Compassion and Ethics

Perhaps it’s the future politician in me, but this week’s assignment reminded me of the various rhetorical strategies employed by leaders, specifically in the government. Beyond just the political realm, politicians and officials must know how to read and connect with the masses. I think we can most clearly identify with this during our presidential elections.  Probably the greatest position one could assume, the American president has to understand that “gifted leadership occurs where heard and head-feeling and thought- met. “ (326).  This was probably most consciously displayed during President Barrack Obama’s campaign in 2008.  A pretty strategic decision in my opinion, Obama constructed a story of being ‘a man of the people’. He focused on the emotions of the Americans while simultaneously addressing his political platform. An intelligent leader builds resonance by “tuning into people’s feelings- their own and others’- and guiding them in the right direction” (227). To address his advocacy of public health care, Obama painted a story of American struggle and addressed the issue as a question of ethical human rights. As voters, we become sympathetic to the, as Obama quotes, “the millions of Americans denied the basic right of health care”.

Obama emotionally connects with his audience by channeling
feelings of camaraderie with the Texas Longhorns.

            In more instances than one, a successful leader will always emotionally target his audience.  In order to win the hearts and minds of the people, one must possess “social awareness—particularly empathy—[which] supports the next step in the leaders primal task: driving resonance” (30). Another emotive strategy political bodies will employ is the use of Compassion. Self-aware leaders will always build an emotional relationship with others in order to gain support. However, there are also circumstances when this empathy can be mistreated. To justify policies, often we embrace the compassion fatigue, the “apathy or indifference towards the suffering of others or to charitable causes” (347).  A good political example of this would be the conflicts surrounding the Middle East.  Prior to the events, leaders of America justified counterinsurgency and spending of taxpayer’s dollars by channeling compassion from citizens. Supposedly, the War was an opportunity for the United States to free a nation of tyranny and spread democracy to a falling nation. The media portrayed countries such as Iraq to be in a state of desperation and fear for their then leader, Saddam Hussein. In order to earn acceptance and support, the government evokes suffering to appeal to the public. We then begin to diminish responses to and grow numb to the “frequent charitable appeals” (347).  From then on, it was more justifiable for the government to continue its actions overseas.

Government policies are often felt justified by emotionally
persuading the public through compassion fatigue.

            Certainly, instances of compassion and empathy are found in more ways than one. If it’s one thing we’ve learned through empirical history, it is that a leader must always possess a sense of affinity towards others and his ultimate goal. This is a pretty strong lesson we can learn from our leaders. As we all try to “take initiative and reach our to less self-consciously to those in need” we must remember to embrace self-less acts of compassion (Dass 47).