I am a big fan of George Lakoff. I've read "Don't Think of an Elephant," and I usually enjoy his perspective on the issues. However, in his recent post on empathy, he neglects some important critical points. He critiques the strategy of the Democrats without recognizing its strengths, applauds the Republicans framing without realizing its counterproductive nature, and talks about narratives and reason without giving Democrats any real new plan.
Lakoff starts his post with a detailed description of empathy, which is generally accurate. He explains that conservatives can't win in a struggle to define empathy.
We cannot let conservatives get away with redefining empathy as irrational and idiosyncratic personal feeling. Empathy is the basis of our democracy and its true meaning must be defended.
Statements like these appear to be leading up to a plan to replace on narrative with another. This replacement narrative on empathy, sadly, is nowhere to be found in Lakoff's article.
Later, Lakoff critisizes G. Gordon Liddy, but doesn't mention the way that Liddy's comments will inevitably backfire.
The attack on empathy becomes an attack on feelings, with feelings as not merely at odds with justice, but at odds with good sense. Where Brooks’ tone is sweetly reasonable, G. Gordon Liddy is outrageous:
Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.
(http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/)
Liddy is saying what Brooks is saying: Emotion is irrational and dangerous. Only Liddy is not nicely-nicely. The attack on feelings is of a piece with the old attack on "bleeding-heart liberals. And one step away from Cheney’s attack on Obama and defense of torture.
Liddy's statement is ugly and sexist on its face. It is so incendiary and vile that any reasonable, unaffiliated voter will be scared off. This does not and cannot advance anything for the Republicans except furthering their own extinction. Treating it as part of a "strategy" is giving it far more than it is worth.
Lakoff's moves on to Gingrich's attack on Sotomayor:
What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist? It is linked directly to the personal feeling argument: because of her personal feelings for her own kind — Latinos and women — she will discriminate against white men. It is to support that view that the New Haven firemen case keeps being brought up.
[snip]
Incidentally, Democrats are walking into the Gingrich trap. I heard Ed Schultz defending Sotomayor by saying over and over why she was "not a racist," and using the word "racist" next to her name repeatedly. It was like Nixon saying, "I am not a crook." When Democrats make that mistake, I sometimes wonder why I bothered to write Don’t Think of an Elephant!
Exactly! This is perfect! Don't spend your time just denying the charge...But a few paragraphs later, at the end of his essay, Lakoff forgets his own advice.
How should Democrats respond?
Democrats should go on offense. They need to rally behind empathy— real empathy, not empathy reframed as emotion and personal feeling. They need to speak regularly about empathy as being the basis of our democracy. They need to point out that empathy leads one to notice real social and systemic causes of our troubles and to notice when and how judicial decisions and legislation can harm the most vulnerable of our countrymen. And finally that empathy is the reason that we have the principles of freedom and fairness — which are necessary components of justice.
So, in short, say "Empathy isn't bad! Empathy isn't bad!" the mirror image of Lakoff's identified error about racism. Or at least, "Empathy is good!" Lakoff doesn't seem to realize that this just doesn't cut it. It keeps the conversation right where the Republicans want it, on whether "Empathy" is a good thing. It does not construct any useful counter narrative or frame the conversation in a way that paints the Republicans in a bad light.
Democrats have largely focused on Sotomayor's biograpy, her experience, her life of hardships, and her reputation for independent thinking. So far, the polls show that this strategy is working. By more than a 2-1 ratio, the public supports the pick. Why? Because the Republican charges are so pathetic and poorly worded that the most they are doing is just making them look sexist and racist. They are not convincing anybody but the Bush 30% dead enders that Sotomayor is a bad choice.
Incidentally, the right way to counter the empathy assault is not to defend empathy. The right way to counter it is to make its case through attacking the opposite of empathy. By attacking the greed, recklessness and selfishness that helped get us into the economic crisis, Democrats can paint Republicans, and those opposed to empathy, as pro-greedy Wall Street mindset, pro-financial collapse, and anti-job. The "counter narrative to "emapthy is bad" is "greed is worse." What's more, our financial circumstances make this route a unique opportunity. Democrats can define their opponents as both out of touch and responsible for the economic meltdown.
Lakoff says Democrats need to go on the offense. Their current strategy seems to be working fine, and the Republicans are succeeding in no more than shooting themselves in the foot. But if the Democrats did wish to go on the offense, defending empathy is not the way to go. Attacking the opposite of empathy is.