In the weeks before and after the U.S. presidential election, many of us are asking about the role of empathy in American politics. Does it matter whether candidates express care for their constituents, and what does a person’s vote says about their ability or willingness to empathize with others?
Empathy is important to democracy—but it’s complicated to understand, as scientists and philosophers have long tried to study in practice. I am one of those scientists. As we use it in our day-to-day lives, we often mean sharing others’ emotions, such as feeling someone else’s sorrow or joy, but can also mean showing compassion or concern for their suffering or understanding and believing their hurt or joy.
In terms of the November election, how much did empathy matter? And in a challenging, exhausting, and polarized political environment, how do we remain empathetic? Do we even need to? Here, I argue that we need to remember our responsibility to choose and control the expanse of our empathy—and we can do so by reflecting on why we care and
Don’t be distracted. Democracy is about how power will be allocated. Empathy has zero to do with it. Empathy is a mask used by politicians in order to gain votes. Only policies and outcomes are what matter. Our problem is that we have a non-representative electoral system. The concept that two political parties can adequately represent 300 million people is ludicrous on its face. Don’t like these outcomes? Then you have to change the process. Think outside the box.
I am afraid you are factually wrong Albus. Read my book The 8 Laws of Change.
Or if you want another scientist’s view https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2018.1477442
Once again, Albus, I am sorry but you are factually incorrect. Take a look at my YouTube podcast #52 on Happiness. Or look at the World Happiness Report.