Why Obama Can Empathize with Everybody and Sympathize with Nobody
Apparently "empathy" has lost its status as a Presidential buzz-word, like so many other discarded buzz-words on the trail of linguistic trash which Barack Obama is gradually tracing across the English language.
Goodbye to "hope, change, and empathy," and hello to torture, trillion-dollar give-aways, cover-ups, murder, "preventive detention," and the rest of what we would probably have to call "the real Obama," if such a thing existed.
It's probably silly to talk about shades of meaning in a universe of public discourse where newspapers long ago laid off the last old-school copy editor, but in this particular instance it may be worthwhile to step outside the context of all those warm and fuzzy slogans which elected a cold and cynical President, and ask...
What's the difference between sympathy and empathy?
Sympathy means the stimulation in a person of feelings that are similar in kind to those that affect another person; empathy means a mental or affective projection into the feelings or state of mind of another person.
If I sympathize with you, I feel what you feel, but empathy is more like mental role-playing. Classical actors understand a character, but method actors feel the pain.
Empathy is different from sympathy in that to be empathetic one understands how the person feels rather than actually experiencing those feelings, as in sympathy.
For a con-man like Obama, sympathy would be a crippling disability. Who wants to feel what the suckers feel? But every successful con-man is a master of empathy. How else can you figure out what the suckers will fall for?
This distinction has absolutely no cash-value in the United States today, except for a marginal difference in tone. "Empathy" is a slightly more intellectual representative of the empathy/sympathy hodge-podge, and probably more appropriate for a speech by the sort of high-class con-man who belongs in the Ivy League and Oval Office, instead of Las Vegas and San Quentin.
Jacob Freeze
















And for sympathetically challenged Obamabots who still worship their hypocritical Messiah, here's a little news from Obama's war in Iraq from the great war-reporter Dahr Jamail...
May 28, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe all that matters to the powers. The price of oil is now under control.
The United States for all it's words, of Democracy and what ever false promise's it told Us and them. Bush and his Democracy Talk was for Us, the U.S citizen.
We may not like who the Iraqi's want, as long as they know, who really controls the oil.
Saddam was not a reliable player in the World of oil and it's control.
It's probably one of the reasons we tried to overthrow Hugo Chavez
They were both loose cannons.
Obey THE CARTEL, you rogue elements. You will be allowed your own turf, if you pay homage for the rights. THE REAL CARTEL, consisting of the West and it's allies, eliminates all other players.
Obey, the rules, or we'll find another reason to invade.
May 28, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Pakistan is next on the list of targets, unless we really get distracted and bomb Iran and North Korea.
But as far as I can see, none of the forking paths ahead of us leads to peace.
May 28, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Sam Smith puts it rather well.
Of course this little bit just barely touches the surface.
Read the whole thing. It really is quite good.
C
May 28, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked Sam Smith's memoir, and there's a really creepy indication in it of how wrong everything has gone...
Holy buckets, Batman!
The neo-cons make Nixon look like a great liberal President!
And now we have Obama modeling himself on Reagan, that senile cowboy-puppet of Wall Street!
What next?
May 28, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is, and I believe Sam brings this up, that although the people in DC are very intelligent - they have little life experience outside of the Ivy League circle they came from.
They have no idea what it's like to wonder if the mortgage will be payed or if they will be able to afford to take their kids to the doctor or have to work two jobs.
You really do have to walk in the other guys shoes at least once in order to really know what it's like.
We need to get the moneyed as well as the money out of government.
I always liked the idea the Chinese had for a while. Where if someone in the party got "to big for their britches" they were sent to work in the rice patties.
C
May 28, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe that only the unlucky many can... sympathize with themselves?
FDR was an Ivy-League child of tremendous privilege, and Eleanor Roosevelt likewise, and yet...
There was old Eleanor in 1963, driving down a mean little road in Mississippi, with a pistol on her lap, just in case the local Klan tried to stop her.
And if you look through the staff directory at OxFam or Save the Children, there's one Ivy-League star after another, but for some strange reason...
A heck of a lot of Ivy dregs wind up in Washington!
