I like that you open with a discussion of allyship vs solidarity, because I think it really is key. I'm no expert in the matter, so take what I have to say with the biggest grain of salt on the planet, but allyship tends to be situational (if not outright transactional), and frequently (but not exclusively) the result of interests aligning. The bonds are tenuous, easily broken, and there is an unspoken understanding that the relationship comes with an expiration date. Solidarity is, for lack of a better word, absolute: I celebrate your triumphs and suffer your injustices and fight for your liberation as if it were my own because, well, it is.
I'm not exactly the biggest of Foucault fans, but I do mostly subscribe to his idea that (among free people), power dynamics are fluid. Power never belongs exclusively to one party or to the other, but there is a constant tension between the two and the dynamic can change, or even flip entirely, depending on the situation. In any situation, I empathize exclusively with the oppressed and never with the oppressor. Because of shifting power dynamics, and because groups and individuals are rarely oppressors in every single facet of their lives, I CAN find myself empathizing with people that I generally find execrable because I don't believe that being a horrendous piece of shit means that you deserve to be abused, exploited or to be stripped of your basic, fundamental rights as a human being. That's the real test of a belief, if it holds firm even when holding it becomes inconvenient Women can be homophobic. People of color can be transphobic. Gay people can be racist. I can empathize with their suffering and oppression while condemning their bigotry.
But goddamn am I struggling with MAGA because, shit, they voted for this. They were warned, they were told, evidence was presented, they lived through for years of it, Project 2025 was covered extensively, Trump's cabinet (and even he himself) were open about what they wanted to do and how they were going to do it, and these people voted for him. And here's the part that makes it so tough for me: they didn't vote for him IN SPITE of those things (and willingly selling out those with less power in order to save a few bucks is already the most disgusting thing a person can do), they voted for him BECAUSE of them. They WANTED him to hurt the powerless. They WANTED him to humiliate and dehumanize and eliminate the marginalized. They WANTED the erosion of democracy, the stripping away of rights, the legitimizing of violence, the elimination of regulatory oversight and foreign aid. They just didn't want it to also happen to THEM. And that is something I refuse to empathize with.
I can understand it, and there are countless studies about the differences between progressives and conservatives (down to the way their brains tend to be structured), about why such large swathes of people are susceptible to cults, the appeal of authoritarianism, etc. But empathize with these people? At this point? After all that has happened, all the work that has been put into bringing back to reality, and their staunch refusal to believe anything they don't want to hear, no matter how much evidence is presented? Nope. I'm with Rachel Zegler. May they never know peace. That may not be the most helpful sentiment in order to move forward, and once again, goddamn do I admire your willingness to conceive of a somewhat optimistic way out of this (and I am under no illusions that this is an easy thing for you to do), but I'm not there yet. I'm still firmly in fuck you mode.
I've been thinking about this a good deal since I read it last night (somewhat under the influence, because how the hell else are we supposed to get through these days?), which is always one of the joys of exchanging thoughts with you on here.
I'm with you on basically everything you say - and I should note that my thoughts on Israel/Palestine in the piece have to do with arguments about attempts to win the argument about historical "rightness," and not about the current attempt in Gaza at what is so euphemistically called "ethnic cleansing" (although I suspect that "cleanse" is exactly the right word for the attitude of many right-wing Israelis) - and what I've been thinking about is the why of my thoughts and approach.
I have, I've realized, a certain predilection for detachment, a kind of stand-back-and-take-notes-while-it-all-burns inclination that is the source of my cynicism. This is at once something innate to me, and something I'm wary of; emotional distance has its own dangers. At the same time, though, I'm becoming more aware of the degree to which my approach in these pieces has an element of strategy to it. Moreso than any time in my life, we have plunged into a pitched battle. The gloves are off, the knives are out, and the bludgeons are in the open. The folks who want destruction, as you point out, have been given more than license for that desire: they have been given a way to allow themselves to see it as justified. But anti-humanism is never, and can never be, justifiable. I think these are the grounds on which this battle is being fought.
