This is the second post on here recently where the politics of alterity have become a major issue (Yasemin Congar's being the other). Obama wants to frame this in terms of empahty, which, I think, is complicated insofar as it tends to leave an awful lot of room for the implicit presumption that other = disadvantaged, in harms way, struggling, etc. I think a different, and importantly better way to frame it, might be to consider that we must view the other in the first instance as deserving of respect; and only then, only after that respect is in play, should the other become a subject of evaluation.

In an odd way, this is a very traditional structure that one can find playing out in ettiquette structures all over the political sphere, even in the politics of polite debate in congress. However, at a more fundamental level, respect for the other in his or her alterity seems to me to be a fundamental precondition for a form of empathy that does not degenerate very quickly into a sort of normalizing patriarchalism, on the one hand, or a kind of 'trump card' where we use a the question of whether or not someone conforms to 'our' defintion of what empathy should entail as a criterion for determining whether or not they are a 'good' person. That is to say, empathy, precisely because of its essential vagueness, is not strong enough to prevent precisely the integrity of the other that we seek to establish and protect from nevertheless being erased.

I think Andrew is right that it is a very very dangerous trap for the left at this juncture to allow itself to become captive to a kind of agonistic contempt for our political opponents. Indeed, one need only look at the comments on a lot of the more stridently political left blogs to see how vicious such a politics can become, and how nearly indistinguisable in tone some of the attacks can be to the prejudicial statements that the Right is willing to make, even if the underlying point of those leftist attacks is more about the hypocricy of the right than anything else. The point is, this is not healthy, in any way shape or form.

I think then that we might do well to at least listen to some of the developments in certain schools of philosophical ethics in the past two or three decades, which have paid an increasing degree of attention to the notion that the basic term of any ethical or political system of justice must be based first of all on the establishment of a kind of position of 'respect' for the other, and then argue out how that position becomes both a standard of what does and does not constitute acceptable conduct (a position, like many of the right wing positions that we seek to criticisize, which fails to respect alterity is easily judged negatively in these terms) while at the same time preventing us from falling to easily into the assumption that our good intentions necessarily equal us knowing what is in everyone else's best interest.

I honestly believe Obama is on to something. I don't think most voters embrace this dehumanizing hatred. I think it could be a politically winning issue: "One America."

Yes, it will require a struggle against the righty bastards - but the struggle will be more than worth it.

In certain respects, I think 'One America' would miss part of what I'm arguing is essential here. 'Many Americas' seems to me to be much more to the point.

Well its actually *not* humanistic philosophy, but that's beside the point. I agree entirely that we have regressed along the lines of rational discourse.

I also think this is not something that we ought to simply accept and be done with. Aristotle said, way back in the 4th Century BC, something which still seems to me to be absolutely essential.

If you read the Politics in a certain way, what he ultimately seems to be arguing makes the difference between a virtuous and a vicious society, irrespective of the particular constitutional form that its government is arranged in, is that whatever element is "to kurion" or authoritative, it must be the element that is capable of 'rational deliberation.' Democracy, so called, does not meet this standard for Aristotle, but another form, what he calls "politea" or "polity" does. This is a purely nominal distinction, like that between monarchy (good) and tyrrany (bad), but the point is, a society where the controlling elements are incapable of rational delbieration is in deep deep shit. And that, as you quite rightly say, is very clearly where we are and are headed.

Now, this element of rational deliberation is not quite the same thing as what Obama is advocating a the level of empathy, or I am suggesting needs to be rethought at the level of a basic tenet of seeing the other as an object firstly of respect in his or her alterity. *BUT*, I would argue that rational deliberation cannot take place unless something like that condition is fulfilled, which is why I think that Andrew is right to point out that Obama is onto something, and something that does have important significance for us.

If we don't at least push in the right direction at the level of the way in which the discourse is conducted, then the petty, stupid, mean-spirited, wholly strategic, wholly rhetorical style of attack politics that the right has perfected in the last two elections is not going to go away, its going to accelerate.

And I think Aristotle is right to suggest that when a society hits that level of political discourse, when deliberation is carried out in such singularly irrational terms, that society is in deep deep trouble.