May 28, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
A heck of a lot of Ivy dregs wind up in Washington! Probably the only place they can find work. But I digress.
FDR and LBJ pushed for and pass the programs they did because they HAD TO. The (at that time) very vocal left and civil rights organizations would have roasted them if they hadn't. FDR face a lot of pressure from the communists and socialist of his time.
Also the media brought a good deal of pressure as well. (Yes it really was progressive back then.)
C
May 28, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other thing. When FDR and even JFK and LBJ were running, they still had to get out among the people. FDR had no television. There was radio and newspapers and news reals. Campaigning was done on foot. And it was not managed or spun in any way.
Washington has become far too detached from the majority of the people with sound bites and talking heads and well rehearsed speeches and teleprompters. And peopled by lawyers and CEOs and high priced doctors and the like.
All this because in order to run for public office you have to be very rich and know very rich people. This has to change.
C
May 28, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
As long as it costs... what? $400 million?... to run for President, and $50 million to run for the Senate, all we can hope for is more of the same.
But it isn't impossible to chase away most of the money, merely by banning political advertising on TV.
Although there seems to be a national legend that the First Amendment guarantees "freedom of advertising," it has never been tested through the courts.
May 29, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You hit the nail on the head, as it were. TV...the Nixon/Kennedy debates proving that the one who LOOKS the best get elected. Also one reason Humphrey got trounced by Nixon. He looked like a grumpy old man.
I will not go into the last election. Will leave that for others.
C
May 29, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked your link to Sam Smith so much that I immediately used it here!
Many thanks!
May 28, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might I suggest that you're twisting the definition of empathy a bit...perhaps a bit more than a bit. Even using Thesaurus.com for your source, you're struck with the list of suggested synonyms, which includes among others, compassion. (Yes, it includes sympathy, too, at the end, creeping in just a head of warmth).
I'm going to posit a contrast, which admittedly might be a bit over simplified.
Sympathy = feel for
Empathy = feel with
To which I'll add this caveat, there's an implied feeling of superiority attached to sympathy that's absent in empathy. I cannot feel sorry for someone I consider my equal or better, but I can feel sorry for someone I feel below me, regardless of the benchmark used.
On the other hand, with effort, observation, and imagination, I can empathize with persons of all situations and circumstances. Being able to understand them, I can judge them and their actions fairly--I like that in a President. I guess that makes me an unreconstructed Obamabot, huh?
One last thing...I'd rather be on the receiving end of empathy than sympathy any day.
May 28, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Words don't mean what you want them to mean, amike, and the whole point of using thesaurus.com's distinction between empathy and sympathy was apparently lost on you.
So you chose a random entry on a list of approximate synonyms, and demonstrated...
...that you haven't got a clue how to use a thesaurus.
If you're smart, you'll look at this as a learning experience...
And if not, not.
May 28, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The previous comment is probably too harsh, and fighting off the usual mob of Obamabots may be turning me into a beast.
Anyway, here's another reference...
May 28, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably too harsh? You bad tempered bastard. amike's actually someone you can read and LEARN from, ya grump.
Ok, screw what the Thesaurus people say. Sympathy may once have meant actually experiencing what the other person feels. But it's wandered off in recent decades, means something like pity. Distanced, superior (as amike says) and not necessarily shared feelings. While dear little empathy's crept on into the empty space in our language. Remember the Empath in Star Trek NG? Yessirree. Not just role-playing. so the word's begun its move into the empty space left by sympathy.
Though for me, empathy still seems to have that slight academic odour, coming from psychological-speak maybe, chloroform, as you put it - more of a role-playing feel to it than genuinely experiencing the same feelings. Thera would say all this stuff about mirror neurons, firing when we see/feel others suffer, and that's "empathy" - I donno. It's a word in transition.
But whatever these words mean now, we get your point. That Obama's now not just a sociopathic conman for you, he's also an "empathetic conman." Not sure that label's gonna enrage or awaken people, Ruta.
May 29, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
With your addition, amike's definition captures the clear distinction between the two. That distinction exists whether or not one supports the president.
It also explains why empathy is a desirable quality on the bench, and sympathy is not.
May 29, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, quinn proves he's a friend and protector of le menu peuple by endorsing the middle-school free association of... whoever.
