For Thanksgiving, New York Times op-ed writer Nicholas Kristof decided that he wanted to lecture you about empathy. I want to address two things: (1) that this is coming from Nicholas Kristof and (2) the problems with the lecture itself.
Nicholas Kristof supports sweatshop labor, employing the crude humanitarianism that was used 100 years ago to defend the use of child labor.
Nicholas Kristof wants to cut money from Supplemental Security for low-income children with severe disabilities. Dean Baker rightfully took him to task for this.
Nicholas Kristof vilifies teachers unions but finds nothing to say when his beloved education deformers are overseeing record school closings that disproportionately harm poor children and their families.
And Nicholas Kristof really likes bombing other countries that did not attack us in clear violation of the UN charter, human consequences be damned.
That, however, amounts to an ad hominem and no good argument can rest at the ad hominem level. Let's look at the op-ed itself.
The op-ed, "Where is the Love?", reinforces negative stereotypes about the poor:
Let’s acknowledge one point made by these modern social Darwinists: It’s true that some people in poverty do suffer in part because of irresponsible behavior, from abuse of narcotics to criminality to laziness at school or jobs. But remember also that many of today’s poor are small children who have done nothing wrong.
Some 45 percent of food stamp recipients are children, for example. Do we really think that kids should go hungry if they have criminal parents? Should a little boy not get a curved spine treated properly because his dad is a deadbeat? Should a girl not be able to go to preschool because her mom is an alcoholic?
Shorter Nick Kristof: "Poor adults are a bunch of drugged-up deadbeats, but think of the children!"
What's missing entirely from his argument is the question of social institutions. He acknowledges that inequality can replicate itself from generation to generation in a vicious cycle. However, he does not get past the issue of "personal responsibility." He does not acknowledge how social institutions--discriminatory enforcement of drug laws, mass incarceration, workplace discrimination, disparities in school funding and attacks on public education, unequal access to health care, predatory banks, and corporations that pay poverty wages while giving excessive compensation to their CEOs--foster such inequality and injustice. These systemic inequalities do not factor into Kristof's discussion, and he does not find reason to change them.
Kristof's vision of "empathy" evokes the pity charity liberalism that is willing to help the poor out of a benevolent paternalism while remaining averse to an ethic of solidarity necessary to reconstruct social institutions on a just, inclusive, and equitable foundation.
When empathy is mere pity, it cannot extricate itself from condescension and is, therefore, a very weak emotion. When empathy contains respect, it is far more powerful.