Empathy is defined as "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." The term has been used in conjunction with "sympathy" and "compassion," and has surfaced occasionally and conceptually during political campaigns. While "sympathy" emphasizes the feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune, "compassion' refers to "sympathy" accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. A series of studies have claimed to show that conservatives score lower on "empathy" than liberals. Republicans contest these findings, arguing that such studies tend to favor Democratic principles of compassion and care over Republican philosophies of autonomy and self help. (Mark Honigsbaum, The History of Emotions Blog, Dec. 3, 2012).
While the discussion of these concepts may appear somewhat convoluted, there are substantial practical consequences at play when individuals act on them, especially when these individuals happen to hold leadership positions. The degree to which our leaders exhibit the capacity to demonstrate any or all of these influences their reaction to situations that require a decisive response. Political consultants from both parties argue that people want many things from their president, but near the top of that list is the ability to play consoler-in-chief when the moment demands it. Unfortunately, we have had too many opportunities to exhibit these this year.
Psychologists have argued that empathy is not helpful in public discourse or decision making, because it is biased. (Paul Bloom, Yale). Studies show that it is dampened or constrained when it comes to people of different races, nationalities or creeds. Daryl Cameron, a social psychologist at the University of Iowa, talks about the "collapse of compassion." He and others make the point that "empathy is actually a choice." (New York Times, July 10, 2015.) And, to a significant degree, that is the point. The extent to which our policy makers have a focused empathetic capacity often dictates the substance of their decisions.
To illustrate, contrast our response to the devastating effects of hurricane Maria on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico with our actions after the January 12, 2010 earthquake shattering Haiti. Before dawn, the day after the earthquake hit, the U.S. mobilized as if it were going to war. An Army unit was airborne to control the main fairport. Within 2 days we had 8,000 troops en route. Within 2 weeks 33 U.S. military ships and 22,000 troops had arrived, and more than 300 military helicopters delivered millions of pounds of food and water. The morning after the earthquake the president proclaimed that we were going "to respond in Port-au-Prince robustly and immediately," which gave the entire government clarity of purpose. (Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2017). One week after Maria hit Puerto Rico, seriously affecting the lives of 3.4 million U.S. citizens, supplies were still not flowing. A few days later just 4,400 government employees were participating in federal operations to assist the devastated island, and about 40 helicopters were helping to deliver food.
The "conversation" between Carmin Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, and President Trump might be indicative of the role empathy played in our response to the devastation. Ten days after the hurricane hit, Mayor Cruz pleaded for more federal assistance, saying: "We are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency and the bureaucracy. This is what we got last night: four pallets of water, three pallets of meals and twelve pallets of infant food - which I gave to the people of Comerio, where people are drinking out of a creek. I am done being polite. I am done being politically correct. I am mad as hell." Trump's response, tweeted from his New Jersey golf club, was: "Such poor leadership ability by the mayor of San Juan and others in Puerto Rico who are not able to get their workers to help. They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort," while referring to Puerto Ricans critical of the response as "politically motivated ingrates."
Even though analysts may not concede a definitive relationship between a leader's empathy and the intensity of a response to the needs of a population, these two examples inescapably suggest that such a connection exists. President Obama's compassion for the plight of the people of Haiti prompted a massive outpouring of assistance. While hurricanes Harvey and Irma did tremendous damage in Texas and Florida, existing infrastructure support systems kicked in automatically. However, Puerto Rico, an off-shore territory, required empathetic leadership from the top to counteract its total devastation. The consequential banter between President Trump and his critics on the island appeared to have affected our federal response. Mr. Trump seemed more consumed by his tweeted criticism of demonstrations by NFL players than by the calamity experienced by Puerto Ricans. It was only when others in his administration recognized the political fall-out of our tepid reaction that he was given a teleprompter speech designed to express his concerns. Unfortunately, his impassive delivery, lacking appropriate inflection, failed to convey sincere compassion for the victims' plight. Mr. Trump's consistent referral to the island's pre-existing financial problems, coupled with the enormous "budget-busting" cost of eventual reconstruction, and a referral to the "limited number of deaths" incurred when compared to those resulting from previous hurricanes elsewhere, highlighted the administration's insensitivity.
The question may well be asked whether leaders with significant narcissistic inclinations possess a demonstrable empathetic capacity. Empathy is a choice, and, coupled with politics, these choices can have significant consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment