George Lakoff: Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy

[babylonsister]

Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy

by George Lakoff


The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack - on President Obama's central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.

There are several fronts: Empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup.

Conservatives believe that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and so their attacks may seem irrational to Democrats, a last gasp, a grasping at straws, a sign that the party is breaking up.

Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on.

Let's start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn't empathy a good thing?

Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others - not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.

Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy - a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the President's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis.

The president wrote of empathy in The Audacity of Hope, "It is at the heart of my moral code and it is how I understand the Golden Rule - not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes."

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/31-0

[OHdem10]

1. Remind the GOP a lack of empathy denotes Sociopathic Behavior.

[diane in sf]

2. This is a really good article--go to link and read the whole thing

[OHdem10]

3. Excellent and most accurate analysis.

The GOP always operate with a hidden agenda. They give an outward
appearance of one complaint while underneath they are pushing
a very wide agenda. Very often this is why they win.

Sotomayor gives them the excuse or venue.

[livvy]

4. I was just going to post this! Glad I checked to see if someone beat me to it.

Great article. I really like the way Lakoff thinks.

:hi: and a :hug: and a KnR, too.

[babylonsister]

5. livvy!

Hello, friend! Long time, no see! :hug: :hi:

Yes, Mr. Lakoff makes lots of sense!

[depakid]

6. "How should Democrats respond? Democrats should go on offense. "

How many times, in how many contexts- from how many scientists and psychologists does this need to be said before the "strategists" finally get a clue?

As the purported party of science, the Democrats sure seem to do a poor job of listening to the folks who actually study and write about the stuff.

[babylonsister]

7. Yes, I don't know why they don't take what writers like Lakoff have

to say to heart. Sometimes the Dems are just too darned 'nice' for my tastes.

[PretzelWarrior]

8. you're wrong. I remember seeing Lakoff all the time in 2003 and 2004 in the wake of

2002 losses and in preparation for 2004 election. Not enough time had passed for all of the Democrat's messages and new language to permeate for those elections. But Senators invited him to a meeting or maybe meetings to discuss how to craft language that would appeal to independents.

It seems it's paid off quite a bit, and I'm sure they ARE listening to him about this matter.

[depakid]

9. 2004 was an especially salient example of FAILURE to go on the offensive

and allowing Republicans to set up their frames and define the narrative- and terms of debate.

Indeed, short of Dukakis in 1988, I can't think of a more appalling instance of ineptitude in this regard- nor one that cost us (and everyone else in the world) more dearly.

[roseBudd]

10. In my MSM comment writing activities I am steering the subject to Ledbetter v Goodyear...

The GOP can not win without women voters, just white men does not cut it. While they may be trying to win populist men back, if the Sotomayer detractors callous comments regarding Lily Ledbetter are not going over well with women.