• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do far right Conservatives/Libertarians lack empathy?

Do those on the far right lack empathy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 26.2%
  • No

    Votes: 62 73.8%

  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
It really depends on the far-right person in question. You can't paint everyone with the same brush. Some genuinely lack empathy, some don't.
 
I'm biased? :confused: And there was no indicators of any of it being a joke. If something said on a forum is meant to be a joke someone usually puts up some emoticon or some wording to indicate that it was meant as a joke. Where is yours? Cute. I did the same thing with your name. Know what came up? A section indicating that your user name is associated with not having empathy also. Interesting that huh? But don't worry, I didn't do it with just your name. I also did it with my name. Guess what...same type of BS. Funny how that happens huh? Again, a word to the wise. If you want to say a joke or be sarcastic it is usually a good idea to give some sort of indicator. Emoticons are most often used for just this very thing. People also use things like "j/k!" or "/sarcasm" etc etc.
`
I'm sorry you lack the capacity for understanding all of this.
 
`
I'm sorry you lack the capacity for understanding all of this.

I see a posting deficiency on your part, not on others ability to understand.
 
I would say that there are certainly those who have chosen to be "libertarian" only as a way to validate their sociopathy, but there are also principled libertarians, so I wouldn't make any blanket statements on the subject.

Seems to me that if a person is far ANYTHING, they tend to inhabit a territory beyond reason and are usually so self-centered as to place the axe they grind above all else, including other people.
 
I think some people confuse wingers of every persuasion with the mentality of the average U.S citizen. Most Americans are compassionate people who go out of their way to help those in need. But rarely are they reported on, for some extremists make for much better headlines.
I would go as far to say that those who seek factual debate and are interested in solutions, rather than arguments, are ignored just the same. So we have to wonder if the few who are indifferent to the plight of those down on their luck are just convenient scapegoats.
 
Not really. Within the conservative branch, there are three broad types, if we want to keep it brief.

Those who really do lack empathy. Just terrible people who happen to be conservative. When a terrible person is conservative, it tends to take on certain forms, but fundamentally it's just because they're terrible people. They'd still be terrible people if they were liberal.

Those who don't really understand some of the systemic challenges involved, probably because they've never had experience with it -- or at least not in our modern climate. Ignorance is only so much of a character flaw as one's willingness or unwillingness to correct it, to my mind. So if they are willing to, and if you can get the conversation to the point of talking about these things, you can find points of commonality, which leads me to...

Those who just might have a different idea than me of how we solve it. Within that, there are those I think are dramatically mistaken, and those I can actually find at least 50% agreement. I have actually had some very good conversations with fiscal conservatives about the drivers of perpetual poverty which added dimension to my own stances.

I won't wager at the percentages of these because I don't have any idea if my own experiences are demographically accurate, since my main pool in RL lacks dual fiscal and social conservatives, and DP is a poor representation of society as a whole.
 
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.
Before I answer, can you expand on what YOU mean by "less fortunate"?

Do you mean "less fortunate" in that someone got dealt a crappy hand, and their situation is only temporary?

Do you mean "less fortunate" in that someone got dealt a crappy genetic hand, and is incapable of improving their own life?

Do you mean "less fortunate" as a buzzword to mean anyone and everyone who is poor, regardless of reason?

"Less fortunate" is pretty vague.
 
Last edited:
First of all don't know how to answer because this post and the poll don't mean the same thing. So I'll answer your statement of "A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate".

The answer is no, they don't lack the inability. The simple fact is that there are HUGE abuses to the social safety net systems. Welfare needs to be completely overhauled and then have true oversight. Welfare is not meant to be used for "Well I don't feel like working so I won't". It was meant as a temporary thing to help lift people up from the short term troubles they faced.

Now the system isn't perfect because as it is now, once you get on it it is hard to get off the system literally. When you do manage to find a job, they cut you off right away instead of giving you a reasonable grace period from the time you get the job to when you get your first paycheck. That is just one of the issues.

Many on the right have an issues with 2-3 generational families living off welfare completely, illegal immigrants sucking off the healthcare system as well as welfare. These are legitimate concerns.
That is a serious shortcoming of the system. I'm actually surprised that Dems haven't tried to address that.

Of course, if they did, they'd bu accused of giving freeloaders even more of a free ride.


I think some people confuse wingers of every persuasion with the mentality of the average U.S citizen. Most Americans are compassionate people who go out of their way to help those in need. But rarely are they reported on, for some extremists make for much better headlines.
I would go as far to say that those who seek factual debate and are interested in solutions, rather than arguments, are ignored just the same. So we have to wonder if the few who are indifferent to the plight of those down on their luck are just convenient scapegoats.
*-wingers tend to be under the illusion that they're somehow mainstream and middle-of-the-road.
 
