We’re All in this Together

By Will Shonbrun

Maybe it comes down to something as simple as those that care and those that don’t: those who care what happens to their fellow man/woman and those who basically don’t give a damn. It sure looks that way in these political/social/cultural times, and perhaps it was always thus.

Given this (granted) over-broad premise, the following over simplified proposition is proposed: Democrats care (what happens to people) and Republicans don’t. This is an observation not a statistical study, but nevertheless I maintain that it’s the truth. I’ll lay out my arguments as to why, or more accurately how, it’s manifested, played out, on the political stage, and the reader can take it or leave it.

Here’s a prime example: Republicans would rather see a President’s plans to improve the lives of tens of millions of people fail, because they want to regain power. The reason/excuse they give for this obstructionist position is that his plans will harm Americans and further erode our country. They neglect that the people elected this President knowing he planned to make some big changes. On its face he had, and according to current polls he has, public support to significantly change the health care system. Republicans don’t care that the rolls of the uninsured are pushing 50 million and that there’s a yearly staggering number of deaths because of this (45,000), and which amounts to a world of suffering for an awful lot of American families. Republicans seem to not bat an eye at the number of households bankrupted by medical bills even when they have insurance. Health care costs have crippled the U.S. economy and continue to skyrocket, while we pay more for less care than any of the developed countries on Earth. Do Republicans care? They’ll tell you we have the best health care system in the world, which may be true if one can afford those policies, like the stalwarts in Congress, who get it for free.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 15-16% of GDP in the U.S. goes to health care with the U.S. averaging $6,350 per person on health care costs, while the average is $2,740 in the other industrialized, advanced countries. Republicans offer no significant counter to this drastic and costly state of affairs. They would rather see a President’s four-year term come to nothing – not be able to solve any of our most pressing problems – locked in a stalemate and held hostage by a minority of legislators because they want to regain power.

As Republicans see it, if they can stop Obama from doing anything of consequence, the people will turn against him and the Democrats and elect their party in the next go-round. It may or may not work; both the Congress and the President have the power to defeat the Republican scheme. But the main point is, Republicans don’t care. They don’t care about other people. Oh, they may care about their families, relations, friends or favorite sports team, maybe, but it doesn’t go much, if anywhere, past that. And the health care issue is but one example.

Republicans have been ardently against Medicare, Social Security, a minimum wage, workplace protections, unemployment insurance, unions, bank regulations, corporation restrictions, all social programs, and on and on – all programs that do a lot of good for a lot of people. It’s hard not to conclude from this that Republicans don’t give a damn about people; including many Republican voters. Republicans aren’t callous to everyone: They love tax cuts that favor the very wealthy, abhor the estate tax that dings the ultra well off, and fall over themselves in a rush to vote for increased military funding. I guess they consider that fair and balanced largesse.

Democrats, a much more mixed bag by and large, do care about people, though it runs a gamut from somewhat to a good deal. All the aforementioned programs came from that party, and many more programs and legislation that primarily looked out for the welfare of all the nation’s people: Democrat, Republican or any other stripes. So what gives with Republicans?

Recent visitor to Sonoma, author and speaker Jeremy Rifkin, suggests that one’s ability or proclivity to care comes from a more developed sense of empathy; simply put, the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes. The more developed one’s capacity for empathy the less one needs a direct connection to or relationship with that other. It’s a heightened and shared sense of humanity that skirts the boundaries of family, community, religious differences, races, and even cultures and countries.

Republicans by and large don’t show much capacity for empathy, certainly not by their actions. If they’re closet altruists it’s a well-kept secret. But Republicans care about business interests and the businessman, you say. Well sure, because they benefit by business interests’ financial support of their jobs. It’s quid pro quo; not caring.

Conservatives – a brand of Republicans – worship at the altar of Ayn Rand, the ultimate narcissistic, selfish practitioner of rabid egoism, who despises humanity and believes only an elite, bordering on sociopathic, totally uncaring creature is worthy to survive in a dog eat dog world. Ayn Rand, born Alisa Rosenbaum, is the perfect uber Nazi, fed by greed and self-interest and unconcerned by anyone considered inferior, and that meant almost everyone. Republican icon Alan Greenspan, a devotee of the lovely free-market maven, Rand, stands out as a pretty glowing symbol of conservative philosophy: Everyone’s in it for their own gain, and have no care about the welfare of others.

Libertarians, another Republican brand, believe it’s everyone out for her/himself , and that the individual need have no connection or obligation to the community (of others). Total laissez-faire, no social contract, individual wants over all and to each whatever s/he can grab off the pile. Individual desire trumps collective needs and welfare. It’s a little better than conservatism, which loves to meddle in people’s private lives, but not much.

Why do some people care about others, even if they’re not related, have nothing to gain and in fact might be a million miles apart in many ways? Is this a good or necessary thing? Why should it matter in a world plagued with monumental problems that will affect all of humankind?

I maintain that it’s the only answer, this empathy quotient. Not sympathy – feeling sorry for someone in some situation – but empathy, the ability to experience life through another’s eyes, maybe another’s soul. It’s not only a ‘good’ thing, but I suggest, our only way out. We humans share one planet and the separations between us have been shrinking apace. What some of our numbers do, especially those in the developed, industrial countries, affect most of the rest; be it from the way we use energy sources, grow our food, impact the environment, or practice social justice. Like it or not, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious, we’re all interconnected and our lives interrelated on this planet.

Knowing this is all the reason to develop our empathic abilities, if only for selfish reasons; the survival of our species. This includes the other species of animals and plants on the planet because we’re all interrelated. Nature has set it up this way. If we don’t expand our capacity for empathy we will assure our dissipation and ultimate destruction because we will not have understood that life is equally balanced between cooperation and competition. Or as Red Green says, “Remember, we’re all in this together.”