What I wonder about is how we win. How are ideas defeated? How are minds changed? There is certainly a part of me that would like to round all these motherfuckers up and reenact a version of the Clockwork Orange conditioning scene on them, forcing them to not look away from the actual experiences of homeless folks and migrants picking strawberries and human beings in Gaza and the people who have been sent to a prison in El Salvador so Krisi Noem (may she burn in hell) can pose in front of them like she's a fucking influencer. But I also think that the regular American folks out there in the street don't respond well to pure exhortations of venomous fury. I think there has to be a positive vision of some sort on offer, something grander and more noble, if we can find a way to articulate it, because the world is too good at numbing people, buying them off with streaming services and fast fashion and visions of wealth. But, man, it's a struggle sometimes to try to find it.
Finally, I do spend a fair amount of time thinking about the (formerly unthinkable, which I suppose is a sign of my naivete) choices that may be approaching. It's not inconceivable that I and people like me will be forced to make decisions about leaving or staying, being willing to go to jail, and perhaps engaging in violence in the street. I think it's the case that if any of this does come to pass, I will need to have really thought through where I stand and found something positive to believe in (and, honestly, to have spent a long time working up my courage) in order to do the right thing. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, of course.
I never thought that you were both-sidesing Gaza in your piece, and I certainly didn't mean to give that impression. I just always try to take the opportunity to reinforce the message of Palestinian liberation, whenever it presents itself. It's kind of a Pavlovian response at this point.
I'm not in the US right now, so I have the luxury of just saying "fuck it and fuck them". There's just not much I can do from down here other than to provide what meager support I can for the people actually caught in the crossfire. But that's not really a luxury that you guys have. You have to live it, from within, every minute of every hour of every day and figure out how to survive and, in the best-case scenario, how to move past this and into a better and brighter future (though even the dystopian future of 2 years ago would be an immeasurable improvement in every conceivable way).
I probably don't know you well enough to say this, but I suspect your "predilection for detachment, a kind of stand-back-and-take-notes-while-it-all-burns " approach is a combination of that day-to-day survival and long-term thinking about what the future might look like, and how to get there. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I genuinely admire you for it. You've taken that detachment (which I share, believe it or not, as everyone I know is so keen on reminding me) and used it to look at the situation strategically and try to come up with a potential roadmap out of it. That's something most people are unwilling, perhaps unable, to do. Reactive, emotionally charged social movements tend to amass a large number of people and lead to very eye-catching demonstrations, but they also tend to either be co-opted or to die out very quickly. Long-term strategic planning isn't glamorous, and it requires sacrifices in the short and mid-term, but it's what leads to lasting change. The sit-ins and the demonstrations got all the attention, but they were just a small part of a long-term strategy to get the Civil Rights Act passed (rip).
"How are ideas defeated? How are minds changed? "
I don't know, man. We're going through an eerily similar situation to you guys down here in the Dominican Republic and I'm actually even less hopeful about the prospects here, if you can believe it. But I do think that in the future we (ie: everyone who actually cares) need to start considering that different groups of people are predisposed to interpreting data differently (at a biological level), and we have to start accounting for it. Right-wingers tend to prize security, predictability and authority (either being in a position of authority or having a figure of authority to look toward) while left-wingers tend to prize novelty, nuance and complexity (I'm thinking of a book called 'Predisposed' that goes into this but I'm not endorsing it, it's just what came to mind, there are countless studies on the subject). A right-winger is more predisposed to reacting to a new situation with fear, to perceive it as a threat, than a left-winger, who is more predisposed to reacting with curiosity. I think we have to account for these variations.
It's all well and good to demonstrate on the basis that, say, people of color have intrinsic value as human beings and deserve the same rights as everyone else (which we do), but in many ways that is just preaching to the converted. What do we do with the rest of the population that views us as a threat to their safety, to their pocketbook and to their way of life? I think we have to find ways to appeal to their self-interest. We can't rely on just telling them that POC are not a threat to their safety, pocketbook or way of life, but we have to find a way to literally show them that we make them safer, add to their pocketbook and are responsible for a significant part of their way of life. If they don't see that the existence of marginalized groups IS in their own best interest, they aren't going to do a damn thing. And while I would gladly spit in the faces of each and every person that thinks this way, they make up a large percentage of the world. Any social movement that can even hope to succeed is going to need at least some of them in it.
Work together when interests align, appeal to self-interest when they don't. As to what that actually looks like in practice...I don't know, man. I really don't.
Keep your chin up. And don't forget to prioritize your own survival (physical, emotional, either, both) as well.
