Interesting, in the immediate wake of the Sotomayor announcement, to see the Republicans shifting their game a little on the question of empathy. As noted here and elsewhere, attacking empathy didn't seem like the world's best idea. In the past few days, at least some of the opposition gang has put a variation in play - all of a sudden, what they're opposed to isn't empathy, it's "empathetic activism." That is, it's not the pure quality of empathy that's the problem, it's the "activist" stance that they've been against for years. Empathy isn't the main show anymore - it's a modifier describing a kind of activism, which is the real demon.
Ed Gillespie seems to have been the first to come out against "empathetic activism," though it's quickly become a standard talking point. I wonder how well it'll do - not as a means of trashing the nomination (that's not going to happen), but as a new set of GOP fighting words. My take is that people still like empathy, and in a few days or weeks "empathetic" will fade into the background. Republicans will be opposing activism, same as ever.
The term "empathetic activism" seems to have a longer history in education circles, where, not surprisingly, it's seen as a good thing - a key component of developmental progress beyond "mere" multiculturalism. Here's a 2008 presentation that includes a citation from 2000, and it's cited in the abstract here as one of the "six characteristics of universal citizenship" - also in an educational context.
Seems like a clever GOP researcher - possibly armed with Google - has been busy. Nice try, using captured progressive ammunition. It'll be fun to see if it works. I vote no.
Comments