As someone who's more-or-less a lefty, what I want is Dem politicians who are more willing to be strongly partisan on important issues, and more progressives putting their energy into actual activism instead of (or at least in addition to) being vocally hostile. Even though that hostility is certainly understandable at this point, and not only because it's a response to open hostility.

Congratulations to Obama for re-framing and taking ownership of compassion. This is only one element of the Progressive agenda; so, while some of you say out with one idea in favor of another, I propose that broad-based multi-faceted approach is best. And since Democrats are traditionally the inclusive Party, this world view makes a fabulous cornerstone not only to the agressive overthrow of the Right but Progressive stalwards such as immigration, healthcare, jobs, education, the economy, abortion and housing as well.

I agree Obama needs some hard stances, as well-voiced and strategically placed as this one.

I think there is a place for this and if Obama can run and win with that message, more power to him. The talking heads this morning were shocked, shocked I tell you, by the recent poll showing that a quarter of young American Muslims think suicide bombing is appropriate in some cases.

Of course, the poll is being distorted and any fundamental religious group will have similar radical beliefs, but stories like this are used to a further the gap between Us (real Americans) and the Others. The only thing that is new is who is used as the out-group. Remember, though, that Bush used some of the same kind of rhetoric as Obama. He was the Compassionate Conservative before he became a Decider not a Uniter.

As I see it, the empathetic view is built into our government. Human and civil rights, equality, minority rights, etc. are guarantees and protections that follow from empathy. When I hear Russ Feingold, say, arguing for enforcement of those civil liberties, to stop torture or to end the war, I hear it as a call to protect those whose voice is not being heard. He does not have to preach some sham rhetoric of love and light, just call for justice and fairness. Any politician who really and truly represents the people is empathetic in my book and will get my vote.

I think the 'Democratic base' wants the opposite of reconciliation now. Most of us see we are in an age of right-wing political bullying. Bullies can't be reconciled with, in fact that spirit of reconciliation enables further bullying.

We've seen this played out over and over again during the Bush presidency, and Obama does not get it at all. Not that he's alone, we've just seen complete collapse on the Iraq issue instead of Congressional leaders standing up against the President's bullying tactics.

I.e., when Bush essentially says, "If you don't give me the money, I'll just leave the troops out there in Iraq without ammo or food!" the Democratic response is, "Well, then, the responsible thing to do is to give this bully what he wants."

Mr. Golis says:

Obama's call for a "new kind of politics" based around this kind of mutual understanding and an end to an active demonization of political opponents discomforts a lot of people on the Left who see echoes of Lieberman-esque capitulation and collusion in the cloak of bipartisanship. And Obama hasn't done enough to calm these worries by staking out his territory on the Left on the policy side.

I figured perhaps I had better read the whole speech.  I hope the rest of you do, too.  Make a little list for yourselves of the people he calls deserving of our empathy.  My list isn't complete but it includes:

• Victims in Darfur
• Katrina Survivors
• Cores of Poverty in American Cities

aMike

Cheesy as in "it sounds good but is inadequate to the problems at hand."

The first speech you linked to is the religion speech. The one where Obama uncritically says that more Americans believe in angels than evolution. When he first delivered this speech it made me uncomfortable.

The second, about Iraq and America's larger role in the world is excellent and one of the reasons I like Obama.

The third is the one we're bickering about. He's a great storyteller, I'll give him that. But there is a whiff of Oprah-style self-improvement to him and he's going to have to turn into something more than a motivational speaker.

I hope he does.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

The entire Call to Renewal speech can be dismissed because of one line in which he noted Americans belief in angels to prove the point that we are a very religious people? Seems a bit unfair.

That one line was just one a picked out. It's represenative of the tone of the whole speech, which made a secularist like me think twice. Like I said, I haven't made up my mind yet, but Obama's spiritualism is worrisome.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Sure... it's in his response to the childish Keyes attack. Keyes said Jesus wouldn't vote for Obama.

Obama explained that he finally reacted by saying: "I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois."

Nothing wrong with that. But Obama thinks there was something wrong with him giving the only rational response to such an attack that makes any sense.

This is how he kicks into the substance of his speech where he seeks to bring religion more into politics while I think it should be more separate than it is now.