You, quinn, are a very, very good person, just like that well-known neuro-psychological authority, TheraP, upon whom you fathered a "quote..."
But about those mirror-neurons in your brain that you assume are firing sympathetically...
There's nobody but you in the mirror, quinn, and nothing on the "other side..."
...except a few silly words.
TheraP ain't there.
amike ain't there.
...just a few silly words.
May 29, 2009 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I had that "empathy" word foisted on me at an early age by amateur psychologists, and while it was supposed to be "feel with", the end result felt like a Star Trek energy vampire trying to figure out how my controls worked well enough to download all my programs and wipe my banks clean.
Compassion probably retains its original meaning the best.
In any case, my brief looks at Lincoln these last few days makes him seem much more Obamaesque than I'd realized - you might want to peruse some works like Vidal's and see how that ties in with your thesis. "Team of Rivals" and all that garbage aside. The double meaning sentences and ability to (try and) placate everyone...
May 29, 2009 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
After I read your comment, I revisited the more or less forgotten "controversy" about Gore's novelized Lincoln, without finding much that connects with Obama, whom Vidal (faintly) praised in comparison to John Kennedy, "one of our worst presidents."
But I also came across a very well-written diary by oleeb, "Gore Vidal And The Two Right Wings," and it reminded me of what Gore Vidal used to be, before he became that great wreck who occasionally appeared on TV in the last few years, like a hallucination of the Roman Colosseum slowly floating through a strip-mall.
May 29, 2009 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice imagery. I thought of Gore Vidal as the Spruce Goose.
May 29, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore Vidal as the Spruce Goose... a gigantic rickety airplane, invented by a mad genius......
That works for me!
And wouldn't it have been so much more fun if Gore Vidal had been the descendant of old Senator Gore who put their name back in the Senate, instead of the earnest but hopelessly cloddish Al Gore?
"Argle bargle gargle environment environment!"
We're all going to Hell, anyway, and it only makes it worse that Al "Meat-head" Gore will just keep argling and bargling and gargling until Judgement Day!
But I have to admit...
I voted for that well-meaning clod in 2000, and even threw garbage at James Addison Baker, III, every time he appeared in public in Florida, while he was stealing the election for Bush.
And isn't that a chatty comment!
May 29, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Middle-school free association?
Dude, I didn't think you were serious. Thought you were just riffing. But apparently you are. Quoting a thesaurus? To conclusively establish the difference in meaning between sympathy and empathy? You know, referring to some little bookkeepers somewhere, midgets down mineshafts, sorting out their little slips of paper, determining how a language used by hundreds of millions of people works, tracking the daily changes in the currents of sympathy and empathy?
Are you in Grade 6, by any chance?
There's not a font big enough for this one. HAR.
May 29, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The odor of academia can't be helped, alas: I spend more hours there than in my house. But then there are worse odors, maybe just. When I had my cat, the house was redolent of Eau de Catbox, which Chanel has yet to assign a number to. I take my sense of empathy from someone who probably had it without knowing the word for it: John Winthrop:
We, us, together, our,--the words of empathy.
It would be arrogance beyond arrogance to claim perfect empathy with anyone: but I can't begin to keep my "eyes on our commission and community in the work" without striving for as much empathy as possible. Else I tell you, out of my superior intelligence what you need or worse, what you should need.
Thankee, Quinn. I may play with this on my own blog one of these days.
May 29, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet John Winthrop was the least sympathetic and empathetic man in his actions of all the Puritans. There is always more truth in what people do than in what they say.
May 29, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and even more so, in my comment for amike immediately below.
May 29, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If only you had a grade-book, here, as in the classroom, to prove how right you always are!
But you don't, and here you're just a chump who doesn't know how to use a thesaurus, much less an etymological dictionary, and it only gets worse with your weird patriarchal adoration of John Winthrop, who only executed a very few heretics, probably out of "empathy," and persecuted Anne Hutchinson with monomaniacal intensity for as long as he had breath in his body, and likewise with Margaret Jones, who was executed in 1648.
So amike's model of empathy was a witch-hunter!
Harharharhar!!!
Thanks for the "lesson," amike!
