It’s tricky to pinpoint the date on which Barack Obama began his make-over from undistinguished senator to Hillary Clinton’s first great electoral disappointment. But, let’s call it June 16, 2006. Delivering the commencement address at Northwestern University, Obama first uttered a phrase that would be slavishly evoked by love-struck journalists many times. The problem with this nation, said the senator, was not so much a budget deficit, but, an “empathy deficit”.
We can read other very similar claims in the current critique of Manus. The rationale goes: the problem here is not only a lack of government empathy — undeniable, but only part of the horrific policy story — but our individual failure to empathise.
There are plenty of opinion pieces written on the topic of awful and racist Australians. While it is entirely true that there are awful and racist Australians, it is also true that their “empathy deficit” is not the primary thing consigning 600 men to an unconscionable hell.
These are typified in this short communication by Jonathan Green, a former Crikey editor and a chap I happen to personally admire. His personal virtue notwithstanding, he is wrong to say, “Oz people clearly don’t care. It’s not politics, it’s us.”
No. It’s not us. Of course, maybe the “us” of marginal seats invited to focus group research do have more culpability. But at what point did Australia become such a functioning democracy that it reflected the will, either good or bad, of its citizens?
Barack is right. A budget deficit is of little importance — especially in the USA. But so is an empathy deficit. Surely, a “democracy deficit” is the problem. And we have one. How else do you describe what has essentially become a one-party system? One in which we have been politically coerced since 1992 into having an opinion on the small number of asylum seekers who make it to Australia by boat.
Empathy deficit?
Look. You can forgive a bunch of 18-year-olds from credit-worthy homes for lapping up this liberal pap. Sure, if you’re an American kid who has never known hardship, you’d be inclined to believe that individual virtue — most especially yours — is the stuff that will change the nation. If you’re a political journalist, however, or just an adult whose familiarity with the machine of liberal democracy is average, surely you’d know better than to believe that strong feelings find strong policy expression.
Nah. This Enlightenment-era tenet — that individual good will leads to public good — is big and is back. If everyone were better, so our new idealists have it, then the world would be a better place. Even if this were true — even if the institutions and complexes we have built to govern the planet were not, in fact, machines and somehow actually capable of squishy human feeling — it remains unclear how individual goodness could be universally imposed. What do we do? Make everyone wear a goodness awareness ribbon, or instruct all the children of the world — even those in nations with very few schools and scant literacy — in goodness? Do we print a pamphlet? Perhaps a hashtag could do it.
Personally, I hold the unpopular view that it is not the consciousness of individuals that makes for good societies. Rather, it is the good society that produces individual consciousness. If, for example, I cannot depend upon sufficient healthcare, I am unable to afford secure housing or, perhaps, I had a family member struck by one of the 26,171 compassionate bombs deployed by Obama in the final year of his loving administration, I may find myself emptied of good will. If, however, there is virtue built into the (inhuman) complexes that govern my nation and world, I would stand a chance of being more individually virtuous.
My individual virtue, I hold, is not the point. Nor even is the virtue of individual policymakers. It is quite likely that Obama is a virtuous man. It is also true that much of his policy was not. Save for Obamacare, itself a flawed policy that delivered great benefit to insurers, his legacy is one of increased US poverty and underemployment, devastating foreign policy and a drastically diminished right to privacy.
The power of individual goodness was a preoccupation for Hannah Arendt, and for the members of the Frankfurt School, with whom the famous critic often disagreed. I guess the philosopher who manages to escape Nazism with their life holds onto the idea that a system without virtue cannot be undone by individual virtue.
It is an extreme idealism to hold that democracy, particularly as it currently exists, is, or can be, the product of collective good will. These days, as we have seen in the USA, it is largely the partner to its economy, and to the international relations that serve to underscore that complex.
Our empathy will not save the souls on Manus. Our empathy, which was on conspicuous display during the Iraq War, did not save the souls of that nation. What will save our souls, our consciousness and our good will is a better society. It’s just not the other way ‘round.
Helen, I am not clear what you mean when you write “What will save our souls, our consciousness and our good will is a better society. “? Does this mean every nation needs to look inward rather than extend humane treatment toward refugees fleeing brutal regimes? When Germany and other nations are coping with more than a million asylum seekers, is it too much for our fair-go country to look after these souls in a humane way?
HI, Andrew. Maybe read the piece again and see my argument.
Key phrase here is ” I hold the unpopular view that it is not the consciousness of individuals that makes for good societies. Rather, it is the good society that produces individual consciousness. ”
This is a view developed after the Enlightenment. It belongs to nineteenth century philosophy, by which time societies were much larger and “ethics” was no longer the province of a few rich men.