In his senate campaign he got it right. Would Jesus vote for me? It doesn't matter. Public office is about more than what a dead religious figure might want. But Obama doesn't see it that way. He seems to claim that the very notion wounded him somehow.

That worries me.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Re: sarcasm.  Not at all..

My fingers got off the home keys and posted the comment in midstream. I tried to edit it, but it was too late.

Let me continue here,  You raise in your calling attention to his speech what I can only call a straw man.  No, make that two straw men... Joe Lieberman and collusion under the name of bi-partisanship.  You do it using a rhetoric I don't let students get away with...using "some folks" rhetoric, which leaves your own attitude behind a curtain, and encourages others to agree with those "People on the Left" who you raise as Obama's critics."

I looked very carefully at the speech.  I looked at obsessively carefully.  I used the find text mechanism to see if Obama ever used the word Republican, or the word Lieberman, or the word bipartisan.  None of them were used.  

Every reference he made was to humans in distress, either through human action or through the forces of nature.  He didn't call for empathy with the well off.  I can't think of how to make a speech of this type on this type of occasion any more left in its moral sentiments than it was. 

I was (and am) afraid that a significant number of people who read your introduction to Obama's remarks will either miss the link (because links don't show up very well here) or will simply be too busy or casual to read it in its entirety.  They won't get it if they don't read it, and I'm not sure that your trope on it will get them to read it. 

Your last paragraph is spot on...I was going to get to that.  But why even raise the issue of what some anonymous left wingers think.  It simply sets Obama up, and draws attention away from what is a masterful example of a very ritualized kind of oratory--the Commencement Address.  I've sat through 34 of those besides my own, and this one is a gem compared to most. 

I hope people realized that narrative is where policy has to originate.  Kennedy understood this perfectly well.  The policy (the Peace Corps) is based on the rhetoric (Ask not what your country can do for you:  ask what you can do for your country).   

aMike

P. S. One of the posters here actually listened to the address, and recorded a reaction.  Valdron, with whom I agree more often than not, didn't appreciate the reaction, but I suspect that Valdron hadn't heard the speech.  He remarked in response,

This is exactly the same sort of hyper-personalized, substance free, gut reaction that leads to George W. Bush.

I doubt reading the speech he would have been quite that harsh, though maybe he would.  I was (and am) afraid that a lot of people, not carefully attending to what Obama actually said, would find their eyes drawn to the words  Lieberman-esque capitulation and collusion in the cloak of bipartisanship and use those as leverage to bat Obama around.  I don't think you meant them to do that...but I see it happening. 

I agree we're in deep trouble, which is why this election matters so much.

But -- and I say this as someone who has been skeptical of Obama and in some ways still am -- cultivating empathy and respect for others isn't necessarily about limiting your tactics to exhorting your opponents to do the same. I can imagine a leader who calls on everyone to put themselves in others shoes AND plays hardball. Such a leader would need to carefully avoid any demonization of the opposition. But given what's at stake, empathy and respect demand that we pull out all the stops to change the course of our nation -- short of feeding the basest tactics of the struggle by embracing them as our own.

I imagine this as being a bit like Bill Clinton's early speech (was it his inaugural?) where he eloquently proclaimed that we needed the strengths and abilities of all Americans, without excluding anyone, to face the future. The difference (and the main thing that I'm trying to figure out about the candidates, the main thing that I distrust about Hillary) would be having a real, instinctive and active embrace of the grassroots follow from that speech. Not just a call to think nice thoughts and support me while I do all this great stuff in DC, and some of you go do some kinda service stuff, that's great -- but a real call to citizenship, to stand together, to confront our national failings of recent years and take action.

One last thought on this. How will such an idealistic campaign stand against the agit-prop and brass knuckles of the Right, you ask? By calling it out for what it is, loudly and clearly and repeatedly in terms so unmistakable that they slice through the media filters and reach into the culture. That means controversy, riding it out, getting beyond it, and changing the terms of the debate.

