably not, because you don’t understand what “tone” means in writing.
Chris G…the Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
That’s a means test right there in the New Testament! Written down by an apostle (someone who literally saw and followed Jesus). Conservatives are not opposed to helping those in need, and I think you probably know that in your heart.
Conservatives have dropped the ball as much as anyone regarding helping their fellow man and should definitely do more through their faith-based organizations to help those in need.
However, it is not unreasonable to expect our government, who has usurped this role with the best of intentions but once again with accountability attached to neither the bureaucracy nor the beneficiary, to require means testing for these programs.
Because the government does little with requiring or verifying means testing for these benefits, conservatives are opposed to the ways those programs are run. It is my perspective that liberals are unwilling to enforce reasonable means testing on these programs, and they also refuse to rank these programs by importance. Instead of saying “we only have budget to cover 119 of these 3,522 programs and therefore will only fund the ones we can” they say “tax those evil rich people who never pay their fair share so we can fund all 3,522 programs.”
“Fair” is the most horrible word in the English language. We’ve managed to create a society where everyone believes they are entitled to fairness when it just does not exist and can never be promised.
“Nothing is more annoying to sophisticated people to see someone who is rich enough to know better being tacky–unless it is to realize, a moment later, that they probably know they are tacky and they simply don’t care and they are going to go on being tacky, and rich, and happy, forever.
…This is all strongly reminiscent of the heyday of Communism and Socialism, when the bourgeoisie were hated from both ends: by the proles, because they had all the money, and by the intelligentsia, because of their tendency to spend it on lawn ornaments.”
–Neal Stephenson
I notice here that Chris Gerrib uses the very same argument that he’d use for any disagreement with statist policies. There’s always some token hard-luck case that requires that we impose government power on everyone and destroy individual freedom. Think about it. Why does everyone need to be affected in order to help the few who really need help? I grant that Chris might have empathy for the person who is suffering. But he clearly doesn’t have empathy for everyone else who suffers due to the defective solutions that results from his advocated policies.
I don’t know, if Chris is sincerely or not. But given his demonstrated ignorance of economic principles, I’d say that his viewpoint and discussion here are consistent with a sincerely, misguided person who really thinks they are improving the world through state power.
Chris G.
I think it would help you demonstrate your empathy a bit better if you didn’t try to paint others as not being empathetic because they disagree with you about the role of government in people’s lives.