Our Empathetic Authoritarians

By Ben Shapiro
America has a crisis of empathy.
That crisis isn't expressed as lack of charitable giving: Americans give approximately seven times what Europeans do to charity per capita. And it isn't expressed as an unwillingness to spend on a governmental level: The United States currently spends more money than any nation in the history of the world.
The crisis of empathy isn't even about an inability to walk in other people's shoes: America is one of the most racially and religiously tolerant nations on earth.
The American crisis of empathy rests in a simple fact: America is now divided over two mutually exclusive definitions of empathy. That divide is unbridgeable, and it's tearing the country down the middle.
One group of Americans -- call them Neutrality-Driven Empaths -- defines empathy as treating people as individuals capable of free choice and deserving of equality under the law. In this view, empathy manifests in respect for the capacity of other human beings, and in understanding that they make different decisions than you would. This version of empathy doesn't require that we agree with anyone's decisions, but that we understand that it is not our job, absent significant externalities, to rule them.
The other group of Americans -- call them Emotion-Centered Empaths -- believes that empathy means mirroring solidarity with subjective feelings in policy. In this view, empathy means expressing agreement with someone else's specific feelings, refusing to assess whether those feelings are merited or justified and then shaping policy around assuaging those feelings.
Neutrality-Driven Empaths believe that politics ought to be about solutions geared toward equality of individuals before the law. Policy and emotional empathy may come into conflict in this view. Emotion-Centered Empaths believe the opposite: They believe that politics ought to be about emotional solidarity rather than finding solutions. Policy must follow emotional empathy in this view.
To take a rather stark example, consider the question of black student test performance. Neutrality-Driven Empaths will suggest that meritocratic standards are in fact the only neutral rules that can be applied to education, and that such standards have acted as a ladder for a wide variety of human beings of various races; that if a disproportionate number of black students underperform on such tests, that may merit empathy, but it doesn't merit discarding the standards. Emotion-Centered Empaths will, in direct opposition, suggest that the mere fact of black student underperformance requires discarding testing regimes -- to do otherwise would be to abandon solidarity with those who underperform, to ignore the myriad factors that undoubtedly led to the underperformance in the first place.
The battle between Neutrality-Driven Empaths and Emotion-Driven Empaths creates a massive political asymmetry. That's because Neutrality-Driven Empaths acknowledge that while people may disagree over policy, that does not mean they are uncaring or cruel. But for Emotion-Driven Empaths, the opposite is again true: If policy is directly correlated with empathy, failure to agree represents emotional brutality and cruelty. Not only that: There can be no agreeing to disagree, because to suggest that people bear consequences for their actions is in and of itself uncaring and unempathetic. It lacks solidarity.
The empathy gap is a crisis. If you believe that empathy means treating people as individuals capable of reasoning and acting under neutral rules, we can have a society. If you believe that empathy means shaping policy around solidarity with subjective feelings, rules become kaleidoscopic, variable and fluid -- and compulsion is generally necessary in order to effectuate such rules.
Empathy for people as full human beings means recognizing their agency, understanding their differences and holding fast to equality before the law. If we reject those principles in favor of a high-handed and paternalistic approach to power politics, freedom will not survive.
[Ben Shapiro, 37, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show," and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the New York Times bestsellers "How To Destroy America In Three Easy Steps," "The Right Side Of History," and "Bullies." To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.]
COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM
America has a crisis of empathy.
That crisis isn't expressed as lack of charitable giving: Americans give approximately seven times what Europeans do to charity per capita. And it isn't expressed as an unwillingness to spend on a governmental level: The United States currently spends more money than any nation in the history of the world.
The crisis of empathy isn't even about an inability to walk in other people's shoes: America is one of the most racially and religiously tolerant nations on earth.
The American crisis of empathy rests in a simple fact: America is now divided over two mutually exclusive definitions of empathy. That divide is unbridgeable, and it's tearing the country down the middle.
One group of Americans -- call them Neutrality-Driven Empaths -- defines empathy as treating people as individuals capable of free choice and deserving of equality under the law. In this view, empathy manifests in respect for the capacity of other human beings, and in understanding that they make different decisions than you would. This version of empathy doesn't require that we agree with anyone's decisions, but that we understand that it is not our job, absent significant externalities, to rule them.
The other group of Americans -- call them Emotion-Centered Empaths -- believes that empathy means mirroring solidarity with subjective feelings in policy. In this view, empathy means expressing agreement with someone else's specific feelings, refusing to assess whether those feelings are merited or justified and then shaping policy around assuaging those feelings.
Neutrality-Driven Empaths believe that politics ought to be about solutions geared toward equality of individuals before the law. Policy and emotional empathy may come into conflict in this view. Emotion-Centered Empaths believe the opposite: They believe that politics ought to be about emotional solidarity rather than finding solutions. Policy must follow emotional empathy in this view.
To take a rather stark example, consider the question of black student test performance. Neutrality-Driven Empaths will suggest that meritocratic standards are in fact the only neutral rules that can be applied to education, and that such standards have acted as a ladder for a wide variety of human beings of various races; that if a disproportionate number of black students underperform on such tests, that may merit empathy, but it doesn't merit discarding the standards. Emotion-Centered Empaths will, in direct opposition, suggest that the mere fact of black student underperformance requires discarding testing regimes -- to do otherwise would be to abandon solidarity with those who underperform, to ignore the myriad factors that undoubtedly led to the underperformance in the first place.