My suggestion is for the president, whoever it ends up being, to use the term Bullshit in a major live speech on TV, and to explain the delightfully head-clearing definition of this term promulgated by : bullshit is worse than lies, because lies can -- perhaps -- be proven false. Spreaders of bullshit cultivate the irrelevance of the truth by saying anything -- true, false or in between -- they can think of to manipulate the emotions and opinions of the audience. Define that for Americans, point out how pervasive it has become in our political discourse, ride out the controversy, and move on. Repeat with variations (not more obscenity, just more bluntness that cuts through the filters).

So who can do something like that (I'm not attached to the term, just the results)? Clark or Dean, certainly. But we may not have either of them running. Edwards? Not sure, but I think so. Obama? ditto. Hillary? Actually, I can see her doing it and pulling it off, but I have a harder time seeing her make the initial decision that it's worth the risk -- essential actually -- to stoke up a little controversy and rally the public, a solid majority at least, to her side.

I think this is too reactive. Bush and Cheney will soon be gone. Glenn Beck is a marginal media figure that the internet left likes to fixate on because he's so uniquely offensive. Rush Limbaugh is a fading force in American political life.

I don't think having compassion for these individuals means you have to capitulate to their ideas. Think MLK dealing with Bull Connor.

I agree that Obama needs to do more to prove that he can balance this kind of empathy with a willingness to challenge hateful beliefs that come from the Right. But I don't think we have to respond to hate with hate and I think that in a broader sense, beyond the narrow world of crossfire media food fights, we need to build a sense of social empathy to be able to engage in long-run efforts to change our political structures.

When does Obama "tolerate intolerance" or "find bipartisanship where it doesn't exist"?

I'm actually curious for examples.

Wonderful Link. 

I'm sending it to all my friends, and I'll probably distribute it in class next fall.  Thanks for turning me on to Harry Frankfurt's Essay.

aMike

I agree with your first point.

I think, though, that when Obama says to secularists "we mustn't stereotype Christians because if we do we lose them to the Jerry Falwells of the world" he's talking about how we can collectively do a better job of building our coalition by way of love. In other words, his entire premise is that Christian fundamentalists are wrong.

Also, for me so much of Obama's appeal is about moving past the politics since 1993. What we're going to find out with Obama's candidacy is whether or not there are enough people who also feel that way and whether or not they are able to retake the public sphere from the bullies and demagogues on the Right and bring with us the forces on the Left who have opposed them

But he specifically addresses your sentiment:

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

[...]

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.

And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I.

Andrew,
Do think the separation of Church and State as originally written into the Constitution is still necessary and/or a good idea today?

sPh

And what did it get those guys anyway, other than a bullet?

My take on this is that if the movement had been dominated by violence, it would have been crushed very early on, with many more deaths, and would not have accomplished anywhere near as much as it did.

One of the sad realities of racism in the US is that people were going to get killed in the Civil Rights movement, no matter what.  Question is, how many, and what would they accomplish in the process?

I'm all for moving beyond this political era, but we won't move beyond the politics of bullying without attacking and then destroying a couple of bullies. That's just the way it is with that type. An effective attack must involve demanding that their supporters disown them.

Obama may want to re-read an account of Vice-President Humphrey's unsuccessful 1968 campaign. I wish it weren't so, but for these times the politics of empathy are as wrong as the politics of joy.

when two (or more) parties attend a political debate, and one party brings their position papers and philosophy texts while the other brings well-crafted agitprop and brass knuckles, things are not likely to turn out well for the former

You make good points here and above.

I'm curious what you make of my thoughts (above) re: combining principled politics with hardball (short of demonization and contentless attacks) as well as a fearless calling out of the opposition?

I'm not saying Obama is doing or will do this, but somebody could. Dean or Clark surely could take a run at it. Obama might be able to as well. He certainly has the rhetorical skills and -- it appears -- the heart for it. I worry that he hasn't yet been through his Edwards/Gore "I'm my own man now and damn the consultants" moment. No way anyone pulls this off without taking major risks.

That is what we need, desperately. Real courage and leadership.

I'm not advocating violence.
I'm simply not advocating "empathy" for our right-wing foes.

Every time we have "empathy" for them they end up steamrolling us. The latest example was Alito: look how well that's worked out for us. You might as well ask me to have empathy for the Klan.