Leaving aside that ours is not and never has been a “fair-go country” (not a reasonable thing to say about a place that began with the theft of land) and not even getting into Merkel’s motivations for taking on asylum seekers (she is on recent record as saying highly critical things about “multiculturalism”, and oversaw detention camps for years. Added to which, the things she said about lazy Greeks were racist and unconscionable. Her motivation in a land with sub-replacement fertility and the need for a cheap labour force, plus her will to make Germany an apparently liberal world leader, is all other stuff) my point is that calling people bad racists is just not much chop. Appealing to empathy really does not work as a political tactic. Blaming individuals, who did not bomb the nations whom which these detainees fled, is rum.
Individual compassion does not change policy. It just doesn’t. You can still be compassionate, anyhow, and believe in terrible things.
And of course I think asylum seekers should be permitted into Australia at a much higher rate, sans all the judgey-wudgey about boats.
(I also think we should stop supporting wars that cause people to flee their homes.)
I am just sick of this empathy nonsense. Because it clearly does not work.
PS The “brutal regimes” often fled are those we endorse, or are a part of.
The joy of reading MzRaz, one of those unique people who can argue with themselves – and lose, is that she hies to horizons that never were and asks, “Why?”.
I worked as a researcher and scribe for the Woomera lawyers, I helped get ACM reports and papers to 4 Corners in 2003 for Deb Whitmont’s About Woomera, I worked on line and with others on the sievx story and found that the Australian government left them to drown. I helped with testimony and documents for the People’s inquiry that stands as a permanent record of our crimes and was the prime reason the doco. The Man who Jumped was made, I supplied all the photos and documents of Mazhar Ali’s plight.
I was the one, with Deb Whitmont and Carmen Lawrence who exposed the death of Fatima Erfani, age 27, on Christmas Island after an untended massive stroke.
I was the one trawling senate questions on notice and discovered we had been locking up Australians by the dozen, which turned into the hundreds, and led to them finding Vivian Alvarez.
I was the one Paul McGeough worked with to find the facts of the Bakhtiyari case and their Afghan nationality, the used by the department of fake documents and also Dave Corlett in his book Following them Home, which led to the senate apology to the family.
It does need more than empathy, it needs the ability to get the embarrassing shit on the public record so no-one can ever, ever forget.
I found along the way that some who help refugees expect life long adoration, I don’t, there is always another story which I go about with quiet cold blooded determination.
Like the lie of the smugglers which finally saw the courts stop jailing innocent Indonesian crews and showed that we were jailing kids in adult prisons.
How much help did I ever get from the media? Well Michael Gordon sat on the last story for months before a lawyer in Brisbane leaked it, 100% of the rest of the media tell me international laws and treaties are ”my opinion” but it’s hard to see how this statement from the UNHCR in 2000 is ”my opinion” as they claim even after I read it to the lazy scum.
3. The Protocol against Smuggling, for instance, contains a number of provisions which may impact on smuggled asylum-seekers. The authorization to intercept vessels on the high seas, the obligation to strengthen border controls and to adopt sanctions for commercial carriers, or the commitment to accept the return of smuggled migrants may indeed affect those who seek international protection. A number of comparable provisions of the Protocol against Trafficking may have a similar effect.
4. During the sessions of the Ad-Hoc Committee, UNHCR therefore emphasized the need to reconcile measures to combat the smuggling of migrants and the trafficking of persons with existing obligations under international refugee law. The Office welcomes the adoption of a saving clause in both Protocols, designed to safeguard the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, in particular in relation to the principle of non-refoulement.
5. In addition, UNHCR appreciates the adoption of provisions for the protection of smuggled migrants, such as the obligation of States Parties to take appropriate measures to afford smuggled migrants protection against violence and to take into account the special needs of women and children. The Protocol against Smuggling is also clear in that it does not aim at punishing persons for the mere fact of having been smuggled or at penalizing organizations which assist such persons for purely humanitarian reasons. Indonesian fishermen do not deserve to be charged or jailed.
Marilyn – much respect, truly. You are relentless and cop no crap.
May I wish you some rest, thou good and faithful soul.
It is quite likely that Obama is a virtuous man.
Ouch, Helen. That resonates with:
“So are they all, all honorable men—”
See also our man Brecht:
Hear us then: we know
You are our enemy. This is why we shall
Now put you in front of a wall.
But in consideration of
your merits and good qualities
We shall put you in front of a good wall and shoot you
With a good bullet from from a good gun and bury you
With a good shovel in the good earth.
“Personally, I hold the unpopular view that it is not the consciousness of individuals that makes for good societies. Rather, it is the good society that produces individual .
consciousness” I can see the logic and merit in that view but how do we develop the ‘good society’ if not through activism, education, campaigning for human rights and a decent society, peaceful activism that seem to win the day (to some extent) for civil rights in the 1960s. etc? Somehow, we need to move societal consciousness away from being so ‘me centred’ to a bit more ‘other centred’
I think history shows it can be done.
In may not help the blokes on Manus? Not sure but, there are a hell of a lot people not happy in the way the govt is handling this issue. I think emailing, ringing MPs, contacting media, lobbying friends to action, public demonstrations etc all help raise the collective consciousness and maybe, if we are lucky, make us a better society and maybe, with some luck, help these blokes.
