Why Mitt Romney Lost: Empathy

Last night, Barack Obama won re-election because of one big reason: empathy. More specifically, he and the Democratic Party were more successful at expressing empathy than Mitt Romney and the Republicans.

In the election post-mortem, one number stuck out to me more than any other. If we put aside which candidate the voters thought would be a better steward of our economy, what people thought about the multitude of issues, there was plurality of voters (by a margin of 10 percent) who felt that Barack Obama understood what they were facing, or to be more exact, that he was “in touch” with their problems.

I am obsessed with empathy. I have written about it in the past and I am writing about it today because in the coming weeks and months, I intend to address this idea of the empathy gap. Empathy should not be confused with sympathy; to put it simply, empathy is about feeling and understanding the pain or joy of another. Moreover, empathy is not about pity…far from it.

Empathy is incredibly healing and incredibly powerful in life, and especially in politics. The ability or inability of a political candidate to make people feel like they are being understood, that they exist, that what they are facing–good or bad–is something that can be appreciated and understood, can either move a candidate forward, or cause voters to extinguish their passions for that candidate.

People can try to explain that Mitt Romney did many wonderful things for many people, that his advisors should be blamed for poor messaging, or that the Democrats “swiftboated” him, but in my mind, it is nearly impossible to manufacture or message empathy. While a political candidate can say all the right things, without a sense of empathy for the population, he/she will eventually display a lack of humanity and understanding.

Perfect example of this was Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” moment (notice I didn’t use the word “gaffe”).

But excuse-making doesn’t work for either of the political parties. Perception is everything in politics. If you have to spend time explaining why people are misunderstanding your message, you’re never going to gain their support. There are no “buts” in politics.

To prove that I’m not delving into partisan attacks here, I want to look at a Democratic defeat. The many factors that led to John Kerry’s loss in 2004 (key word: many), there is one that he shares with Mitt Romney: disconnection.

I honestly don’t think that their supposed disconnection from the rest of America has anything to do with wealth. In other words, the fact that both men are incredibly wealthy did not and does not lead to this disconnection. People who don’t have money can be just as lacking in the empathy department as people who do have money. We connect wealth as a way of explaining why they don’t understand or why they at least lack the ability to project that they understand. However, these two men wouldn’t be able to express empathy if they were working in a minimum wage job.

People make jokes about this, but when Bill Clinton said “I feel your pain” in the 1992 presidential election, it had a startling impact on how he was seen.

“I feel your pain” may be seen as cheesy, but anyone in a difficult position wants to know that what they are facing is understood by others, especially by the man or woman who is vying to lead their country.

So how does this all play out in real life? If you’re a part of one of these groups that is struggling, this is what you heard/hear from the Republican Party, and this is what many voters perceive of the Republican Party:

Undocumented Immigrants: You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to give your family a better life. Look over your shoulder. And if your parents brought you here as a young child, too bad. Not our problem.

Gays and Lesbians: Your love is impure and you don’t deserve validation or any legal protections. Your relationship doesn’t exist.

Women: You have just faced the most gut-wrenching, painful trauma in your life: sexual assault. And now, you realize that you have been impregnated. Now get over it. Too bad.

Anyone On Government Assistance: You are a lazy thief.

Again, the intention of the party or candidate doesn’t matter, it’s all about perception.

When we look at the issue of empathy on a practical, political level, it doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with someone. Having empathy for someone else just means that you have to understand and care about the “how” and “why” of a person or groups of people in their life journeys.

For example, on the issue of immigration, it would be much more effective for someone to say “I don’t blame a single person who is living in America undocumented. We are the greatest country in the world and any person, and especially any parent, would want to seek a better life here. But unfortunately, we simply can’t sustain this in the short or long term.”

If a politician or speaker opens a statement about a difficult issue like immigration through expressing empathy, he/she immediately diffuses a bomb; when people feel understood, they are more easily willing to engage in debate, discussion and forgiveness.

I woke up this morning hearing in my head, the lyrics of Nina Simone’s song, “Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood,”

I’m just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood

That’s what it’s all about folks: everyone just wants to be understood. Oprah Winfrey, on the finale episode of her talk show put it simply by pointing out the one thing all of her guests over the 25 years of her show (30,000 total) had in common was the need for their experiences to be understood: “They want to know: ‘Do you see me? Do you hear me? Does what I say mean anything to you?”

