Recognizing Emotion's Rightful Place in Political Discourse

www.familyreporter.com ^ | 5/13/04 | Editor, Family Reporter

[Vitamin A]

"Conservatism is based on reason, whereas liberalism is based on emotion." I've lost count of how many times I've heard that fallacy repeated by top conservative icons and their devoted followers. It is based on the false assumption that emotion is inherently untrustworthy and distracts us from finding the right answers, and therefore has no place in political discourse. Conservatives should recognize that emotion always has and always will play a very important role in conservative ideology and argument because having and acting upon emotions is an inescapable part of being human. And rather than erroneously presuming that we conservatives are something that we are not--that is, an ideology free from any emotional influence--we conservatives should recognize the proper role of emotion in political discourse, and help our fellow Americans develop appropriate emotional responses, or as C.S. Lewis called them, "just sentiments."

In his essay entitled "Men Without Chests," C.S. Lewis decried academia's efforts to eliminate emotion from education and public discourse. He reminded us that emotion is the vital link between thought and action--that we we seldom think strongly enough about something to do anything about it without feeling an accompanying emotion that actually compels us to act. For example, the soldier is more likely to take heroic action on the battlefield out of his love for his comrades than out of his intellectual commitment to certain ideals. Lewis also reminded us that some of the most ennobling human qualities are possessed in the heart as well as in the head. Emotions such as gratitude, courage, love of country, compassion for the innocent, and anger against wrongdoing are all essential to the survival of any people.

Apparently, many conservatives fail to recognize how often we rely upon emotion in our political discourse ourselves, but it happens all the time. During the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, conservatives observed the lack of any emotional response from many Americans in the face of Clinton's immoral conduct, and rightly lamented "Where's the outrage?" The pro-life movement is appropriately shocked at much of society's callous indifference for the unborn. And today, conservatives correctly call upon Americans' love of country and anger about the 9-11 attacks to urge support for the war on terrorism.

Every conservative should recognize that emotion itself is not the problem, and that apathy--a complete lack of emotion--is an even greater danger than an unbridled reliance on emotion. As C.S. Lewis observed, "[f]or every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity." Or in other words, "a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head." Not too long ago, we were all given a horrific demonstration of that fact when a student from one of America's top universities absolved himself from failing to stop his friend's kidnapping and rape of a four-year-old girl in a Nevada casino bathroom by reasoning, "I'm not going to make somebody else's problems my problems." We were rightly shocked by such a stunning lack of compassion from one of America's supposedly best and brightest. And in the same vein, we marvel at how so many Americans are so seemingly indifferent to the current struggles in which we are now engaged.

C.S. Lewis said that rather than trying to eliminate emotion and create a culture of apathy, we should work to develop correct emotional responses. "[A]ll emotions and sentiments are alogical," explained Lewis, "[b]ut they can be reasonable or unreasonable as they conform to Reason for fail to conform. The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it." Thus, the problem with the bleeding heart liberal is not that he allows emotion to influence his political stances. Rather, the bleeding heart liberal's problem is that his emotions are inappropriate and misdirected. Why, for example, does the bleeding heart liberal show more pity for death row inmates than for the victims' families? Why does the bleeding heart liberal's compassion for the Palestinians exceed his compassion for the Israeli children who are blown to pieces by Palestinian suicide bombers? Why does the bleeding heart liberal's outrage at the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners exceed his outrage at the beheading of Nicholas Berg? Why does the bleeding heart liberal seem to hate the President of the United States more than he loves his own country?

Furthermore, we must understand that our survival and advancement depends on our having strong, healthy emotions--and that removing emotion will remove our ability to succeed. In this sense, Lewis's words of half a century ago were prophetic:

"And all the time--such is the tragi-comedy of our situation--we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more "drive," or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or "creativity." In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ [i.e., the heart] and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

Rather than telling people they shouldn't rely on emotion, or pretending that we conservatives don't rely on emotion ourselves, we should recognize the proper role of emotion and help our fellow citizens develop correct emotional responses to the events of our day. What we Americans feel, who we feel it about--and whether we feel at all--will ultimately determine the fate of our great nation.

[dirtboy]

It is based on the false assumption that emotion is inherently untrustworthy and distracts us from finding the right answers

Nice strawman. One can base one's opinion on facts and still be quite emotional about it - but emotions not grounded to facts are basically worthless in reasoned discourse.

[Vitamin A]

I think if you read the entire article you'll see the author makes that point as well.

[satchmodog9]

I have had many discussions about abortion with friends. Although I think it is a vile practice, it is legal now. I debate the issue on both sides with my friends. Most of them use an emotional attatchment to not wanting to give up the right to kill their unborn child. "What if it happens to me or my daughter" is the cry most commonly heard. Take the emotional response out of the equation and you can get an easy answer from most people. There is really only black and white on issues. Anything else is a seperate issue. Take out the "right to chose" and it is a moral issue of murder. Take out the emotion of mostly leftists and some selfish conservatives and the abortion question becomes one of murder and not choice. Emotion clouds the issue here as well as all other hot button issues. Medicare is not a right. Look it up. School lunches, look it up. Need I go on.

[Vitamin A]

I think your comments back up the author's premise: you inescapably find emotion on both sides of many issues, so it's incorrect to say "conservatives are the ideology of reason and liberals are the ideology of emotion." Emotion is not inherently wrong or bad. We all have emotions, we can't escape that, we need to make sure they're properly directed, and we need to beware of apathy (i.e., the absence of emotion).