"Other People’s Children" by Paul Krugman a the NY Times

[applegrove]

Other People’s Children

by Paul Krugman at the NY Times

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/other-peoples-children/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

"SNIP................................................


Matthew Yglesias beats me to a point I was planning to make. Sen. Rob Portman has made headlines by declaring his support for gay marriage after learning that his own son is gay, and apparently we’re supposed to praise him for his new enlightenment. But while enlightenment is good, wouldn’t it have been a lot more praiseworthy if he had shown some flexibility on the issue before he knew that his own family would benefit?

I’ve noticed this thing quite a lot in American life lately — this sort of cramped vision of altruism in which it’s considered perfectly acceptable to support only those causes that are directly good for you and yours. We even have a tendency to view it as “inauthentic” when people support policies that aren’t in their self-interest — when a rich man supports higher taxes on the rich, he’s somehow seen as strange, and probably a hypocrite.

Needless to say, this is all wrong. Political virtue consists in standing for what’s right, even — or indeed especially — when it doesn’t redound to your own benefit. Someone should ask Portman why he didn’t take a stand for, you know, other people’s children.


................................................SNIP"

[Whisp]

1. Excellent. K&R

[maddiemom]

26. Agreed + 100

[Squinch]

2. I love Paul Krugman so much! And I don't think he even knows I'm alive!

[Salviati]

3. It's such a running theme in republicans on the "right" side of issues, that I've come to expect it.

I think it boils down to the fact that they have no imaginination or empathy. They literally cannot put themselves in other people's shoes, or imagine that others are not exactly like them.

It also IMO shows up when they denouce others for doing what is later revealed that they themselves were doing the whole time.

[renate]

19. interesting question--which comes first, the Republicanism or the lack of empathy?

Because an inability to see things from another's point of view is absolutely symptomatic of Republicans, or at least of Republicans who pay the least attention to what their party does. It's actually necessary for them to be able to sleep at night, I think. On the other hand, fear of others is taught by right-wing TV and radio, so maybe the Republicanism originates from, say, a family tradition or the church, and the insularity is taught. It's probably a combination of both, but either way, I'm always interested that Republicans aren't embarrrassed to self-identify as such, because it really is like saying "I'm selfish and inflexible and lacking in compassion."

[maddiemom]

27. Well put and thoughtful.

[maddiemom]

28. And a P.S.

It's why so so many right wingers abhor critical thinking and call it "liberal indoctrination." They've actually bullied liberals into toning it down and made them "scary Commies." It's such a circular argument: If you question with an open mind, it's a bad thing to right wingers. To liberal, "progressives," how can you lose?"

[siligut]

4. Yes, politicians SHOULD support what is good for the people

But republicans NEVER want to do that. They want what is good for themselves and their wealthy donors.

[unblock]

5. of course, it's because his kid provides political cover.

our political culture, particularly on the republican side, is so toxic that he couldn't possibly champion gay marriage out of the blue. but they seem to at least understand the idea of not going against your own family. well, sometimes, anyway.

personally, i grew up saying "we are not free until all are free" at passover seders. so i have no problem supporting the rights of people who aren't like me or my family. and i agree with krugman -- it feels funny for my advocacy to be diminished or even dismissed simply because i don't have obvious personal stake in the matter. one would think the objectivity would be a plus....

[xtraxritical]

39. I watched Porter trying to explain his decision on the tube yesterday when he tried to say the words

"my gay son" his face distorted and he looked like he was choking. Oh well, it's his cross...

[surrealAmerican]

6. k & r

It's a question we see a lot here on DU: Why can Republicans muster no sympathy for people outside of their own families?


He's being praised for not disowning his son or relegating him to a life that was less than normal. That seems a very small thing indeed.

[gollygee]

7. That's what I always thought about Cheney

Compassion and empathy mean understanding and being kind when it isn't affecting you or your immediate family. It does not mean all of a sudden becoming enlightened because it touched home.

But I do think this is a reason why attitudes have changed so much in the US about gay rights. Gay people are more open about their sexuality, and people are personally affected within their own families. How many people don't have someone they love, at least one person close to them, who is gay? LGBT issues are not theoretical to most people - they are issues that affect people they love.

[Dustlawyer]

8. I get the same thing in my practice. As an attorney, I've had right wing tort reformers come

to my office and tell me that they never thought they would come see, "one of you" (plaintiff attorneys). They always think that their case is special b/c it is real, I suppose unlike all my other cases. They blatantly assume I am a crook and admit that they always thought that everyone should just pull themselves up by the proverbial boot straps. It is a shame that people are quick to make judgments of others without putting themselves in the other person's shoes. Some people have to learn the hard way that they were wrong.

[maddiemom]

29. Interesting. I have an attorney cousin who pretty much told me the same

thing some thirty years ago.

[maddiemom]

30. Actually, she felt as I did that St. Ronnie Reagon's handlers had carved chunks

out of FDR and LBJ's programs by making government the villain. If our taxes go primarily to war and taking over the resources of other countries, we deserve to go down, big time. Sadly surveys show that most Americans don't support our present trajectory. No one, including our POTUS seems to care.

[treestar]

36. True

They still think the other cases are frauds!

[Curmudgeoness]

9. What is worse about changing his stand on this now

is that his son came out to him in 2011. At that time, Portman was kissing ass of all the Republican candidates, and he was still squaking against gay marriage at that time.

It is only now, when the elections are over, that his thinking changes. What kind of creep is that!

[JimDandy]

33. First I heard of that.

NPR (eta: as late as this morning) and other media are leaving out that pertinent fact of his son coming out in 2011. Did they just not know or is it deliberate?

[Curmudgeoness]

46. Actually, I am wrong, it was 2010 when his son came out to him.

I live on the border of PA/OH, so we get all our news from Ohio....and there is a lot of talk about this. That was where I first heard it.

I found this:

Senator Rob Portman of Ohio now supports same-sex marriage, saying his personal views were affected by his son’s coming out two years ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/how-rob-portman-will-change-the-gay-marriage-debate.html

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Exactly.

People who oppose what is right for people until it benefits them are higher octane assholes, not less.

[sangsaran]

11. I don't disagree with your overall point, but...

I don't believe these things happen because people are selfish and only care about those issues which impact them. Certainly, that's how many people look most of the time, but... Generally speaking, people only empathize with other people. For example, people who care a great deal for their pets often think of their pets as far more human than they are, and people who care little for animals usually stress that they're less than human.

Some people really are (nearly) incapable of empathy (like Mitt Romney), but most are not. Most often, their problem is that they can't put a human face to those they're judging, which really does count for a lot. When they think of "gay people," they think of some collection of stereotypes, and many of the stereotypes they may be familiar with are negative. When they think of "Muslims," it's the same. When they think of the people they're speaking to online, even, they're only speaking to some stranger without a face, a voice, or any sort of identity.

When they actually know someone from one of these marginalized minorities, though, they often begin to realize "the gays," "the Muslims," "the trannies" are not some horrible public menace, but human beings, just like everyone else--their opinions no longer come from prejudice. That is why they can so easily convert when it's someone they personally know.

People are flawed, yes, but I don't believe they're so evil as many of us--perhaps, in some cases, all of us--tend to make them out to be. Most often, when we judge them as such, we're making the same mistakes they are.

(I realize terms like "gays" and "trannies" are offensive and dehumanizing, but I'm trying to get across that that is the only way they know to think of them.)

[SharonAnn]

20. But in some cases, they think that special person is "different", as in

Women can't handle this job, but you're "different".

Black people don't have the skills for this, but "he's" different.

They don't necessarily change their stereotypes, they just extract a certain person from that stereotype. It allows to relieve their cognitive dissonance without actually opening their mind or changing their beliefs.

[winter is coming]

38. +1. n/t

[Schema Thing]

23. "they can't put a human face to those they're judging"

That seems like a pretty good definition of "lacking in empathy" to me.

[maddiemom]

32. My late coal miner father- in- law, a hard core union man, was thoroughly

entranced by St. Ronnie. They were the same age, both loved jelly beans...
WTF? I know he hadn't voted for him the first time, but did the second time around. This man was in no way close to senile and had uncles who'd been jailed in union battles. He was just charmed by Reagan even after he devastated the Air Traffic Controllers. With a son and son-in-law in the management end of things, he'd definitely mellowed out. I wonder how many other stories like this might be out there.

[JimDandy]

34. If it were that simple

then you'd think the number 1 strategy of our party would be to have a Democratic family befriend every Republican family, thereby exposing them to the human face of our values and converting them. But then that Dem family is being exposed to THEIR values.... hmmm.

[Martin Eden]

12. K&R, once again, for PK. n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

13. Like when Snarlin' Arlen got cancer and was in favor of stem cell research.

Amazing how when an issue hits them personally, they change their tune.
Snarlin' Arlen had cancer and then became in favor of stem cell research, because it saved his life. previously he had been against it.

[Godot51]

14. Do Unto Others,

right?

[sangsaran]

16. Ehh...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ambigamy/201208/how-the-golden-rule-makes-us-dumb
http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/12/the-corruption-of-the-golden-rule/

You could argue on that one.

[thesquanderer]

15. The Matthew Yglesia piece he links to is even better than his own post, don't miss it (n/t)

[Cha]

44. thanks for the heads up, thesquanderer.. you're right..

it's important to read.

[Vanje]

17. What ever it takes.

This is why it is so very important for us gays to get out of the closet, and testify proudly, at home , at work, everywhere.

People who know of as few as ONE gay family member or co-worker, are inclined to favor equal rights.

It changes hearts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. "All politics is local." Tip O'Neill

[idwiyo]

21. K&R

[Schema Thing]

22. This was exactly my thought about Portman.

[Ninga]

24. So relevant to the issue of humanity.....nt

[Ninga]

25. Rachel pointed out on Real Time last night, that Portman knowing

for two years, held back during the vetting for GOPVP, and in fact, said he was not in support of gay rights during that time.

Wrong.

[KoKo]

31. K&R

[Major Nikon]

35. if they were capable of empathy, they would be Democrats

[treestar]

37. It is better than disowning his son

Which would also be the Republican way. Progress where it happens - we have to support it rather than judge that person didn't jump fast enough.

Besides we know there are actual gay people who are Republicans.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

40. I totally agree.

I've noticed this trend, as well.

[patrice]

41. Thank! you!, Paul Krugman! This *IS* what the revolution is about. nt

[marble falls]

42. In a perfect world. However some folks really do need to have an exposure to a problem to ...

receive insight. Portman will get no benefit from his stand and may receive some backlash. I may wish he had come to the logical conclusion sooner but at least he did finally come to it. I have always been sympathetic to gays and gay issues, but my opinion regarding marriage took a long time to evolve. I don't know why it did and it is embarrassing because I have no defense for it.

Gay rights and marriage affect me in no way negatively. I had no personal stake either way. But my opinion on gay marriage did take time to evolve and now I support it totally and without reservation.

[WillyT]

43. HUGE K & R !!!

[Doremus]

45. Excellent point and post. Thanks. nt