• 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!

Is There an Empathy Gap Between Democrats and Republicans?

Is There an Empathy Gap Between Democrats and Republicans?


  • Total voters
    31
When it comes to pretty much every social issue, the conservative stance is entirely rooted in selfishness and a lack of empathy. The idea is "that doesn't work for me, so it can't work for anyone". That's homophobia, misogyny, racism, and religious bigotry in a nutshell. And when it comes to a lot of economic issues, sometimes it comes from genuine skepticism about whether or not we can afford things, but it is mainly a matter of "I don't want my tax money going to things that will primarily help people who aren't me".

The modern conservative movement is almost entirely based on a lack of empathy. It is about the white, male, Christian, heterosexual, rural and suburban, non-lower class getting theirs and maybe sharing if it benefits them, such as with women they view as "their women", or sometimes their own kids who come out of the closet. Exclusivity and "other"-ness are basically all that conservatism has to talk about. How bad the other people are and how they don't deserve to share this amazing country with conservatives. They're extremely lucky that liberal minded people are inclusive, even to our selfish neighbors. But they are wrong, and we're tired of listening to them whine about how much better they are then the rest of us, and we're tired of catering to their tantrums.

You have just used every left wing inspired caricature of what a conservative is, As Dennis Prager is fond of saying "you must have gone to graduate school". If you know him you'll know why he says that, and it's not good. You should probably have some honest conversations with conservatives, it might help your pathology.
 
And acceptance isn't the same as being empathetic. One could truly be empathetic toward homosexuals who want to marry, and yet not accept that it is good for society.

That's possible, but to be truly empathetic you have to almost divorce yourself of your own perspective. You can then consider the difference between your perspective and that of the other, and come to a compromise between the two that you find acceptable.
 
That's possible, but to be truly empathetic you have to almost divorce yourself of your own perspective. You can then consider the difference between your perspective and that of the other, and come to a compromise between the two that you find acceptable.

I disagree. If what you say is true, it would follow that all circumstances can and should be made better by the force of government. This is the antithesis of the limited government philosophy that conservatives believe is best.
 
Government involvement in marriage is about government power, while the immigration reform efforts going on are about votes.



If you say so. Care to answer my question?

All government action is about power, either expanding power or giving up some. Government can and should have a degree of power, or else why does it exist?

As for immigration reform, I have heard the sensible yet cynical argument that Republicans should not pursue immigration reform because most naturalized immigrants would vote Democratic. And they probably would if they could vote tomorrow. The problem with the argument is that it assumes something, that since immigrants currently lean Democratic that they always will. That assumes that immigrants will have the same issues with Republicans as they do now. The obvious counterargument is that if Republicans support immigration reform, they will win approval of more immigrants, and if they continue to legislate in a more immigrant-friendly manner, by the time they can vote (like 10 or 15 years from now) you will have changed the party's image and probably gained a lot more immigrant support.
 
I disagree. If what you say is true, it would follow that all circumstances can and should be made better by the force of government. This is the antithesis of the limited government philosophy that conservatives believe is best.

I think only in circumstances where one person's freedom impinges on another's. In addition, look to the presidency of George W Bush to see if Republicans/conservative really limit government when they're in power.
 
I think only in circumstances where one person's freedom impinges on another's. In addition, look to the presidency of George W Bush to see if Republicans/conservative really limit government when they're in power.

Not sure I get that point, if you are empathetic the perceived correctness of the position doesn't matter. I wouldn't consider GW to be a fiscal conservative, unless he was standing next to Pres. Obama.
 
All government action is about power, either expanding power or giving up some. Government can and should have a degree of power, or else why does it exist?

Perhaps, but there is no valid reason the government needs to be involved in the matter. The benefits are provided to people in a relationship approved by the state, the contract and it's terms are the creation of the state, and when the contract is forfeit everything that follows goes through the state. It's just a way for the state to control family and relationship matters. It serves no other purpose.

As for immigration reform, I have heard the sensible yet cynical argument that Republicans should not pursue immigration reform because most naturalized immigrants would vote Democratic. And they probably would if they could vote tomorrow. The problem with the argument is that it assumes something, that since immigrants currently lean Democratic that they always will. That assumes that immigrants will have the same issues with Republicans as they do now. The obvious counterargument is that if Republicans support immigration reform, they will win approval of more immigrants, and if they continue to legislate in a more immigrant-friendly manner, by the time they can vote (like 10 or 15 years from now) you will have changed the party's image and probably gained a lot more immigrant support.

First of all, the federal government does not have the authority to be involved in immigration matters. Second, there is no telling what the future holds and when you ask your opponents to approve of something they know could very well mean their demise you're asking for way to much.
 
Not sure I get that point, if you are empathetic the perceived correctness of the position doesn't matter. I wouldn't consider GW to be a fiscal conservative, unless he was standing next to Pres. Obama.

What do you mean by the perceived correctness, and what doesn't matter about it? I hope if you thought GW wasn't fiscally conservative you were saying that during his presidency, because I didn't hear peep from most conservatives until the financial crisis.
 
Perhaps, but there is no valid reason the government needs to be involved in the matter. The benefits are provided to people in a relationship approved by the state, the contract and it's terms are the creation of the state, and when the contract is forfeit everything that follows goes through the state. It's just a way for the state to control family and relationship matters. It serves no other purpose.