I think the young folks on Q and A showed what might be possible if they are influenced towards being ‘good’ members of society etc. There is a ray of hope.
At no point did I suggest that collective action was a bad idea. The opposite.
A machine needs a machine to combat it. And history has shown us that. The power of kindness? I dunno where we have seen compassion change much.
This is not to say things are hopeless. It is to say that the very selfishness you decry (“We need to be better people” is a form of individualism) must be seen as useless.
And you don’t need a majority agreement to have a mass movement. And you don’t need everyone to “go clear” and suddenly become non-racist. (again. How anyone achieves this is unclear.)
We need to concede that our individual will is as nothing, and it is only through broad action, where the self (whether this is the nice protester, or the self for whom they are protesting) is set aside in favour of an outcome.
I am just saying all this empathy stuff is useless.
Mm. Democracy. Government by, of and for the people. Though majorities elect those who govern (if you’re lucky), even such democratically elected bodies then seem to govern for the minority (largely those with power and/or money) at the expense of ‘good’ societies. On the table at the moment are many issues where the majority of voters are totally at odds with government decision-making, including the appalling treatment of refugees on Manus, the equally appalling treatment of our first people and also of our ever-more fragile environment. Even in the face of defeat at the next election, there is enough sway from influential sectors of the population to turbo-charge this seeming suicide pact.
We’re Twinsies, Mandy.
Alas, mandy, that is just not true – the overwhelming majority voted, 70%, for parties proclaiming their adherence to detention pour discourage les autres which, under Geneva Conventions is prohibited as text book communal punishment, a war crime.
Where’s a handy war when we need one?
G’day AR, this in Feb in the SMH:
‘Australians overwhelmingly believe keeping asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru indefinitely is cruel, but are evenly split on whether they should be resettled in Australia, a survey has found.’ And just need to point out the fall-out from war crimes in, lately, Syria, Myanmar, but you know, the roll call is lengthy and little seems to happen to these regimes responsible for such war crimes there or here except, if people are lucky, the NGOs go in to mop up the blood. Not many regime leaders behind bars. And the long lasting consequences are yet another generation or two of forever traumatised, disenfranchised innocent people who may, or may not have had a say in the leadership status of the perpetrator of their fate in the first place.
And yet Oz voters continue to return T1 & T2, not a cigarette paper between them on so many issues, from refugees to social equity to the environment.
Figures are a bastard – 70% vote for the wholly owned subsidiaries of the BigAr$ed end of town, 10% for even more despicable objectives, 10% vote Green, 5% never show up at the ballot box & 5% deliberately spoil their ballots.
Yup. What to do?
“What do we do? Make everyone wear a goodness awareness ribbon”
or a Star of David, perhaps.
I’m on board Helen, without necessarily having or requiring a view on whether individual consciousness makes for a good society, or the other way around. I do suspect, from sheer weight of experience, that the overall goodness, and high education, of so many has lead to nothing, or even worse has come at the same time as the decline of our spirit.
I also don’t necessarily agree with Jonathon Green’s assessment. When 90%+ people opposed our involvement in the Iraq War, and JWH took us there in any case, on false information, so he could be George Bush’s jnr’s man of steel, so began the end of involvement of the masses.
We have been beaten down over decades of government trampling over the individual, blushing coyly at any large corporate or lobby group that gives them a wink and/or a smile. We are the downtrodden, even those of us doing well, and we are being beaten down further with real wages stagnant, prices of essentials increasing and being told that inflation isn’t rising because kewpie dolls are now half the price they used to be. We are being worked to death, or are having to supplicate ourselves to get an extra casual shift. It’s depressing times on so many fronts.
And a decade of railing against our treatment of asylum seekers, having to explain again and again that they are not ‘illegals’, has just left so many of us weary.
I don’t have an empathy deficit, I’m just tired, and hitting my head against a brick wall didn’t seem to help me much, so I tended to stop, when my conscience would allow me.
Sad!
No. I don’t mean a good life makes for a good person, specifically. Clearly, it does not. But the conditions of a society, in our case, one that is predicated on the idea of competition and profit, creates consciousness.
We even see this consciousness appear among pro-refugee advocates. They say, “see asylum seekers can be mayors” or “asylum seekers are good for the economy”.
SO even an organisation that is “good” can have their consciousness formed by the society in which they live.
For me? I don’t really care if an asylum seeker becomes mayor or increases GDP. I don’t even care if they are the sort of person inclined to fart publicly. I just care that we accept that there are 60 million of ’em and that whether we like it or not, they gotta come. Maybe we can fix the infrastructure in their home nations we bombed while they’re over here?
May I also add that “women’s full participation in the workforce is good for the economy” is also something that gets right up my ginger.
I mean. Participation in the workforce is, generally speaking, good for no human. We’d all like a few more days off.