Thanks, man. Your thoughts are really appreciated, as always. I think you're absolutely right about the right-wing v. left wing biological predisposition (and I suspect that it has a fair amount to do with why moments of political solidarity so often just happen to coincide with external threats (the POC are okay if there's Nazis or Commies out there)). I suppose that if people had a better way out of all this, they would be talking about it, and I think that one of the most -surreal, sci-fi aspects of this for me is that it really does feel like we're running up against the biological limits of humanity. What if the Enlightenment thinkers and the Marxists and the pacifists (and hell, even the Christians) and all the rest were just flat wrong, and when push comes to shove people are always just going to find someone who looks different and bludgeon them? It's like we're in a really mediocre Hulu show.
Anyway, having said that, it always does cheer me up to correspond with you. I'm ashamed to say that I don't know much at all about what's happening in the DR, but I'll find out.
Don't feel bad about not knowing, because what's going on down here isn't even being covered down here. The silence is deafening, opposition is almost entirely nonexistent, and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the population would consider everything I have a problem with to be a good thing, a feature and not a bug. Broadly speaking, our current administration is headed by a corporate CEO/large business owner whose name was included in the Panama papers. During the past five years his administration has systematically dismantled the public sector and delegitimized regulatory oversight while directly inserting the corporate class into every single facet of government, essentially privatizing the decision-making for public policy and setting the stage for the inevitable privatization of entire sectors and institutions as well.
He came in riding a wave of dissatisfaction with the previous administration over its corruption and mishandling of the economy (partly factual, partly fictional), assuring that his administration would mark a new age of transparency in the public sector. He has sought criminal charges for corruption against the previous administration (fairly), while largely ignoring the massive levels of corruption (unheard of levels, and by DR standards that is saying something) within his own administration. He's also announced an austerity program for the government, closing down several institutions and merging others for the sake of improving "spending efficiency", while simultaneously accruing the biggest public debt, by any measure, in the history of the country.
Early on he realized that the quickest way to maintain popularity was to shit on marginalized communities (undocumented Haitian migrants, but really just Haiti in general), which has essentially mainstreamed the ugliest, most dangerous undercurrents of bigotry and xenophobia and popularized and legitimized it in a way that I've never seen. We literally had a march yesterday from a local fascist group, with the explicit purpose of terrorizing Haitian migrants and letting them know that they are not welcome nor safe. The administration has also increased deportations to a staggering degree while committing numerous human rights violations and accidentally deporting documented residents, and even citizens, as well. Oh, and he's also building a wall at the border between the two countries.
There are some key differences I won't get into (unless you want me to, that is), but I have to imagine a lot of this sounds familiar. It really is a shitty time throughout the globe, and particularly shitty for this region.
One understands all the references to authoritarianism in the last century as a cancer. Somehow this shit gets into the blood of the world and just spreads. Although it's not "somehow," is it. It's a calculated response by people to conditions they feel they can take advantage of.
At least, if nothing else, it's good to be on the right side of the fight.
This is good stuff. You are right to focus on empathy, or the lack of it, that separates, rather than solidify us. I saw Musk acting the victim, due to the assaults on his brand, cars and facilities of late, lamenting the fact that Democrats are supposed to be the party of empathy and compassion.
His implication, although he has no proof that the perpetrators are Democrats, is that it's OK for Republicans to act in the opposite way, as if being the anti-empathy party gives them license to illegally cut programs and cut everything that they don't agree with. If you read Issacson's bio of Musk you quickly learn that Musk's weakness as a human, and his strength as a entrepreneur, is that he has little to no empathy. He acknowledges this but mainly because it's a get out of jail free card to justify his Machiavellian ways.
Most sociopaths have little to no empathy. Now for the mic drop. I believe I am a sociopath. Not in the ugly and horrific way that people see people like Musk, Nixon or the worst of the kind. I mean like this woman who wrote the memoir that describes a kinder, gentler sociopath than most visualize when they hear the word. I have used it to my advantage to be remain hyper-focused and successful in my work, sports, school, and play growing up. I also never did time, committed a felony, or resorted to violence to settle a score. But adly it probably led to my divorce after 30 years.
I must say that lack of empathy in a person is not what drives them to become MAGA leaders, supporters or minions. I was lucky enough to have been born to and raised well, likely by at least one and maybe two sociopathic parents. Hard to say for sure. And they had good upbringing before them. The lizard impulses in all of us can rule our worlds. I found the best lizards in my youth on a rugby pitch. But they were all well raised like me. The ones with empathy or emotional intelligence went on to do really great things. The ones that lack empathy and a good family life as children are the ones to watch out for.