Who cares what they think? None of them have ever given shit number one what anyone else thinks, and to quote jesus "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Well it's about time we started "doing unto them that have done unto us."

In general, the right is a bunch of criminals, no different than any crime syndicate. That's not denying them their humanity: that's simply a statement of fact.

Empathy for the right. Sure. I'll get to that right after I get done with my empathy for John Gotti and Ed Gein.

So the only way to fight back against the Right is to dehumanize them?

Abso-frackin'-lutely. I suspect a fair chunk of the shit we're in could've been avoided if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon. That didn't "help the country heal" as the common so-called-wisdom proclaimed when Ford died. On the contrary, it left a wound open to infection.

I don't want revenge against the criminals in charge ... well, maybe at heart I do. But I'd happily settle for justice.

Okay, so he grew up with a "healthy skepticism" of organized religion. But does he still have that?

He talks about an emptiness that people have. I don't feel empty and even if I did, I wouldn't want the President trying to solve that particular problem.

You know where this kind of talk leads, once some one gets into the White House? It leads to all sorts of "family friendly" legislation that winds up looking a lot like censorship and it's all done for the "spiritual health" of America.

Maybe Obama won't go there. But I don't quite believe it. The guy just seems to think he can improve people, rather than just improve their lives. He really does talk like a self-help type of guy. It runs through everything you just quoted.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Yes. Well, not around it but directly at it. It's not productive to speak on the cultivation of empathy without talking about -- and talking about doing something about -- the two primary causes of its decline.

I will not be running for office.

That is, of course, unless The People want me...

.> This isn't about Bush. It's about
> the post-Bush era

Do you honestly think that Rove, Rove's staff, and Cheney's staff are going to disappear quietly into thinktanks in February 2009? Personally I think they feel they are just getting started and will be more than eager to offer their services to Giuliani (for example).

sPh

Wow, Obama is subjecting me to a moral test. I hope that I pass and he votes for me!

I guess we're going to disagree on this one, Andrew. Hopefully this exchange has been entertaining.

But the more I think about him, the more he's slipping as a possible primary candidate for me. I'd rather hear from Richard Dawkins on religion than from barack Obama.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Fairleft above argues that to cultivate empathy now we have to talk about why we've lost it:

It's not productive to speak on the cultivation of empathy without talking about -- and talking about doing something about -- the two primary causes of its decline.

I think there's a distinction to be made.  Amongst people who are constantly engaged in politics on the Left, it's certainly essential to talk about the causes of the "empathy gap," and I think Fairleft and I agree that it has a lot to do with white resentment of things like affirmative action.

But, I don't think it's productive for Obama to run around doing a history lesson.  Rather, I think he should keep doing what he's doing, which is preach communitarian ideas of individual salvation being connected to collective salvation:

If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child.

If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent.

If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work.

Ok, I understand that distinction. 

I would say two things.  First, it would help us all on political grounds if we could put ourselves in their shoes.   

Also, allowing for the difficulty of seeing things through the eyes of Bush, what about through the eyes of his supporters?

At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Andrew -- we had these debates here when Obama made this speech. The above statement is what, I think, bothered most people.

This is a complete strawman argument -- what Democratic politician does this? What Democratic politician dismisses religion?

More importantly, while I guess there are some "liberals" who do what Obama claims, if you close your eyes and listen to the above line, you would absolutely think it's Bill Bennett or Bill O'Reilly.

What "liberals" think about religion in the public square is that it's a Constitutional issue. And the Right conflates these absolutely rational and well-thought arguments with some bullshit about how liberals hate Christians.

And that's exactly what Obama does, too, in the above quoted line. Paraphrasing, of course. But read between the lines, and it's there.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

That strikes me as exactly the kind of stereotyping that Obama is objecting to. If MLK or RFK had been elected to some sort of office would he have imposed those kinds of policies? They sure talked about religion a lot...

cscs,
Somehow those words mean something different to Obama supporters than to non-supporters (neutral and/or opposed). Obama supporters just don't seem to have the empathy to understand why some liberals find those words disturbing.

OK, that was a bit of a snarky shot, but it seems clear that Obama supporters hear those words and understand them to mean something very different than others do. And they give Obama a clear pass on the "some liberals" formulation.

sPh

Consider many of the comments on this thread.  Destor basically said that since Obama talks about God he'll eventually impose religious laws.