First of all, the federal government does not have the authority to be involved in immigration matters. Second, there is no telling what the future holds and when you ask your opponents to approve of something they know could very well mean their demise you're asking for way to much.

If the federal government doesn't have authority over immigration, who does? It's not the states, that's for sure.
 
If the federal government doesn't have authority over immigration, who does? It's not the states, that's for sure.

It is actually the states.
 
It is actually the states.

What is this, the 10th amendment? How could that possibly be true? How could a state have the authority to tell a foreigner that they are now a US citizen? That doesn't even make any sense. I know Arizona thinks it's true, but that doesn't make it. Otherwise Vermont would just be the Ellis Island of every hippie in the world.
 
What do you mean by the perceived correctness, and what doesn't matter about it? I hope if you thought GW wasn't fiscally conservative you were saying that during his presidency, because I didn't hear peep from most conservatives until the financial crisis.

Yea I was against the prescription drug bill, against bail out, against ss tax rate adjustment, against cash stimulus checks to taxpayers, unsure about Iraq war and deficit spending in general.
 
Yea I was against the prescription drug bill, against bail out, against ss tax rate adjustment, against cash stimulus checks to taxpayers, unsure about Iraq war and deficit spending in general.

Gotcha.
 
You have just used every left wing inspired caricature of what a conservative is, As Dennis Prager is fond of saying "you must have gone to graduate school". If you know him you'll know why he says that, and it's not good. You should probably have some honest conversations with conservatives, it might help your pathology.

If conservatives don't want to be seen that way, then you should acting like that.
 
Liberals are stereotypically "bleeding-heart" compared to conservatives, but the more I think about it the more it seems to me that there is simply an empathy gap between Dems and Repubs:

Health Care: Democrats passed Obamacare to address the millions of uninsured people across the country. Republican opposition never addresses those people and instead is framed as how it will effect those that have health insurance.

Gay Marriage: Biden, Obama, and other prominent Democratic figures have voiced their support for marriage equality. Republicans are almost lockstep against it. The only exceptions are usually Republicans like Dick Cheney and Rob Portman who have gay children. Of course that's not the same as empathy, that is rational self-interest that makes them pro-gay marriage.

There are other examples.

Is there a real difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of empathy, and is that a good or bad thing?

This is an interesting statement. According to the CBO, after 10 years there will still be the same amount of people without insurance, just different people, so this is an academic excercise.
 
In all honesty I have had this thought very often myself. Dems do seem (sweeping generalizations of course) to have a higher level of empathy toward causes that do not directly effect their lives, people they don't actually know and groups that they are not personally involved with. I would also add that they seem to have a higher level of faith in human beings too. Seems as if Republicans need you to meet certain criteria whereby you prove yourself or your cause worthy first.

I do not believe that Republicans are not good people and do not care. I do believe that they are more cynical about human nature and they first assume you are taking advantage and leave it up to you to prove you are not before they assist. When confronted with what they consider an obvious victim, say abortion for instance, they are inclined to side with the unborn child who does not need to prove anything to them. Gun rights, a constitutional violation of gun owner rights etc.

These two sentences seem to be contradictory.

If Democrats really had faith in human beings, they would let them survive on what they can do instead of giving everytrhing to them, thereby removing their drive for advancement.

Republicans, again generalizing, believe that people can make it ontheir own if given a chance and Democrats don't.

Who believes more in human beings?
 
There's some truth in that. I'd also say that conservatives believe more in competition while liberals believe more in cooperation.

What has historically worked better to advance a people?
 
Is there a real difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of empathy, and is that a good or bad thing?

I don't see any evidence of "empathy differential" - and don't know, for that matter, how to measure such things.

I am strongly against Obamacare because I think it is an exceptionally bad piece of legislation that is going to make things worse for virtually everyone. Though not a Republican, I assume that many Republicans also pay more attention to what Obamacare actually is and what it will do than to whether it sounds nice on the level of general intent. (I won't even go into whether it is really "nice", to force people buy something they don't want to buy, because you are bursting with empathy toward them).

You are wrong about gay marriage: many Republicans who supported gay rights before it was fashionable don't have any close gay relatives (Bill Weld, Christine Todd Whitman, Jane Swift, Thomas Kean, Gary Johnson for example - to name just a few ex-governors). Outside of the hard-core religious social conservative minority, the Republican resistance is cultural and generational, more than anything - as could be clearly seen from the recent polling: a majority of Republicans under 50 do support gay marriage:

Gay marriage support hits new high in Post-ABC poll

And, of course, we libertarians have hearts of stone (floating in liquid nitrogen), according to the liberal mass-media. Yet we have always been for gay rights...

My advice would be to stop deciding on who feels what, and focus on the actual content of ideas and arguments.
 
Last edited:
What has historically worked better to advance a people?

A mixture of both, clearly. Take two warring tribes. There's competition between tribes, cooperation within each tribe to bring them together, and competition within them for hierarchy.
 
Don't mistake falling into party line for real empathy or lack thereof. Of course, voting against civil rights is not an act of empathy, but i suspect many Dems in office are secretly anti gay and vice versa. These are politicians, so with few exceptions you never know what they're really thinking.
 
Back
Top Bottom