By Leslie Pratch
On July 6, I read the obituary in the New York Times by Tim Weiner of Robert S. McNamara. Weiner cited the unsigned editorial written that appeared in the New York Times in 1995 in response to McNamara’s tendering his “prime time” explanation/apologia “three decades late” in his book, “In Retrospect.” An hour later The New York Times reran that heartbreaking editorial by Howell Raines, titled “Mr. McNamara’s War.” Later that day, PBS reran old footage by Robert MacNeil in which McNamara gave some guff about not wanting to “give aid and comfort to the enemy.” He attempted to stick Johnson with the burden of blame—but he was a great enabler. And he should have resigned when he realized (or so he claimed) the utter futility and mindlessness of that unnecessary war.
Iraq comes in a close second. Fortunately, we have not racked up the level of deaths that we managed to accrue in Vietnam – not that this is much consolation to the families who have lost husbands or wives or children or siblings. And lest we forget, the severity of injuries to so many troops is appalling. The irony is that we can save terribly shattered bodies but we cannot put lives back together again with similar expertise.
In Errol Morris’ 2003 documentary, The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, McNamara talked about empathizing with the enemy as a central lesson. I view empathy as fundamental to integrity, and my research comparing the personality characteristics of senior business executives who demonstrate high versus low integrity shows that integrity is a core interpersonal of motive of those executives who demonstrate consistently high integrity.
To manifest integrity in business means behaving with a clear set of values; those values balance self-interest and concern with interest in and concern for others. This balance is consistent with the values and goals of the community. Leaders who have integrity think about their actions writ broadly and how they will affect others. Empathy is requisite to appreciate the needs and values of these groups to whom a leader owes a duty. I believe these points are equally valid with respect to political leaders. I agree with McNamara that empathy is crucial. But I question whether he ever truly understood empathy. In his vanity, his overestimation of his superior skills, he did not listen to countervailing voices regarding U.S. policy in Vietnam and he never owned up to his.
A New York Times editorial stated:
And yes, the Senate should satisfy itself that Judge Sotomayor has empathy, which Republicans are trying to turn into a dirty word. Judges need to understand that the cases before them are not an abstract clash of legal principles but are real-world disputes that have important consequences for the lives of ordinary Americans.
Part of the issue is semantics. Empathy has many of the same letters as sympathy but some seem take them to be mostly the same thing. Sympathy means aligning your emotional stance with the wishes, beliefs, and desires with the person with whom you are sympathizing. Empathy means a clearer and fuller view of the person with whom you are empathizing. In this muddy discussion over the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor, sympathy is confused with empathy and implies a prejudice in favor of those with whom a judge is empathizing. Rather, I think it implies a clearer view of the issues at stake in rendering decisions that affect the lives of millions.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Leslie Pratch, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist from Northwestern University Medical School with an M.B.A. in Strategy and Finance and a B.A. in Religion from Williams College. She works with boards of directors and private equity investors to select and develop executives. She can be reached at (312) 464-7919 or email her at leslie@pratchco.com or visit www.pratchco.com.
Empathy is the ability to see it as they see it, feel it as they feel it, and contextualize it as they contextualize it. It is understanding, not necessarily agreement. It is a necessary component of evaluating or judging differing sides of an issue. Although it’s not sufficient by itself, for rendering judgment, it helps inform our opinions and helps us in our quest for justice which is the ultimate end of any legal system.
Sotomayor could have easily explained her ‘Latina’ comment in light of the research in moral psychology… that we tend to make moral decisions in light of what our emotions are ‘telling’ us and then we rationalize the decision. So why did past white male jurists deny equal rights? Bad legal reasoning? Or emotions that motivated the denial. I take Sotomayor’s point to be that an informed black civil rights leader would have made a better ‘legal’ decision. Why? Because a life experience that makes one sensitive to injustice is exactly the kind of emotional tutoring that can rectify previous errors in legal reasoning. There would be no ‘motivation’ to find a rational basis for denying equal rights. Not so for the white male. To blame bad legal reasoning is to put the cart before the horse. The relevant issue is what emotions are brought to bear in the decision-making process. So would a Latina woman tend to make better decisions than a white male? If the legal issue is equal rights that have been historically denied to them… then YES. The history of civil rights decision-making is best explained by a gradual change in emotional sensitivities dressed up in the language of legalese. Emotions can block or motivate the search for legal arguments and influence the acceptance of those arguments. When are we going to ‘listen’ to the researchers who study the mind, rather than our lofty Senators who frequently raise doubts about whether they have minds?
Since when did Empathy become a four letter word on the Hill. We want judges (and justices) because of, not despite, having the capacity to be empathetic. A lesson learned from recent High Court precedent.