In my experience in three blue states--NY, MA and CA-- the Dawkins view that religion and religious people are just dumb is very common.  You don't need a politician to say so to know that many people think it.

Whereas _I_ find that sort of response from Obama and his supporters condescending and naive.

sPh

Wow. Now that comment IS brutally condescending and also an inaccurate characterization of those who have disagreed with you in this thread.

sPh

I apologize if so. Can you explain?

I agree with you and Obama and I'm happy he's speaking out as you quote, but I think that attacking the underlying causes of a phenomenon is much more effective than just attacking the phenomenon itself.

I think the primary cause of the decline of empathy is the enormous growth in social inequality of the last 35 years and the natural resentment and distrust of others that produces. Affirmative action also produces resentment, but I think people would be much more generous about that if present-day economic inequality were not so severe.

Actually, that's not what his speech is about. He's far more critical of secular liberals than he is anyone else in that speech. They're the ones who have to start understanding the non-Falwell Christians, the way Obama sees it. What he doesn't do is call even on moderate Christians to accept a more secular worldview.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I think we have to separate the two groups of people to which Obama was referring here, (1) Democratic politicians, who do not at all dismiss religion, and (2) "some liberals," in blue states like ours. And maybe you can put some bloggers in (2).

For group 1, it's a strawman, and for group 2, he's chastising people who aren't running for office, and, for the most part, have no interaction with the "red state" religious people who are supposedly getting so offended by these religion-haters.

Neither of these two groups, to me, are worthy of being the subject of a major political speech. 

So, what Obama is really doing in these speech is speaking about the "image" of liberals -- the representation of liberals (caricature, to use the word he used) that is portrayed in the media as religion-haters. He's playing into the same dynamic that Bill O'Reilly does in his War On Christmas segments.

And here's the thing -- those blue state religion haters who think religion is dumb -- they're just talking. Yes, they may think it. But they're not trying to shut down churches, or stop Christmas from happening. 

It's just like the discussions we have here in the Blogs about religion. People can express their views *without* trying to shut down religious practice.

There's no need to conflate disbelief with intolerance. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Andrew (and sorry this isn't attached to a comment of yours; my reply function's on the fritz today), I sent that "This Week" quote far and wide -- it was maybe the best practical expression of what we need overall that I've heard. And I've long thought the overarching deficiency in our politics for decades has been a failure of empathy. But I agree with those who want to see Obama (and all the Dems, frankly) show that they recognize and can attack the acute sickness in our current politics, which is the perversion of the Republican right into modern movement conservatism, and our concomitant inability to constrain their aggression against our system.

I don't think people are arguing to "dehumanize" anybody here. And I don't think they're even arguing for fighting the rank-and-file voter who's been lured into supporting this radical, dangerous political strain. But if we don't manage to kill that strain and eliminate it from our politics, we can forget about implementing our goals for the country; we literally can forget about the Constitution.

In my fantasies, I can see someone like Obama hitting upon the perfect strategy, using his gift of empathy to wake up that rank and file, and shake up the somnolent, craven media, simultaneously killing the Rove/Norquist/Cheney(Scaife/Atwater/Nixon...) strain of politics and leading us into a new era of common good. (Indeed, movement conservatism is the ultimate expression of the failure of empathy.) That's the one-two punch we need, in fact. But you can't build a house on quicksand. We need to know that Obama is aware of the threat, and is willing and able to dispatch it.

And since I wrote so quickly, I fear my point isn't clear enough: the current threat is not a bipartisan one. Obama's frequent efforts to cast blame equally, while appealing to low-information voters and those who haven't been around long enough to have seen the change in our polity, are actually damaging to the effort to set ourselves aright again.

Absolutely. But separation of Church and State is not the same thing as separation of religion and politics.

I think Jerry Falwell thought the same thing. I may be one of the silent minority, but I would like to see less religious confession in politics and the public sphere. To a non-believer, constant religious discussion and argument in public arenas is a form of soft proselytizing. While there is nothing wrong with spiritual consideration or biographical information on one's beliefs, we need to be governed by common humanitarian values, backed by science,facts and fairness, not someone's particular mythology.

