Uneasiness and Empathy

There seems to be a growing uneasiness that America is changing, and not for the better. While some believe our new president can bring us out of our national funk, others believe that he has put us on a very destructive path. Others have just come to a realization that America will never be the same and are okay with it. Still, many fear what is to come.

Immigration as the Source of Change?

This spectrum of American feelings may explain why the immigration debate is so heated. Immigrants bring tangible, visible changes; so folks point to it as the source of evil, or good, but definitely change. But we are a nation of laws, and therefore immigration laws should be enforced, at the border and here at home. But we are also a compassionate nation, which makes the how and why of our enforcement tricky. So the question stands: Is immigration (illegal and otherwise) changing America? If not immigration, what about America is changing? And is it good change?

When Reagan’s daughter asked him upon his return from the '84 Olympics in L.A. what he enjoyed most, he said the Opening Ceremonies. He noticed that when the nations marched out behind their flags each nation looked her part. The French looked French, the Italians looked Italian, the Chinese looked Chinese and so forth; and then he said that when he saw the United States march out, we looked like the whole world. I heard that story years ago but it has stuck with me because we as a country do not define ourselves by our race but by an ideal. We rally around the flag because “[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..”

In 1776, America was one of the freest places for men to live on earth. Yet it was not enough, as the founders fought for freedom from oppression and the ability to manage their own destinies. They had a love of liberty and a willingness to defend it whatever the cost. The fundamental belief of equality of opportunity has led this country to be the greatest country since the beginning of the world. And since our country's birth, many have looked to the ideal of America and they see us for who we really are.

The Source of Our Uneasiness

So what lies at the core of change and the cause of our current uneasiness? We are changing because there are too many in our country that no longer value true liberty but are willing to relinquish freedom by allowing the government to dictate how we live our lives (the Return of King George?). We are NOT changing because we look different. Too many in this country see government as the only answer and seemingly wish the death of the creative exercise of self-initiative. Too many have lost hope and just don't realize that the systemic problems of the present were created by government, not solvable by government. Unfortunately, reason has given way to fear.

Besides the systemic macro problems inherent in our oversized government, there may be an even greater fundamental flaw on the micro level. A truly alarming statistic recently revealed that 40% of births in the United States in 2007 came out of wedlock. Is there any question that there is any true substitution that the ideal for a child is to be raised with a father and a mother? Exhaustive research supports this ideal. Society's other ills such as drug use, poverty, education, depression, self worth, etc. are all affected more by home life than any other thing. But who needs research to understand this? People know this because it is human to believe this, whatever your circumstance.

A Need for Empathy?

Empathy is a very popular buzz word in politics now. Clearly, on a personal and human level we want to be empathetic; we want to understand and help others overcome the hardships of life. And surely, as we try, we don't want to offend. Plus, we want our nation to reflect compassion for others. However, when our government tries to do the "empathy" thing, in practice they go too far. Rather than actually being helpful in achieving a productive result, the government enables behaviors that create a welfare state.

So our new President now has the opportunity to name his first Supreme Court nominee to make his mark on history. He has stated he wants a judge that demonstrates empathy. Enter Sonia Sotomayor. Her life story is impressive and her time on the federal bench is of note and not to be ignored. She grew up in the Bronx from poverty where she credits her mother as the one who enabled her to achieve what she has. Oh yeah, she is of Hispanic origin and she is a woman. But for all of her unique experiences does this provide her the necessary experience to be the "empathy" judge the president is looking for? More importantly, is this really the new standard by which we are measuring judges?

The Oath of a Justice

The oath will read, "I, Sonia Sotomayor, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

It does not say to administer empathy. Why? Because no one is capable of being perfectly empathetic AND that is not the role of a judge. If we could count on judges’ empathy we would have no need for laws. She is to do equal right to the poor and the rich based on the law and to impartially discharge her responsibilities. Without a doubt her troubling statement to a La Raza meeting would automatically disqualify a white person if he made the same comment. She said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

So being a Hispanic woman will make her a better judge than a white man? Peggy Noonan recently made an astute observation when she said that those who focus on their own suffering can never appreciate the suffering of others. Mr. Obama is using race and gender again for his own advantage by insinuating that her life story qualifies her to be a better candidate than a different life story. Please let this identity politics stop already.

I remember reading once that if suffering alone taught, all the world would be wise for we all suffer. We can only hope that Justice Sotomayor takes her oath seriously and that her rulings from the bench will be free from prejudice, free from overt bias, and free from social engineering and policy making. So please let us stand up for what is right. In this case, let's stand up for the rule of law.