The battle between Neutrality-Driven Empaths and Emotion-Driven Empaths creates a massive political asymmetry. That's because Neutrality-Driven Empaths acknowledge that while people may disagree over policy, that does not mean they are uncaring or cruel. But for Emotion-Driven Empaths, the opposite is again true: If policy is directly correlated with empathy, failure to agree represents emotional brutality and cruelty. Not only that: There can be no agreeing to disagree, because to suggest that people bear consequences for their actions is in and of itself uncaring and unempathetic. It lacks solidarity.
The empathy gap is a crisis. If you believe that empathy means treating people as individuals capable of reasoning and acting under neutral rules, we can have a society. If you believe that empathy means shaping policy around solidarity with subjective feelings, rules become kaleidoscopic, variable and fluid -- and compulsion is generally necessary in order to effectuate such rules.
Empathy for people as full human beings means recognizing their agency, understanding their differences and holding fast to equality before the law. If we reject those principles in favor of a high-handed and paternalistic approach to power politics, freedom will not survive.
[Ben Shapiro, 37, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show," and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the New York Times bestsellers "How To Destroy America In Three Easy Steps," "The Right Side Of History," and "Bullies." To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.]
COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM
Posted in Opinion
Tagged with empathy, charity, America, Liberals, Conservatives, Neutrality, emotions, individuals, groups, human beings, Freedoms Journal Institute, Freedoms Journal Magazine, politics
Tagged with empathy, charity, America, Liberals, Conservatives, Neutrality, emotions, individuals, groups, human beings, Freedoms Journal Institute, Freedoms Journal Magazine, politics
Recent
Archive
2022
January
Cartoon 01/03/22Cartoon 01/04/22Can Peace Come to the Hood?Moving ForwardThe Democrats' Exploitation of January 6 Gives Away Their GameCartoon 01/05/22Harry Reid, Death of a 'Statesman'? Cue the LaughterCartoon 01/06/22The Biggest Drug Dealers in the Black Community.Cartoon 01/07/22Manhattan's New DA Is Protecting Criminals Instead of Their VictimsLucy(ed) Again?Cartoon 01/10/22“Voter rights legislation” is a demand for government-backed systemic voter disenfranchisement!The perversion of JusticeCartoon 01/11/22The Freedom to Cheat Act: The Radical Left’s Latest Attempt to Undermine Our DemocracyMoney for IndoctrinationThe Great Re-Sorting Is HereCartoon 01/12/22Big Tech Thugs and Their AlliesCartoon 01/13/22Cartoon 01/14/22Cartoon 01/16/22The King is DeadCartoon 01/17/22Biden's Racist IronyThe Glory of God in the CosmosCartoon 01/18/22Evil FloridaThe Quest to Destroy WorkCartoon 01/19/21MLK Day: Equal Rights Versus Equal ResultsCartoon 01/20/22Cartoon 01/21/22Cartoon 01/23/22Cartoon 01/24/22Sick CityThe COVID-19 Impact of Expressive IndividualismCartoon 01/26/22Biden's Election HypocrisyCartoon 01/27/22Conservatives, If You Are Going to Talk to the Black Community, You Need to Have Something Truly Conservative to SayNo, Requiring Voter ID Is Not ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ And It’s Offensive To Say ThatCartoon 01/28/22Cartoon 01/30/22
February
Cartoon 02/01/22Black History as American HistoryInflationWhoopi Goldberg Says the Holocaust Wasn't About Targeting Jews. Here's Why That Matters.Cartoon 02/02/22Los Angeles Times Slams 'Vitriol in Politics'-- After Hiring Vitriolic ColumnistsCartoon 02/03/22Cartoon 02/04/22Cartoon 02/06/22Cartoon 02/07/22The Attack on Joe Rogan Is an Attack on DissentGroveling to ChinaCartoon 02/09/22A Tale of Top IS Leaders Killed Under Two AdministrationsCartoon 02/11/22Cartoon 02/10/22It’s Time to Sack the Rooney RuleBlacks Continue to be Sold Out by Media Appointed Black Leaders.Cartoon 02/13/22Cartoon 02/14/22Alert to Corporations Embracing Black Lives Matter (BLM): Renounce BLM Now!Epiphanies of a Colored PersonCartoon 02/15/22Canada Goes TyrannicalCanceling JoeCartoon 02/16/22The Great Joe Rogan N-Word ControversyCartoon 02/18/22Cartoon 02/20/22Cartoon 02/22/22The War On Parents ContinuesThe Woke AMACartoon 02/23/22GOP 'Gerrymandering' is 'Racist' -- Obama-mandering is Just PoliticsCartoon 02/24/22Black History Month: A Tempered Hurrah Pt 1Cartoon 02/28/22Cartoon 02/27/22Black History Month: A Tempered Hurrah - Part II
March
Cartoon 03/01/22Putin Wakes up the Western OstrichMy Dream State of the UnionCartoon 03/02/22Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin is a Generational TalentUkraine: Putin's Misadventure Unites the WestCartoon 03/03/22Cartoon 03/04/22Cartoon 03/06/22Cartoon 03/07/22Environmentalist NIMBYism Means Foreign Policy DisasterIt's questionable whether Biden understands American valuesCowards and LeadersCartoon 03/09/22Putin's War on Ukraine: A Graver Time of Reckoning
No Comments