"Obama is on to something"

I agree. When Obama was asked about the display of the Confederate flag in the debate that was held in South Carolina, he said that he thought it belonged in a museum. He made his point as clear as it could be. But he did not go on to rail against the evils of white Southerners. He did not demonize anyone. Obama has a talent for stating his opinions in an uncompromising but non-inflammatory manner.

True, Obama's matter-of fact way of dealing with issues will only succeed with those who are willing to grant him some good will. As others have pointed out, there are too many people in this country who make a deliberate effort to destroy good will. I have no talent for making political predictions, but I am still encouraged by what I have heard from Obama.

But we should remember that our heroes, the MLKs and the RFKs, preached love and empathy for even those who are unable to return the sentiment.

1) MLK was not running for political office. He was a religious figure.

2) RFK was not a "lets all get along" type. On the contrary, he was a passionate, willing to get in the gutter throw punches street fighter. He was a ruthless politician.

This is Bobby speaking extemporaneously to a crowd telling them that MLK has been shot:

My favorite poem, my -- my favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote:       

Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair,
against our will,
comes wisdom
through the awful grace of God.

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.   

So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King -- yeah, it's true -- but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love -- a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.   

We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past, but we -- and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.    But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.   

And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.

Come on guys. He didn't say that there's an attack on religion. He said that secularists stereotype Christians. I'm sorry, that strikes me as pretty obviously true.

Right. And Democrats who want to restrict violence in video games or sexual images on television or dirty words on the radio don't blame it all on God, but they're still playing to a Christian, socially conservative voters -- they just use other non-God language to make their case.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I don't find it as difficult as you do.

For them, it's a clear case of the Machiavellian principle that the ends justify the means. Is it hard to believe that most people would regard the lives of people they believe are would-be suicide bombers or terrorists as worthless?

Help good old Dr. Frankfurt out and ask your students to buy the book, instead of taking it from the internet.

The problem is, the intelligent and responsible thing to do OFTEN IS to give into the bully, especially in the short term, and especially if the harm he threatens to inflict is not upon you but upon another.

When the mugger points his gun at you, you may choose to call his bluff and take the risk upon yourself. But when the mugger points the gun at your child, you have no choice but to give him what he wants.

The responsible time to contain the bully is when the threat has passed, or before it begins. That's when you can smash a bottle of whiskey across the back of his head.

What can I say? I read him using the same language those that pretend there's a war on Christianity use. 

Again, I go back to, I have no idea who he was talking about: politicians who clearly don't dismiss religion, or blue state liberal who it really doesn't matter whether they dismiss religion? 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I'd also like to add, re: the discussion about religion and liberals -- I'm tired of liberals being the fall guy.

If you look at what's going on today with religion and politics, clearly the problem is not if and how liberals stereotype religious people.

Not when Regent University has graduated 150 people into the Bush Administration.  

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Bluebell Says:

Empathy is an unrealistic expectation

I suppose it is, along with equality, rationality, justice, and a host of other things to which I aspire.  But if it isn't it worthwhile as an objective, even if the achievement of it is only intermittent and partial?  I think most of us spend most of our lives struggling to achieve things which are "unrealistic".  At best, we move them on a little.  But even if we don't we may not have wasted our lives.

I try to keep the distinction between sympathy and empathy clear in my mind.  Sympathy equals feeling for, empathy equals feeling with, and I think that difference is important for two reasons.

1. Sympathy often involves a perverse kind of patronizing.  "Poor dear, she doesn't know any better."  "Poor guy, he loses so much by being a bigot".  Sometimes it can even mean "boy I'm lucky that hasn't happened to me".
2. Empathy does not require the person who possesses that trait to act on the behalf of the person with which one empathizes.  MHO this is an crucial distinction.  One of the comments here uses as an example the impossibility of empathizing with a mass murderer.  Another the impossibility of empathizing with Karl Rove.  The assumption is that if someone empathizes with them one would also have to sympathize with them.  But that isn't necessarily the case.  If I empathize with Rove, I can also judge him and because I understand how his mind works and because I can project how he would behave in any given situation, I am far better able to counter him effectively.  Empathy allows critical distance at the same time one views the world through someone else's eyes.  IF I empathize with an opponent I can either create a strategy to change that opponent or a strategy to neutralize that opponent.  Great chess players know this.