This morning, several news clips featured Mitt Romney’s his close supporters and friends sharing their frustrations that “the real Mitt” wasn’t exposed to voters and that his intentions were misunderstood. That may be the case, but his inability to empathize–to understand–led to this misunderstanding.
————

I hope you will follow me on Twitter and join me on Facebook.

Send to Kindle
Avatar of Yashar

7 Responses to “Why Mitt Romney Lost: Empathy”

  1. Avatar of YAYA99
    YAYA99 November 9, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    Mitt may do a lot of good deeds,regardless, it seems like he still has somewhat of an elitist snobbish attitude. I couldn’t vote him because of that.

  2. Avatar of Jude790
    Jude790 November 8, 2012 at 9:07 am #

    I dwell in the “Heartland” am am definitely a minority due to my thinking/values. You are spot-on about lack of empathy. It is the one immense, glaring and obvious absence in the Tea Party and all the people on the right that I am acquainted w/personally. It astonishes me that they all share an almost fanatical belief in their chosen religion, yet they fail miserably at “understanding” and cannot begin, nor do the desire to put themselves in other’s shoes, –given that they are the believers who are supposedly to be known by their “love.” All I can find in them is self-absorption and as for love, it’s a fanatical love of cruelly judging others but not turning that judgment on themselves…frightening. Thanks for this post.

  3. Avatar of Nox
    Nox November 7, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    While I will grant you that Romney presented himself as completely unsympathetic, I wouldn’t say that this is necessarily why he failed to be elected.

    I would assert that there are actual logical reasons why this guy was not a viable candidate that have nothing to do with soft factors.

    First, Romney has more legitimate skeletons in his closet than John Wayne Gacy. In his youth he was a hateful bully jock. In the 90′s the guy made millions destroying billions of dollars in other people’s equity in leveraged buyouts, then spent 10 years evading taxes with a loophole scam, and even put money in offshore banks to avoid tax and then badly admits in his campaign that he holds half the nation in bald contempt.

    This guy is the moral equivalent of someone who upon finding your wallet would take the money out of it and then throw it in the toilet, smirking as he did so. Apologists will rush to his defense and say that nothing he did was illegal – but is that the litmus for president? No, clearly not and that was what the election demonstrated. The litmus for president is decency and morality, which his entire platform lacked – quite aside from empathy.

    The real indictment here is that white people who live in voting areas that have never seen a black person voted against his opponent in a desperate failed bid to get that coon out of office. Not our best hour as white folk.

    A quote from 1984 comes back to haunt me, as O’brien asks Julia and Winston if they are willing to spread venereal disease and throw acid in a child’s face to harm the establishment.

    That is what the republican party asked white voters to do, and they enthusiastically replied “Yes!”. Like Julia and Winston they would gleefully become worse monsters in order to harm something they hated.

  4. Avatar of BABSeiders
    BABSeiders November 7, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    I like this post, and agree. I think our ability and willingness to step into another person’s shoes is a saving grace. Lack of ability or willingness, as in the case of Romney, is a detriment to our relationships. I actually think his lack of ability to empathize is symptomatic of a greater sociopathy. I worked with someone who had similar affect and behavior; I can’t imagine that kind of personality in the Presidency.
    Thanks for the thoughtful post.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks:

  1. The Evolving Electorate « Feminist Activism - November 29, 2012

    [...] It’s safe to say that a majority of women in the United States breathed a sigh of relief when Obama’s re-election was announced. Hopefully his Supreme Court Nominees will ensure that we don’t have to worry [...]

  2. Link Love (24/11/2012) « Becky's Kaleidoscope - November 23, 2012

    [...] “Empathy is incredibly healing and incredibly powerful in life, and especially in politics. The ability or inability of a political candidate to make people feel like they are being understood, that they exist, that what they are facing–good or bad–is something that can be appreciated and understood, can either move a candidate forward, or cause voters to extinguish their passions for that candidate.” Why Mitt Romney Lost: Empathy – The Current Conscience [...]

  3. Yashar…..empathy lost the election for Romney | Feminism is Empathological - November 10, 2012

    [...] Its been awhile since I was moved to note Yashar’s musings, but now he has gone and broached the topic of empathy. He celebrates empathy, empathy, according to him, is why Obama won and Romney lost. He writes “Why Mitt Romney Lost: Empathy”. [...]

Leave a Reply:

Gravatar Image

You must be logged in to post a comment.