Commenter Archive

How can a person show compassion and empathy to strangers while supporting politics that denies it to undeserving Others?

I'm not entirely sure How. But it's hardly unusual for people to hold different views regarding the abstract and the particular. Regarding "those people" and "this person."

Currently, a lot of people here have problems in the abstract with immigration. But they don't make the connection between the immigration issue in the abstract and that nice young lady who helps grandma with her housekeeping and her shopping. Said nice young lady being an obvious immigrant, complete with accented English and occasional issues with words that any middle school kid would know.

At most, they manage a rationalization of "but she's different." Even though she isn't, except to the extent that every person is different from every other. I'm not sure it is even possible to bring someone to realize that the abstract, the general case, is more like the specific individuals he knows.

Perhaps someone with a stronger grounding in psychology than I can say how many specific cases someone needs personal knowledge of before their view of the abstract will change. I am sure that it needs personal knowledge. Just being told that immigrantion impacts food prices, because much everybody who works in agriculture, whether picking vegetables or butchering beef? Only works if you know some of those folks, your children (or grandchildren) attend school with their kids, etc.

russell's uncle Charlie doesn't sound the least bit superficial to me. He sounds like someone formed (as most of us are) by his life experiences, for better and worse. We don't know too much about how his particular combination of beliefs came about, which would certainly be interesting and useful in trying to make sense of the world, but the upside of that is that he and his nephew/godson continued to have an affectionate and joyful time with each other for many decades. And, at least in my opinion, affection and joy between good people weigh heavily on the desirable side of the balance in a dark and worrying world.

How can a person show compassion and empathy to strangers while supporting politics that denies it to undeserving Others? Its the "undeserving" part, if they actually think it through. Most people choose their political affiliation for non-rational reasons, they like the way a politician's persona or speech makes them feel. So you can feel compassion for orphans or Aids patients or kids on reservations because you see them suffer and don't think they deserve to suffer, but still support a politician promoting Aids as God's punishment for sin because those are other people you don't see, and you like the idea of people paying for their sins in the abstract. Besides, you met that politician once and he was funny and charming. Superficial, but good and moral people can be superficial.

Both Democrats won, which is noteworthy in itself because no Democrat has won a non-Federal statewide election in 20 years or so, but more noteworthy are the margins, which are currently 62-38.

With Governor Kemp being term-limited, 2026 could be exciting in Georgia. And that's before figuring in the impact of whatever wave might manifest nationwide.

I was expecting a blue wave but it exceeded my hopes.

I couldn’t help wondering whether, at some stage of your young to later manhood, you ever tried to find out how such an otherwise lovely person conceptualised his political opinions

Never had that conversation. We talked about family stuff, or the heirloom fruit trees he had planted in his yard, or odd old songs he had discovered somewhere. And we played games.

No election results thread yet, so here's some (unexpected, to me) good news from here in Georgia. Two seats on the five member Georgia Public Service Commission were on the ballot (elections for this body have been delayed by lawsuits since 2020, it's a mess), statewide elections. Both Democrats won, which is noteworthy in itself because no Democrat has won a non-Federal statewide election in 20 years or so, but more noteworthy are the margins, which are currently 62-38.

People and politics in NJ are looking okay tonight.

Have just started to shift to teaching my students about speculative journalism (reporting of things like climate change that frame parts of the story using the tools [extrapolation, cognitive estrangement] of science fiction). I have them read a few Spec J pieces from High Country News based on the Fourth National Climate Assessment from 2018 with the stories set in 2068. In past quarters I have pulled up a copy of the Assessment to show the what and the how of the extrapolation.

All of the governmental links to the study are broken. The Ancient Orange One and his gibbering minions have taken down those sites. This despite the fact that it was his previous administration that published them in the first place.

And now I am torn as to whether the university will have my back if I simply point this out to my students. We've all been warned not to engage in anything that could be taken as political activism, and they are drawing a very risk-averse line in the sand for what counts as activism.

This is not sustainable.

russell, I've been thinking about this post all day. Given that Charlie died at 90, and you are almost 70, I couldn't help wondering whether, at some stage of your young to later manhood, you ever tried to find out how such an otherwise lovely person conceptualised his political opinions, and expressed what was important to him. Obviously, you wouldn't have wanted to fight with him, or make him (or yourself) feel bad, and maybe you never went there. And maybe you wouldn't want to go into it now either, in which case fair enough. But if you ever did discuss it, delicately or not (in my family we never argued delicately, but argumentation was considered an unavoidable part of life and we never questioned our love for each other), and if you felt like giving an idea of the discussions, that would be very interesting indeed.