Reading Obama's words and having heard him speak in person, I think he does empathize rather than sympathize.  He doesn't "feel sorry for"...which is never a good tactic for effective program development, because it means he doesn't tell the objects of sympathy what's good for them, whether they want it or not. 

I don't know if he has the other kind of empathy, knowing his enemies well enough to maintain critical distance and create good strategies for neutralizing those he can't convert.  Time will tell.  But I don't read any narcissism in his character, and that's a hopeful sign.

aMike

As an afterthought, and for me a sad one, I note that Atrios has picked up on Andrew's remarks here, which isn't a bad thing in and of itself.  HOWEVER, the paragraph he chose to quote was not the complimentary paragraphs at the end, but the one with the Lieberman reference in it.  Anyone who reads Atrios comments and doesn't click through won't get the center of Andrew's thinking.  He does have some interesting things to say about seeing him in the flesh, however.

Afterthought to the afterthought.  Anyone who gets upset about the comment chain here go read the comment chain at Atrios.  You'll just love us afterward--scout's honor.

Give me a link to the book or the book's title and I'll make sure there are copies in the library and in the bookstore. 

aMike

That doesn't imply dehumanizing the right (they do a fine job of that on their own). This simply means acknowledging that, while I can understand the right's reluctance to, say, investigate a president who started a war based on lies because it might implicate them in the process, that such notions are inherently unsupportable.

Emapthy with another person's attutudes and feelings does not mean believing that those attitudes are suppotable or defensible, or even that one should seek compromise with them. You can understand how other people feel, even if you think those feelings lead to positions that are dead wrong.

I actually find it very easy to empathize with the right's reflexive defense of Bush. He's their guy. They're loyal to him and to their party. They believe a huge amount depends on keeping their party in power and keeping the other party out of power. They're determined not to let Bush's enemies (us) bring him and their party down, even if that means blocking legitimate inquiries, because they know where those inquiries will lead - scandal, impeachment, resignation, etc. I know exactly how they feel.

The "excellent" is for insisting that people write about what you actually said rather than what their predispositions wanted you to have said.  My whole point in this chain has been to encourage people to read something seriously, think about it, and then write about it.

aMike

This is a threat that, according to the bullies in the White House, the press corps and, alas, many Democrats, will not pass in our generation. So, from Nov., 2000 to the end of our generation, is that what you'd call the "short term?"

Andrew, did you mean to say this?

...it's also not true that every evangelical in this country is a moralizing fundamentalist.

Pretty much, by definition. If you're not a fundamentalist you're really not an evangelical Christian. If you don't spread the good news of the gospel, i.e., proselytize, you're not doing the work God wants you to do. If you don't hold God's moral values closer to your heart than man's moral values and let them guide your actions in the world, what's the point of saying you're a Christian at all?

Is isn't stereotyping to point out what an individual or a group says they believe and how those beliefs guide their actions, especially when those actions take place in the arena of political power and influence.

And the Washington Post won't go away, nor the Washington Times, nor Time Magazine, nor Tom Friedman, nor Fox News, nor the vast corporate media empires that control them and many others and most of the discussion of politics for public consumption.

Yes again.

This gets to the real point of empathy in the political sphere. To get to a fair, just, culturally and economically vibrant society, politicians must embody empathy for the people. Such empathy would, ideally, lead to the enactment of better policies and programs, and to more effective oversight of the management of those programs.

Not every politician, nor every interest group in society, nor every bureaucracy, will be empathetic to the needs of the people. Those who are not must be opposed. With clarity, conviction and vigor.

Right now, I believe that the majority of Democrats long for such clarity, conviction and vigor.

As I understand it, fundamentalism is the doctrinal tendency toward biblical literalism and infallibility. Evangelicalism is the doctrinal emphasis on spreading the gospel and saving souls through conversion. While there is clearly some overlap, these are not the same things. Not all fundamentalists are big on proselytizing; and not all Christian proselytizers are biblical literalists.