Glad you enjoyed the piece! Thanks for posting this - really, really interesting. Like many of the things I write here, this one was mostly a first stab at thinking through things, and your response opens up a ton of new thoughts for me. I remember reading about Gagne's book when it came out, but have never read it; now I'm eager to. Without knowing you from Adam, I'm really convinced by your point here (or at least the way I'm understanding it) that it would be foolish to mistake empathy for morality. And I also think you're right that the reduction of MAGA types to any single cause is probably foolhardy.
As far as Musk, I haven't read the Isaacson, but I agree completely with what you say here. He's a frightening and dangerous individual; my hope is that his weakness of not being able to understand (or care about) other people may be his political undoing as well as his social one...
Jobs was pretty similar I think. I actually met/knew him on several occasions via mutual friends. I had dinner with his wife and him at a wedding once, and I knew several folks who worked closely with him but those are stories for another day. He had a tough childhood, in a different way that Musk and lacked empathy as well, but he became pretty self aware and his wife Laurene probably helped him heal a bit from his earlier trauma, helping him reconcile with his estranged daughter Lisa and also being a decent father to their own kids.
Don't get me wrong, Musk has done some amazing things for our planet and society. He's been more than rewarded for them but he's lost the plot of his life and the civilization which he strives for in such a grandiose manner.
My empathy has been a driving force, even when it causes me discomfort, so I've never questioned it until now. I've never once wondered if I'm meant to feel empathy for evil people like the Tate brothers. You have shocked me with this idea! Must we have empathy for those who are wholly devoid of it? I've decided that's a no for me. It's not even a choice, rather, my empathetic soul simply doesn't feel for anyone other than their victims.
Thanks so much for reading and taking the time to put down your thoughts. I have no idea if we're supposed to have empathy for everyone - I mean, that's what Jesus said, but I'm not a Christian, so he's just a guy to me. But I think you're right that there are situations in which the empathy is truly all deserved by one party, and we shouldn't feel weird or guilty for having that reaction.
I like that you open with a discussion of allyship vs solidarity, because I think it really is key. I'm no expert in the matter, so take what I have to say with the biggest grain of salt on the planet, but allyship tends to be situational (if not outright transactional), and frequently (but not exclusively) the result of interests aligning. The bonds are tenuous, easily broken, and there is an unspoken understanding that the relationship comes with an expiration date. Solidarity is, for lack of a better word, absolute: I celebrate your triumphs and suffer your injustices and fight for your liberation as if it were my own because, well, it is.
I'm not exactly the biggest of Foucault fans, but I do mostly subscribe to his idea that (among free people), power dynamics are fluid. Power never belongs exclusively to one party or to the other, but there is a constant tension between the two and the dynamic can change, or even flip entirely, depending on the situation. In any situation, I empathize exclusively with the oppressed and never with the oppressor. Because of shifting power dynamics, and because groups and individuals are rarely oppressors in every single facet of their lives, I CAN find myself empathizing with people that I generally find execrable because I don't believe that being a horrendous piece of shit means that you deserve to be abused, exploited or to be stripped of your basic, fundamental rights as a human being. That's the real test of a belief, if it holds firm even when holding it becomes inconvenient Women can be homophobic. People of color can be transphobic. Gay people can be racist. I can empathize with their suffering and oppression while condemning their bigotry.
But goddamn am I struggling with MAGA because, shit, they voted for this. They were warned, they were told, evidence was presented, they lived through for years of it, Project 2025 was covered extensively, Trump's cabinet (and even he himself) were open about what they wanted to do and how they were going to do it, and these people voted for him. And here's the part that makes it so tough for me: they didn't vote for him IN SPITE of those things (and willingly selling out those with less power in order to save a few bucks is already the most disgusting thing a person can do), they voted for him BECAUSE of them. They WANTED him to hurt the powerless. They WANTED him to humiliate and dehumanize and eliminate the marginalized. They WANTED the erosion of democracy, the stripping away of rights, the legitimizing of violence, the elimination of regulatory oversight and foreign aid. They just didn't want it to also happen to THEM. And that is something I refuse to empathize with.
I can understand it, and there are countless studies about the differences between progressives and conservatives (down to the way their brains tend to be structured), about why such large swathes of people are susceptible to cults, the appeal of authoritarianism, etc. But empathize with these people? At this point? After all that has happened, all the work that has been put into bringing back to reality, and their staunch refusal to believe anything they don't want to hear, no matter how much evidence is presented? Nope. I'm with Rachel Zegler. May they never know peace. That may not be the most helpful sentiment in order to move forward, and once again, goddamn do I admire your willingness to conceive of a somewhat optimistic way out of this (and I am under no illusions that this is an easy thing for you to do), but I'm not there yet. I'm still firmly in fuck you mode.
Free Palestine.
I've been thinking about this a good deal since I read it last night (somewhat under the influence, because how the hell else are we supposed to get through these days?), which is always one of the joys of exchanging thoughts with you on here.
I'm with you on basically everything you say - and I should note that my thoughts on Israel/Palestine in the piece have to do with arguments about attempts to win the argument about historical "rightness," and not about the current attempt in Gaza at what is so euphemistically called "ethnic cleansing" (although I suspect that "cleanse" is exactly the right word for the attitude of many right-wing Israelis) - and what I've been thinking about is the why of my thoughts and approach.
I have, I've realized, a certain predilection for detachment, a kind of stand-back-and-take-notes-while-it-all-burns inclination that is the source of my cynicism. This is at once something innate to me, and something I'm wary of; emotional distance has its own dangers. At the same time, though, I'm becoming more aware of the degree to which my approach in these pieces has an element of strategy to it. Moreso than any time in my life, we have plunged into a pitched battle. The gloves are off, the knives are out, and the bludgeons are in the open. The folks who want destruction, as you point out, have been given more than license for that desire: they have been given a way to allow themselves to see it as justified. But anti-humanism is never, and can never be, justifiable. I think these are the grounds on which this battle is being fought.
What I wonder about is how we win. How are ideas defeated? How are minds changed? There is certainly a part of me that would like to round all these motherfuckers up and reenact a version of the Clockwork Orange conditioning scene on them, forcing them to not look away from the actual experiences of homeless folks and migrants picking strawberries and human beings in Gaza and the people who have been sent to a prison in El Salvador so Krisi Noem (may she burn in hell) can pose in front of them like she's a fucking influencer. But I also think that the regular American folks out there in the street don't respond well to pure exhortations of venomous fury. I think there has to be a positive vision of some sort on offer, something grander and more noble, if we can find a way to articulate it, because the world is too good at numbing people, buying them off with streaming services and fast fashion and visions of wealth. But, man, it's a struggle sometimes to try to find it.
Finally, I do spend a fair amount of time thinking about the (formerly unthinkable, which I suppose is a sign of my naivete) choices that may be approaching. It's not inconceivable that I and people like me will be forced to make decisions about leaving or staying, being willing to go to jail, and perhaps engaging in violence in the street. I think it's the case that if any of this does come to pass, I will need to have really thought through where I stand and found something positive to believe in (and, honestly, to have spent a long time working up my courage) in order to do the right thing. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, of course.
I never thought that you were both-sidesing Gaza in your piece, and I certainly didn't mean to give that impression. I just always try to take the opportunity to reinforce the message of Palestinian liberation, whenever it presents itself. It's kind of a Pavlovian response at this point.
I'm not in the US right now, so I have the luxury of just saying "fuck it and fuck them". There's just not much I can do from down here other than to provide what meager support I can for the people actually caught in the crossfire. But that's not really a luxury that you guys have. You have to live it, from within, every minute of every hour of every day and figure out how to survive and, in the best-case scenario, how to move past this and into a better and brighter future (though even the dystopian future of 2 years ago would be an immeasurable improvement in every conceivable way).
I probably don't know you well enough to say this, but I suspect your "predilection for detachment, a kind of stand-back-and-take-notes-while-it-all-burns " approach is a combination of that day-to-day survival and long-term thinking about what the future might look like, and how to get there. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I genuinely admire you for it. You've taken that detachment (which I share, believe it or not, as everyone I know is so keen on reminding me) and used it to look at the situation strategically and try to come up with a potential roadmap out of it. That's something most people are unwilling, perhaps unable, to do. Reactive, emotionally charged social movements tend to amass a large number of people and lead to very eye-catching demonstrations, but they also tend to either be co-opted or to die out very quickly. Long-term strategic planning isn't glamorous, and it requires sacrifices in the short and mid-term, but it's what leads to lasting change. The sit-ins and the demonstrations got all the attention, but they were just a small part of a long-term strategy to get the Civil Rights Act passed (rip).
"How are ideas defeated? How are minds changed? "
I don't know, man. We're going through an eerily similar situation to you guys down here in the Dominican Republic and I'm actually even less hopeful about the prospects here, if you can believe it. But I do think that in the future we (ie: everyone who actually cares) need to start considering that different groups of people are predisposed to interpreting data differently (at a biological level), and we have to start accounting for it. Right-wingers tend to prize security, predictability and authority (either being in a position of authority or having a figure of authority to look toward) while left-wingers tend to prize novelty, nuance and complexity (I'm thinking of a book called 'Predisposed' that goes into this but I'm not endorsing it, it's just what came to mind, there are countless studies on the subject). A right-winger is more predisposed to reacting to a new situation with fear, to perceive it as a threat, than a left-winger, who is more predisposed to reacting with curiosity. I think we have to account for these variations.
It's all well and good to demonstrate on the basis that, say, people of color have intrinsic value as human beings and deserve the same rights as everyone else (which we do), but in many ways that is just preaching to the converted. What do we do with the rest of the population that views us as a threat to their safety, to their pocketbook and to their way of life? I think we have to find ways to appeal to their self-interest. We can't rely on just telling them that POC are not a threat to their safety, pocketbook or way of life, but we have to find a way to literally show them that we make them safer, add to their pocketbook and are responsible for a significant part of their way of life. If they don't see that the existence of marginalized groups IS in their own best interest, they aren't going to do a damn thing. And while I would gladly spit in the faces of each and every person that thinks this way, they make up a large percentage of the world. Any social movement that can even hope to succeed is going to need at least some of them in it.
Work together when interests align, appeal to self-interest when they don't. As to what that actually looks like in practice...I don't know, man. I really don't.
Keep your chin up. And don't forget to prioritize your own survival (physical, emotional, either, both) as well.
Thanks, man. Your thoughts are really appreciated, as always. I think you're absolutely right about the right-wing v. left wing biological predisposition (and I suspect that it has a fair amount to do with why moments of political solidarity so often just happen to coincide with external threats (the POC are okay if there's Nazis or Commies out there)). I suppose that if people had a better way out of all this, they would be talking about it, and I think that one of the most -surreal, sci-fi aspects of this for me is that it really does feel like we're running up against the biological limits of humanity. What if the Enlightenment thinkers and the Marxists and the pacifists (and hell, even the Christians) and all the rest were just flat wrong, and when push comes to shove people are always just going to find someone who looks different and bludgeon them? It's like we're in a really mediocre Hulu show.
Anyway, having said that, it always does cheer me up to correspond with you. I'm ashamed to say that I don't know much at all about what's happening in the DR, but I'll find out.
Take care, and take care of yourself as well.
Don't feel bad about not knowing, because what's going on down here isn't even being covered down here. The silence is deafening, opposition is almost entirely nonexistent, and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the population would consider everything I have a problem with to be a good thing, a feature and not a bug. Broadly speaking, our current administration is headed by a corporate CEO/large business owner whose name was included in the Panama papers. During the past five years his administration has systematically dismantled the public sector and delegitimized regulatory oversight while directly inserting the corporate class into every single facet of government, essentially privatizing the decision-making for public policy and setting the stage for the inevitable privatization of entire sectors and institutions as well.
He came in riding a wave of dissatisfaction with the previous administration over its corruption and mishandling of the economy (partly factual, partly fictional), assuring that his administration would mark a new age of transparency in the public sector. He has sought criminal charges for corruption against the previous administration (fairly), while largely ignoring the massive levels of corruption (unheard of levels, and by DR standards that is saying something) within his own administration. He's also announced an austerity program for the government, closing down several institutions and merging others for the sake of improving "spending efficiency", while simultaneously accruing the biggest public debt, by any measure, in the history of the country.
Early on he realized that the quickest way to maintain popularity was to shit on marginalized communities (undocumented Haitian migrants, but really just Haiti in general), which has essentially mainstreamed the ugliest, most dangerous undercurrents of bigotry and xenophobia and popularized and legitimized it in a way that I've never seen. We literally had a march yesterday from a local fascist group, with the explicit purpose of terrorizing Haitian migrants and letting them know that they are not welcome nor safe. The administration has also increased deportations to a staggering degree while committing numerous human rights violations and accidentally deporting documented residents, and even citizens, as well. Oh, and he's also building a wall at the border between the two countries.