Hating on gays and controlling women are paramount.

Russell: Loved this. And so fun "meeting" you in your element. Music really is the universal language.

But now I'm seeing your hands every time I read one of your comments, lol.

In 2011, 30 percent of white evangelicals said that “an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.” Now, 72 percent say so

Kind of a necessity for them. If they still held to expecting morality of elected officials, there's no way they could vote for Trump.

Does clarify what their priorities are.

There are others who opposed him, not because they necessarily disliked his platform, but because they believed that character matters in elected officials and found his objectionable.

it's 9 years old now, but it's still remarkable:

In 2011, 30 percent of white evangelicals said that "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life." Now, 72 percent say so — a far bigger swing than other religious groups the poll studied.

It's just one poll, but it does suggest a sizable shift in how Americans of several religious stripes think about the connection between morality and politics. White evangelicals also are less likely than they used to be to say that "strong religious beliefs" are "very important" in a presidential candidate. That share fell from 64 percent in 2011 to 49 percent this year.

White mainline Protestants and Catholics also grew more accepting of a candidate who has committed "immoral acts," while religiously unaffiliated people barely changed. Those "unaffiliated" people in 2011 had been much more willing than the broader population to believe candidates who had committed "immoral acts" could do their jobs. Now, they are in line with Americans as a whole.

in the archive.org copy of this article (linked), there's a nice graph that illustrates what happened more clearly than text can (NPR's current version has lost the graph image).
sometime between Obama and Trump, huge numbers of people in the religious groups surveyed changed their minds about how much personal morality mattered for Presidents.

which, IMO, is all you need to know about how highly those religious groups people actually valued that particular morality.

if one can abandon a principle that quickly, there's a good chance that principle was never very strongly-held.

The people who advocate private charity replacing government payments usually have no real idea of the relative scales of what the government does, and what private charity could do. Ignore Social Security on the (incorrect) theory that it's a mandated savings program. Medicare and Medicaid combined are more than four times the size of all charitable giving each year. Private charity could cover income support spending in normal years, but would be bankrupted trying to cover the surge that happens during a recession.

I think Wonkie is correct about religion as the locus for right wing charity. I remember seeing claims a decade or so ago that conservatives gave more to charity than did liberals, but the details of that showed that part of what counted as conservative charity was church offerings and tithing, which may be charity or it may be paying the pastor/priest/rabbi/imam and covering the overhead/improvement of the communal place of worship. And unlike Charity Navigator, there really isn't any way to track the efficiency with which those religious donations are turned into support for charitable causes.

My conservative family members and friends can be quite generous. I do think, however, that liberal charitable giving tends to go to causes a bit farther from home and immediate community, where conservative giving tends to have fewer degrees of separation from the giver.

I think that is a fair assessment.

I've been seeing a lot of this "Government shouldn't do charity because charity should be voluntary through churches." Back in the days of Dickens, that is how charity was done. The 1800's were a transition period in Europe and the US when the medieval attitude that the poor deserved to be poor was gradually replaced by the common good and the social contract (and I'd say, basic human decency.). Quite often the people who make the argument that the government shouldn't do charity are themselves living off taxpayers and feel entitled to what they get. It isn't an argument that has any validity, in my view.

My observation is that charitable giving and good works are at least as common on the right as on the left. The R's are predominantly in favour of helping the unfortunate, so long as the get to do it of their own free will.

Their perspective is it's wrong for the government to take their money to give it to possibly undeserving poor people they've never met.

It's a different thing to support unpleasant politicians who share, or pretend to share, parts of one's world view. I thought it couldn't possible extend to someone as unremittingly vile as Trump: I was wrong.

I don't want to be the old geezer who blames everything on the internet, but it seems to me that all the touted ability to hook people up with like minded individuals has a lot of people missing the diversity in their own backyard. That diversity used to keep these sorts of opinions in check, even though they were held by people, by isolating people, it allows them to flower. Not a new idea, but one I think holds.

I've been reading Jeffrey Hall's Japan's nationalist right in the internet age: Online media and grassroots conservative activism, and he has this

In his book, Yasuda portrays Zaitokukai [an ultra-nationalist and far-right extremist political organization] as a product of feelings of economic uncertainty among the working classes of Japanese society. In other words, they feel socially and economically isolated, and can experience positive emotions by channeling their ill feelings into hatred of Koreans.