Is it not possible that "tough love", while probably producing more short-term pain, is actually the better solution? :shrug:
 
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.

I absolutely disagree. Conservatives as a whole absolutely do have empathy...

...but the issue's deeper than a simple question.

The smaller issue is that those who lack empathy - as Ayn Rand certainly did - are significantly more likely to be conservative. The bigger issue by far is that conservatives are being taught and pressured by their own to believe that empathy for the less fortunate is a bad thing, that helping the poor get a leg up in life is actually hurting the poor, teaching the poor to be lazy.

The same thing could be seen in any dictatorship: people are the same all over the world, but when the people of a nation are being told a thing and do not for whatever reason get the other side of the story, they're more likely to believe that thing. America's conservatives have been taught to believe that liberals and the poor want to destroy America, to destroy the American way of life...and any conservative who happens to agree with any liberal point of view is seen as a traitor, a turncoat.

So while conservatives certainly do have empathy for the less fortunate, most of them are afraid of showing that empathy (or of showing agreement with any liberal point of view) for fear of being seen by their fellow conservatives as traitors, as RINO's or CINO's. I'm not trying to make any comparisons to Nazism, but Goering hit the nail on the head in his famous quote:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

How many times have we heard the conservative politicians and pundits claim that America is under attack from liberals? How many times have we seen the conservative elite reject any conservative politician for even considering a negotiated compromise on major issues facing America?

It's not a matter of conservatives lacking empathy. It's a matter of conservatives being pressured to believe that which is not true.
 
Nah, I don't think most lack empathy. I do think the biggest difference between the two camps of people (right/left) is the ability to look beyond one set of circumstances. One group tends to have a myopic viewpoint about the world and has a one size fits all standard while the other camp is more open minded and realize circumstances vary greatly.
 
It seems to be more of a fear thing than an empathy thing. Ideas that fall into the liberal camp tend to be informed by hope for how the future can be better. Ideas in the conservative camp tend to be informed by fear for how the future can be worse. I don't think either is embraced by people based on how much empathy they have, but it's awfully hard to empathize with someone that you're afraid of.
 
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.



Evidence suggests no. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals.
 
Evidence suggests no. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

Liberals think they get to claim charitible intent when they promote policies under which government takes by force from some to give to others. Conservatives think it only counts as charitable when you willingly give what is legitimately yours to give.
 
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.

The problem is not an inability to relate--many if not most of us who are socio-politically right of center have in fact been among those who are less fortunate. So we probably relate far more than a left winger who has not been among the less fortunate.

The problem is more often an issue of perception. The left winger too often believes that if we do not condone or support taking property from the haves and giving it to the have nots, we lack compassion, empathy, and in general are nasty, greedy people. They cannot understand that to the average right winger, true compassion is helping and encouraging what has a strong track record for working to improve one's situation in life and to reject that which does not. We largely do not support that which has a strong track record of consigning whole demographics to generations of victim mentality, permanent unemployment, substandard living, and lack of motivation to do anything about it.
 
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.

Princess-bride-image.jpg
 
I despise you lumping libertarians and far right conservatives together.
 
Which once again proves my Grandma's old adage: some kinds of help are really no help at all.
 
Sure some don't have a lot of empathy. Just like some hard core leftists don't have a lot of empathy when it comes to a small business owner. However, I think a lot of conservatives are able to empathize with the less fortunate just like most liberals can.
 
Also, there is a subtle difference between empathy for individuals and empathy for a large group.
 
Sure it is. ...does your understanding only come from a dictionary? Is your understanding limited to a two line explanation?

There are simple answers everywhere, even here....

Hi tex :2wave:
 
Yes and no. While there are some bastards on the far right who completely lack any ability to care about anyone else (which is certainly not unique to any political persuasion), I think on a most basic level it's not about a lack of caring of others, it's just a different set of priorities.

Generally speaking, those who are considered on "the left" try to focus their energy on improving the community, with the idea if the community is stronger, life will be better for the individuals. Those on "the right" tend to believe in focusing their energy on the individual, with the idea if all individuals are better off, then the community is will be stronger and life will be better.

I don't think it's so much that people on the right don't care about others, they just believe effort should be put into improving the individual instead of the the community.



:agree

simple, succinct, and very well said
 
Liberals think they get to claim charitible intent when they promote policies under which government takes by force from some to give to others. Conservatives think it only counts as charitable when you willingly give what is legitimately yours to give.

I would have to say that is ...spot on!...very much correct.
 
Back
Top Bottom