May 29, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attacking the messenger doesn't undermine the validity of the message. If you take that quote and attach it to a more morally upright figure, the same essential truth applies.
Whatever.
May 29, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
amike said...
amike's comment is funny because he uses Winthrop as an example of empathy, in the sense he gives the word, with fairness and compassion thrown in.
You're right, Zipperupus, that if amike had only used a quote from Winthrop, my objection would be beside the point.
But he didn't, and it wasn't.
"John Winthrop, the compassionate witch-hunter!"
Harharharhar!!!
May 29, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it a misappropriated quote?
I didn't even read that accusation.
But yeah, a compassionate witch hunter is equivalent to the inquisitor who tortured the accused in order to extract a confession which would save their immortal soul. A taste of eternal damnation should suffice to prevent the outcome.
Unfortunately, humanity's cup runneth over with profound nuggets of wisdom embedded in moral turds. Some of the work written by Increase Mather and his son Cotton were quite profound (and Increase helped to administer Harvard), but their involvement in the culture of their times tarnishes their intellectual/spiritual legacy. Cotton's views on the nobility of Abu Bakr Ibn Tufail had no bearing on his love of dead Pequots.
May 29, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we need another surge!
McCain could tour Iraq again. Maybe he would even tell Obama how to win wars and catch bin Laden.
It just goes to show, once the 'floodgates of hell' were opened by Bush, they are damn hard to close.
May 29, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's zooming who? Who has conned Obama into thinking that for him, the military can produce some kind of positive result in Iraq and Afghanistan which they could not produce for Bush? Has Obama been conned by the military, or has Obama conned himself? Remember, the military at least had a desire not to totally discredit Bush. Can the same be said about their relationship with Obama, who was ostensibly the "peace candidate"?
There's lots of conning going on. But it's Obama who will be the chump in this game. Victory for the military is simply to avoid an accounting for the last eight years. The more failure and chaos there is, the better off they are.
May 29, 2009 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was talking about two more brigades for Afghanistan while he was still a candidate, because (I assume) it made him look "strong on defense," so I can't blame the generals for selling him his "surge."
I obviously agree with you about the futility of our enterprise in Afghanistan, but I'm not at all sure that Obama will come out on the short end of this stick.
The outcome of appointing Stanley McChrystal to run our show in Afghanistan is likely to be a lot of "black ops" killing, which doesn't leave a tell-tale crater like McKiernan's bombing. If Obama and McChrystal can turn that wasteland into a desert, it may (temporarily) suppress resistance enough so that Obama can claim success in the 2012 election cycle, and what else matters?
As Tacitus once said, "They made a desert and called it peace."
May 29, 2009 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations, you have once again managed to successfully wage war against the imaginary strawmen you have concocted as your interlocutors for this edition of making up your own definitions for words to illustrate a point in your own little fantasy universe.
May 29, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Out of the 26 comments in this thread (now, 27 including mine), 11 of them are your own, including the first comment.
You and the GOP are in for a looong 8-years of irate insanity. This going to be fun to watch. :)
May 29, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calling people Obots displays a frightening lack of empathy. Perhaps you despise what you lack.
Anyhow, your usual batch of criticisms are universal. A casual glance over history reveals wars of conquest, expansion, and the building of an empire. There are also repeated giveaways to the elite class that reached a peak under Wilson with the founding of the FRB.
In other words, your scattered and curmudgeonly criticisms of Obama lack context. You make general criticisms of the American empire a particular criticism of President Obama. So it makes you sound like an acrid puddle of batshit.
I now await your usual highly personal and misguided rejoinder.
May 29, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it fascinating how the pseudo-intellectuals that post on these blogs take any criticism of there current chosen messiah oh so personally. And engage in attacks on those who bring into question anything concerning said messiah.
C
May 29, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
'I find it fascinating how the pseudo-intellectuals that post on these blogs take any criticism of there current chosen messiah oh so personally. And engage in attacks on those who bring into question anything concerning said messiah."
The utter lack of self-awareness in these two contradictory statements is hilarious.
This poster is a spoiled, stupid, reactionary piece of shit. He has the thought processes of a frustrated nine-year-old. And anyone that recommends or comments favorably on his drivel is similarly stupid and unworthy of attention or respect.