Sociologist Higuchi Naoto conducted interviews with Zaitokukai participants and came to very different conclusions. Instead of finding social or economic anxiety as infuences on joining the movement, Higuchi found that many of his interviewees had been raised in politically conservative households or had been involved in conservative political activities for the year.90 The idea that they are just “ordinary” people who, due to anxiety, join nativist groups was misleading. Most of Higuchi’s interviewees were already ideologically on the right:

"There are, in this sense, specific problems with Yasuda’s opinion that Zaitokukai is made up of “your neighbors.” There are certainly many activists in the nativist movement who are “ordinary people” with jobs, but ideologically they are not “neutral or apolitical”; they are conservative."

People who are already subscribed to a conservative worldview are more receptive to how nativist groups frame and introduce information. Higuchi sees these nativists as an outgrowth of the existing nationalist and revisionist movement of the 1990s and a conservative establishment that already encouraged hostility toward Korea and China. He also argued that the geopolitical situation in Asia has aided in their rise. Issues such as war responsibility, the abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea, and ongoing territorial disputes fueled hatred toward people from Korea and China. Higuchi found that the attitudes of Zaitokukai members toward immigrants from countries such as the Philippines and Brazil, who tend to have a lower socioeconomic status than Korean and Chinese immigrants, were not particularly negative. This is very different from the observations of scholars of the far-right in Europe and the United States, for whom the perceived economic or cultural threats from immigrant laborers, or demographic replacement, are central ideas.

That last point is interesting, as it suggests that there is a stronger class element involved in this for the West than it is for Japan.

Are you in contact with your Apache and Hopi cousins? 

I'm in touch with my cousing Peter - the Apache - on Facebook. After Charlie retired from FDNY he painted houses, and Peter basically apprenticed with him and continues to work as a house painter and general handyman. He had some bumpy times, but is all good now. Peter has the best family pictures and has become kind of the family archivist.

My cousin Tara - the Hopi - grew away from the family a bit at some point, although she and her daughter Kateri are still in touch with Charlie's kids.

The Eddie aspect is even more moving, if that's even the right word. No wonder you miss them.

Charlie and his wife (and the rest of them) sound like wonderful people.

They were a pretty remarkable crew.

FWIW, the younger guy on the left, sitting in front of my grandfather (older Archie Bunker looking guy in the white shirt) was Eddie Gonzales. Not a brother by birth, but basically unofficially adopted into the family.

Eddie's father abandoned him, and his mother was an alcoholic. Eddie himself was gay, which nobody ever talked about but everyone knew, and nobody really cared about one way or the other. He was good friends with the brothers, so he came and lived with them and my grandfolks raised him along with the rest of the gang.

Eddie was at every family gathering and was just part of the family, full stop. Just a part of the larger Richmond Hill crew.

So yes, this weird dilemma of people who are personally beautiful - kind and outgoing and generous - but aligned with social and political movements that are... not.

I think a part of all of this for my mom's folks was coming up through the Depression, and then WWII. The brothers were too young to serve in the war, but my father (guy in front of the Christmas tree holding the baby - you can only see the top of his head) did, and they all dealt with rationing etc.

They were basically poor - not desperately, but poor enough to have to watch every nickel and do without a lot of things. Like everyone around them was. Tucky - the brother in the middle with the big smile - was offered a full basketball scholarship to Columbia, and wasn't able to go, because the family needed him to work and bring money into the house.

My sense is that all of those experiences - the anxiety of having just barely enough, the sacrifices around wartime - gave them an ethic that you pull together and help out whoever needs help.

But lots of folks came through all of that and were not quite as open-hearted.

This crew and their kids were my people, really - my father's family were all in Georgia, and I did not see them as often, many of them I never even met. They were a joy to know, and I miss them.

Vance strikes me as a person who has no values beyond self-promotion and no sincerity. He'll say or do what is convenient at the time. He might decide to dump the Hindo wife to marry the wife of the martyred Saint Charlie of Free Speech for Conservatives Only. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Are you in contact with your Apache and Hopi cousins? I'm curious about how their lives turned out. My shirt tail relatives of that generation had a native adopted daughter, but their attitude was condescending and eventually she cut off all connection.

As for how good people do bad things. I think partly it's because they are good people that they can do bad things. They know their own lives, their values, their actions and think that people like them aren't doing anything bad. That plus the harm they do is an abstraction to them.

Charlie and his wife (and the rest of them) sound like wonderful people. It's so valuable to hear the specifics, and to be reminded (and one needs to be reminded) that people are complicated, and that they contain multitudes. Sometimes, like in that old Dirk Bogarde movie, you have to focus on the singer not the song.