The Socialism of Empathy
We have all heard the “news” that Barack Obama is a Socialist. I didn’t really want to entertain this idea in conversation, let alone as a post on my blog. However, I think this accusation has greater implications. In a sort of philosophical agtheory, I wanted to dig deeper into the notion of communalism as a negative. Personally, I have spent a lot of time wondering: at what point in human development did individualism and greed begin to replace community and sharing? And at what point in societal history did capitalism and progress come to equate the selfish view of every man for himself?
Barack Obama has been posed as a liberal politician whose policies are economically based on re-distribution of wealth and socially based on government interference. Apparently, this makes him a Socialist. Rather than find ways to prove that Obama’s platform is not founded on tenants of Socialism, I wanted to share with my belief, in the most basic sense, that the principle on which Obama aims to govern is empathy. What do I mean by empathy? On a micro level, this is simply the understanding that everyone has a unique situation — the ability to walk in someone else’s shoes. On a macro level, this is the ideology that we are all somewhat connected to and responsible for one another.
In 2006, Senator Barack Obama gave a speech at Northwestern University (shout out!). I find this speech to be particularly inspiring, especially since it was given before he was a presidential candidate. The importance of social responsibility and the practice of empathy are themes upon which Obama’s speech was given.
My favorite part of the speech is when Obama says:
As you go on in life, cultivating this quality of empathy will become harder, not easier. There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You’ll be free to live in neighborhoods with people who are exactly like yourself, and send your kids to the same schools, and narrow your concerns to what’s going in your own little circle.
Not only that – we live in a culture that discourages empathy. A culture that too often tells us our principle goal in life is to be rich, thin, young, famous, safe, and entertained. A culture where those in power too often encourage these selfish impulses.
They will tell you that the Americans who sleep in the streets and beg for food got there because they’re all lazy or weak of spirit. That the inner-city children who are trapped in dilapidated schools can’t learn and won’t learn and so we should just give up on them entirely. That the innocent people being slaughtered and expelled from their homes half a world away are somebody else’s problem to take care of.
I hope you don’t listen to this. I hope you choose to broaden, and not contract, your ambit of concern. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all of those who helped you get to where you are, although you do have that debt.
It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. And because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential – and become full-grown.
In conclusion, I think I might be a Socialist, too.
I’m socialist…communist..you name it.
Sister
November 4, 2008 at 4:48 pm
and you can call me a socialist, too!
Zan
November 4, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Sooo, I stumbled across your blog. Intenseeeeeeee
Whoaaa
November 4, 2008 at 5:51 pm
If this is socialism, then , yeah .. count me as one.
TLS66
November 4, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Raising taxes = Socialism…funny.
Carmen
November 4, 2008 at 7:41 pm
who wrote a comment pretending to be me?
sister
November 4, 2008 at 8:05 pm
That man should be president… It is too bad that the Barack that is running compromised his true principles, which he presents in this speech, for the oval office.
If the Barack that gave that speech were running, hed have my vote – a man of principle!
-pk
pk
November 4, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I am sympathetic to others and love to help those that desire help, but I am not a socialist. I do not desire to be a socialist. When I was 18 I thought everyone should take care of everyone else, why not? We all live in this world together we should help hold everyone up. Then I went to Canada and saw how universal health care really works, yikes! I also learned that help is best served when the person getting the help desires change. Do not kid yourself into thinking everyone that is poor, homeless or whatever situation is willing to do work to insire their own change, you will be very disappointed. Instead still believe in people and offer help when you see they truely desire it, because just as not everyone is willing to work to better themselves there are those that are. Just exert caution, not socialistic ideas. Socialism breeds dependancy and dependancy is never a good thing.
lw
November 5, 2008 at 3:48 am
While I’m sure there are slackers who would indeed like “something for nothing”, I believe they are in a tiny minority. We cannot let a few abuses curtail what generally works for the general good. While universal health care may not necessarily be a panacea, the fact is that our own health care system is broken and many people die, go untreated, and are denied the opportunity to live up to their full potential due to the fact that coverage decisions are made by businessmen looking at the bottom line, not health care professionals looking at charts and medical history. Such a state of affairs simply cannot be allowed to continue.
TLS66
November 5, 2008 at 1:58 pm
When socialism is implemented, something Adam Smith called “the invisible hand” is mostly taken away. This invisible hand is the incentive for young, smart people to achieve more, produce more, create more. This is extremely important for the progress of society, and eventually helps those poor people through advances in technology. I believe that people should put themselves in other peoples positions, and that more well-off people should help less fortunate people through giving to charities. However, I do not believe they should be forced through taxes to do this. This takes away from their incentive, so people produce less and invent less and society therefore progresses more slowly. Also, the people with lots of money, contrary to popular opinion, often got there through hard work and offering something that tend to have a large benefit to society. Shouldn’t these people be rewarded more than those that did not do this?
josh
Josh Graves
March 27, 2009 at 8:04 pm