How's that for a personal "attack", loser?
May 29, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rest my case.
C
May 29, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is worse:
1. Those who believe that Obama is the messiah?
2. Those who want to prove that Obama isn't the messiah?
I would say category two is worse because it preseumes that category one exists.
Also.
May 29, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Zip, but the WORST are those who dare to judge him by his actions...
;0)
May 29, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only those who dare judge a tree by its fruit, but actually present the judgment and evidence before the public and allow them to decide without making it personal.
Those are the worst. Damn them and their sobriety.
May 29, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get what you mean Zip, our host here has a certain, let's say, personal style, but just try not to take it personally. I can see where he's coming from, even when he's trying to whack my head off...
May 29, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your logic is impeccable, sir.
May 29, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason we can sympathize with people is because we can empathize with them.
Theory of mind is the ability to recognize that others have thoughts, emotions and ideas similar to ours, empathy is a result of theory of mind - it is the ability to recognize that those thoughts, emotions and ideas are equal to ours in importance.
Empathy is the essence of our evolution of species, it allowed us to co-operate and communicate in ways that secured our survival.
May 29, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't exactly agree with your thoughtful comment, BevD, but it's an incredible relief to see it, after so many insults and so much middle-school free association masquerading as linguistic analysis.
"Here's what pops into my little mind when I hear the word 'empathy!'"
Thanks for breaking the chain of that trash!
I agree that empathy requires a theory of other minds, and likewise about the crucial importance of empathy in the evolution of human societies, even at the level of very small groups in the forest primeval.
But I can't quite agree that sympathy requires empathy, and it seems to me that tears evoke tears, without cognitive mediation.
To put it another way, I think there's a level of sympathy that's deeper than mind, and extends itself beyond our own species.
I was feeding a little family of ducks last night, and when one of the big ducks pecked a duckling, I winced.
It wasn't a cognitive reaction, as far as I can judge.
May 29, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I'm smiling at the thought of the Raging Root as we know him here on these pages wincing for the duckling. Hope you didn't offer that duck the same treatment you reserve for your commenters! Haha.
In this kind of case, either you're talking about some primitive emotional contagion, which has no cognitive elements to it, or you feel bad FOR the duckling in which case you're presupposing it is endowed with Mind in some sense, no?
(okay, strapping on helmet...)
May 29, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I was feeding a little family of ducks last night, and when one of the big ducks pecked a duckling, I winced."
Oh, boo fucking hoo. Pussy.
May 29, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not Pussy, moron!
Ducky!
May 29, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I'm thinking of Gore Vidal not as the Spruce Goose but the Fucked Duck. It's all your fault, how many times must I tell you, DON'T FEED THE GODDAMN ANIMALS!!! THEY MAKE YOU WINCE!!! HAR HAR HARDY HAR!!! Sympathy, empathy, they're all roads to a dead end.
May 31, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a word for this diarist to look up: puerile.
What a lot of anger going nowhere!
May 29, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much as I hate to interrupt this fascinating conversation you're having with yourself, I was kind of wondering if you could tell me who Obama murdered? I mean, I realize he's Satan, and all, but, really, murder?
Again, sorry to interrupt, but I couldn't figure it out from the story you linked to, and, well, murder is a pretty serious crime. Are you saying he set off the truck bomb that the story you linked to is about, or are you saying he ordered the Taliban to use people as human shields? Or is it both?
May 29, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama murdered the Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign. THAT's what much (not all) of this crap is truly about, Steve.
May 29, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
NC Stevie apparently missed the description of 97 Afghans killed by "close air support" which takes up three-fourths of the linked article that he claims is all about a "truck-bomb."
3 Americans were killed in a separate incident by a suicide attack, described in the first paragraph of the link, and that's as far as NC Stevie read.
The rules of engagement maintained by Barack Obama in Afghanistan make slaughtering large numbers of civilians inevitable, and since the deaths of 97 Afghans in Farah were the obviously foreseeable outcome of actions by Barack Obama...
I call it murder, and I say again...
Barack Obama is just as guilty of killing those 97 Afghans, including 65 children, as if he had killed them with a machete.
May 29, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink