Over at On Deciding... Better, James writes:

I will say that it troubles me that we half the country looking at the other half of the country saying, “I can’t understand how you could have voted for him/her”. And really meaning it. That they cannot summon an empathy, a theory of mind that lets them imagine being someone on the other side.

I think this statement is too general. I, for example, have no problem at all understanding how they could have voted for the result we achieved. I do have a theory of mind that allows me to imagine being someone on the other side; and I've heard and read some pretty good analyses, which offer some very good ideas about theories of mind for all of the elements of what was ultimately a broad coalition of disparate minds that achieved that result.

I will admit that I have little empathy for those minds.

To the extent that some of them acted from ignorance due to being misled and deceived, I have some empathy. To the extent that people sometimes lose their way due to fear or its derivative, anger, I have less empathy, but some.

But I believe that somewhere between 35 and 45 percent of Americans, those who have been the President-elect's "base" since day one, haven't lost their way. They are on exactly the path they wish to be on, and their ignorance is willful, and celebrated. They have contempt for education, intelligence, expertise.

And for them, I have absolutely no empathy.

I have no quarrel with his views on the effects of a two-party system, and the "us and them" division that accompanies it. And we agree that much of this self-sorting is "by feel," an emotional response rather than a strictly cognitive, rational one.

But I've been seeing a fair amount of this as well:

To my way of thinking, honest empathy is the only way to improve our ability to engage others productively rather than simple cheering for our side and insults for the other side.

And I disagree strongly.

At least, I do so to the suggestion that the side that opposed the result must call upon resources of "honest empathy" and "engage others."

The theory of mind that most accounts for what I observed, and personal experience with people on that side, tells me that they don't wish to be "engaged," other than to argue, solely for the emotional response it stimulates for them.

They will welcome a fight, they're not interesting in a discussion. They're uninterested in understanding. There is no wish to find common ground, to compromise, to work together. Their's is an absolute, zero-sum view of the world.

What James suggests smacks of "both sides" equivalency.

One side, our side, "scolds." The other side hates it. They feel it comes from a place of superiority, either moral or intellectual, and that they're being talked down to. Ok, there's perhaps some legitimacy to that. But criticism, opprobrium, vilification are appropriate responses to extreme rhetoric.

The other side bullies, with overt threats of violence, sometimes acts of violence, when they wish to reject or criticize the rhetoric of our side.

There is no curiosity on the majority side. Curiosity, empathy, the willingness to engage with others, those are the features that are representative of the losing side.

Willful ignorance, greed, cynicism, zero-sum thinking, a willingness to believe in conspiracy theories, bigotry, fear, anger, those are the qualities that are representative of the winning side.

To the extent that we may be able to "go forward" someday, it will only be after the "muddy middle," those who were misled and deceived, who can have their eyes opened, the ones who can still find their way out of the deep weeds they've wandered into, have an experience which prompts that.

Consequences.

This is a dangerous course. But I don't see any other way through. This gets worse before its gets better, because all other paths are closed to us.

How might we do better someday? That's a hypothetical that is likely to remain strictly hypothetical. But better education. More access to mental health services. Regulation of Big Tech and social media. Those would be a start.

We're unlikely to get the opportunity to do any of that. And it would be opposed every step of the way by that portion of the population that regards all those things with suspicion, and the ambitious and opportunistic who exploit them.

I live in a very deep red county. Public policy in Florida, for decades, since Republicans came to hold all the branches of government a generation ago, has been defined by a profound and malignant indifference to the suffering of others. And by "others," I mean "others." Anyone who lives in the margins. It has gotten worse as elections in a gerrymandered state are won in the primaries, and the only way to beat your opponent is to be more extreme for the only voters who turn out in primaries, the most extreme.

Opportunities for constructive engagement don't exist here. They are unwelcome.

We are unwelcome.

So we're going to leave.

Originally posted at Nice Marmot 05:34 Friday, 8 November 2024