There are some key differences I won't get into (unless you want me to, that is), but I have to imagine a lot of this sounds familiar. It really is a shitty time throughout the globe, and particularly shitty for this region.
Man, I had no idea.
One understands all the references to authoritarianism in the last century as a cancer. Somehow this shit gets into the blood of the world and just spreads. Although it's not "somehow," is it. It's a calculated response by people to conditions they feel they can take advantage of.
At least, if nothing else, it's good to be on the right side of the fight.
Despite the lack of empathy, the (far) right has a long history of global solidarity. We should never forget that.
Amen, brother.
This is good stuff. You are right to focus on empathy, or the lack of it, that separates, rather than solidify us. I saw Musk acting the victim, due to the assaults on his brand, cars and facilities of late, lamenting the fact that Democrats are supposed to be the party of empathy and compassion.
His implication, although he has no proof that the perpetrators are Democrats, is that it's OK for Republicans to act in the opposite way, as if being the anti-empathy party gives them license to illegally cut programs and cut everything that they don't agree with. If you read Issacson's bio of Musk you quickly learn that Musk's weakness as a human, and his strength as a entrepreneur, is that he has little to no empathy. He acknowledges this but mainly because it's a get out of jail free card to justify his Machiavellian ways.
Most sociopaths have little to no empathy. Now for the mic drop. I believe I am a sociopath. Not in the ugly and horrific way that people see people like Musk, Nixon or the worst of the kind. I mean like this woman who wrote the memoir that describes a kinder, gentler sociopath than most visualize when they hear the word. I have used it to my advantage to be remain hyper-focused and successful in my work, sports, school, and play growing up. I also never did time, committed a felony, or resorted to violence to settle a score. But adly it probably led to my divorce after 30 years.
I must say that lack of empathy in a person is not what drives them to become MAGA leaders, supporters or minions. I was lucky enough to have been born to and raised well, likely by at least one and maybe two sociopathic parents. Hard to say for sure. And they had good upbringing before them. The lizard impulses in all of us can rule our worlds. I found the best lizards in my youth on a rugby pitch. But they were all well raised like me. The ones with empathy or emotional intelligence went on to do really great things. The ones that lack empathy and a good family life as children are the ones to watch out for.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/176443093-sociopath
Glad you enjoyed the piece! Thanks for posting this - really, really interesting. Like many of the things I write here, this one was mostly a first stab at thinking through things, and your response opens up a ton of new thoughts for me. I remember reading about Gagne's book when it came out, but have never read it; now I'm eager to. Without knowing you from Adam, I'm really convinced by your point here (or at least the way I'm understanding it) that it would be foolish to mistake empathy for morality. And I also think you're right that the reduction of MAGA types to any single cause is probably foolhardy.
As far as Musk, I haven't read the Isaacson, but I agree completely with what you say here. He's a frightening and dangerous individual; my hope is that his weakness of not being able to understand (or care about) other people may be his political undoing as well as his social one...
Jobs was pretty similar I think. I actually met/knew him on several occasions via mutual friends. I had dinner with his wife and him at a wedding once, and I knew several folks who worked closely with him but those are stories for another day. He had a tough childhood, in a different way that Musk and lacked empathy as well, but he became pretty self aware and his wife Laurene probably helped him heal a bit from his earlier trauma, helping him reconcile with his estranged daughter Lisa and also being a decent father to their own kids.
Don't get me wrong, Musk has done some amazing things for our planet and society. He's been more than rewarded for them but he's lost the plot of his life and the civilization which he strives for in such a grandiose manner.
My empathy has been a driving force, even when it causes me discomfort, so I've never questioned it until now. I've never once wondered if I'm meant to feel empathy for evil people like the Tate brothers. You have shocked me with this idea! Must we have empathy for those who are wholly devoid of it? I've decided that's a no for me. It's not even a choice, rather, my empathetic soul simply doesn't feel for anyone other than their victims.
Thanks so much for reading and taking the time to put down your thoughts. I have no idea if we're supposed to have empathy for everyone - I mean, that's what Jesus said, but I'm not a Christian, so he's just a guy to me. But I think you're right that there are situations in which the empathy is truly all deserved by one party, and we shouldn't feel weird or guilty for having that reaction.