The Empathy Paradigm

Elizabeth Edwards, as quoted by dday at Kos:

Can't we start with something easy on which we can agree? That no one should die of a disease we can find and stop? And when we agree—and agree to do something about it—then we can move on toward those fault lines, like Tony, not taking no for an answer.

I wish I could believe that. I really do wish that I could believe that all of those involved in these questions -- which means all of us -- were working in good faith. And I suppose that each, by his own lights, is. That doesn't mean we can readily agree on the "truths" that both Edwards and dday point out.

Yes, it does seem like a no brainer. There are many questions like that: shouldn't everyone have the same rights? Shouldn't children all have safe and loving homes? Shouldn't we work to provide opportunities for everyone? These all seem to have obvious answers, to me, at least.

Ah, but, as they say, the devil in in the details. How many stories have we heard recently about insurance companies deciding that some people should die of a disease we can find and treat because treating it costs too much money? How many reports have we heard from too many sources that some -- including some of our elected leaders -- don't believe everyone shouild have the same rights. How many are there working against children having safe and loving homes because they don't approve of the way the potential parents were born? And how much have we heard remarks that translate into the belief that those who are poor and ill-educated are to blame for their own predicament because they didn't take advantage of opportunities that weren't open to them?

Just exactly what is a human life worth? Apparently, to some of us, not very much.

Dday concludes:

When you face a conservative movement that is wholly dedicated to putting up roadblocks and turning off the spigot of empathy, making this a cruel and angry and paranoid and fearful nation, it can be hard not to fight back in the same manner. But I think, while engaging in the fight is fundamental to the survival of this democracy, occasionally we have to step back and recognize the human truths. Elizabeth Edwards is heroically battling on the front lines for reforming our broken health care system. But she hasn't forgotten that the issue goes beyond spreadsheets and mandates - it's about fathers dying young, sons without treatment for their ills, mothers who can't afford their pills. It's about healing. And you can only be on one side of that debate.

There's no calculation in these remarks. They are simply truths. It so happens that these truths, and the courage and bravery exhibited in saying them, are unquestionably progressive.

From my own point of view, we have people like Jim Burroway and Jeremy Hooper and Joe Brummer who are able to maintain some sort of grace in the face of the right-wing lies and return with reason and compassion. For some of us (including me), the anger is too strong, but I won't return with lies. Ridicule seems to be more appropriate, from my vantage. It's the best weapon I have.

And that anyone can say that it takes courage and bravery (which is not, although it might seem to be, redundant) to say these things -- and we know at this point that Elizabeth Edwards is not someone lacking in courage or bravery -- is a sad comment on America.