Should there be a commission to publicly investigate the use of torture by the Bush administration?
Pragmatic Democrats argue no, that it will divert our attention from all the other, positive things that have to be done.
I disagree. But not for the usual reasons, all of which are good reasons: Maintaining the rule of law. Punishing the criminal activities of the Bush administration. Beginning to reclaim our moral stature in the world. Refusing to accept the we-were-just-following-orders defense that must never again be tolerated. All good reasons. But there is one overriding reason behind all of the others.
It is crucial to understand why torture is so overpowering an issue. Not killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the shock-and-awe approach to Iraq. Not ignoring the horrors of Darfur. Not the thousands of gun deaths and maimings in America each year. Not all the deaths and illnesses that come from the denial of care by a private health care system that cares about profits over people. There are plenty of things to be outraged about. What is it about torture?
The clearest clue comes from Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher in his piece at Huffington Post, retelling the story of a female American G.I., Alyssa Peterson, who committed suicide after refusing to participate in the torture of Iraqi prisoners.
"The official probe of her death would later note that earlier she had been "reprimanded" for showing "empathy" for the prisoners. One of the most moving parts of the report, in fact, is this: "She said that she did not know how to be two people; she … could not be one person in the cage and another outside the wire.""
Repeat: "She did not know how to be two people…" Reprimanded for showing “empathy.”
We now know from the study of mirror neuron systems in the brain that empathy is physical, a capacity built into our very bodies. It is what allows us to feel what others feel and appears to be the basis for human connection and the capacity to care about others. Our native neural capacities for empathy can be strengthened by how we are raised, or it can decay when empathy is not experienced — or we can be trained to develop neural circuitry to bypass natural empathy.
President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. It is because we care about others, he has argued, that we have principles like freedom and fairness, not just for ourselves but for everyone. I have found, in studies of largely unconscious political conceptual systems, that empathy is the basis of progressive political thought, and the basis for the very idea of social, not just individual, responsibility. Conservative political thought is otherwise structured, based on authority, discipline, and responsibility for oneself but not others. The major moral, social, and political divide in America centers around empathy.
Alyssa Peterson “did not know how to be two people…" But many of us do. Our brains permit circuitry for what is called ‘mutual inhibition,” in which the activity of one of two circuits inhibits the other. That’s why it’s possible to have two opposing moral systems operating in your brain – one for Saturday night and one for Sunday morning. Many of us can be one person Saturday night and another Sunday morning. Or a progressive on the environment and a conservative on the freedom of gays to marry. Or a torturer in Iraq and a loving dad at home … maybe.
To understand the importance of torture as issue, it helps to know the basics of how mirror neuron systems work in the brain. The same neurons that fire when you move your muscles in performing an action also fire when you see someone else moving the same muscles. The emotional regions of the brain are linked to muscle movement: you smile in joy and writhe in extreme pain. Your mirror neuron system picks up their muscle movements, activating the same part of the brain in you, which is linked to your emotional system. Thus, when you see someone jumping for joy or writhing in pain, you can sense their joy or feel their pain. That is, if your empathy system is working normally—if it has not decayed in your upbringing and if you have not acquired other circuitry to inhibit or bypass it, or in other words, if, like Alyssa Peterson, you have not learned to be two different people.
Alyssa Peterson was a religious Mormon, apparently in the tradition of the true Christian, who sees Christ as preaching and living empathy. She was one person with one identity, not two. She was in Iraq to serve her country as an Arabic interpreter. She understood, as Barack Obama told Anderson Cooper on 360 (March 19, 2008), “…what I think is the core of patriotism, which is, you know, are we caring for each other? Are we upholding the values of our founders?” In short, patriotism begins with empathy, with people caring about each other. Alyssa Peterson could not turn off her empathy or the patriotism based on her empathy. She could not live with a patriotism that precluded her deepest sense of identity.
Torture violates empathy in the most direct way. The very neural system we use in creating inhuman, unbearable pain in someone you are looking at, hearing, and touching is the same neural system that equips us to feel the pain we are creating. It is the same neural system that creates human connections with others. And the same neural system that lies at the heart of political democracy. Turning it off is turning off humanity, and with it democracy.
That is why torture is THE issue that we cannot ignore.
All of Obama’s proposals are based on empathy as their moral and political foundation. That is why a commission to bring out the facts about torture is about the future, not just the past.
George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind, which will be out in paperback June 1. He is Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.



53 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Your analysis suggests one reason Bush and Cheney were the strongest advocates for torture, as for the necessity of overwhelming “payback” generally. Their careers suggest a stunning absence of empathy beyond the “thousand-yard stare” acquired by long-drilled special forces operatives.
My friend and colleague from Rockridge days, George Lakoff, has done pioneering work on the neuroscience behind empathy and the consequences for our politics. Our pieces here at FDL are intended as companion pieces. George is tied up at a conference at Penn State, and I told him I would stick around to reply to comments. He has promised to return to his computer as soon as possible.
As usual, my take is a little more the political polemic, his the more focused on the science.
two quotes, taken from downstairs;
god bless george washington
ga’damn george bush
so this is for sure the best thing I have ever read on the subject. and, of course, lakoff is famed for doing some other impressive and seminal work.
i am recommending this all around.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/04…..more-39464
Weighty, excellent Sunday morning back-to-back. Thank you Glenn.
Has America grown new neural pathways within our body politic, to bypass empathy for torture’s victims? Have we become a nation where the ends justify the means? Do Americans so fear for our own personal safety that we can endorse torture to ensure that safety when our political Daddys tell us it is “keeping us safe”?
Don’t glorify them by describing them in this way.
“Pragmatic” — ha!
“Constitution-shredding” or “amoral” or “lacking empathy” or a thousand other terms.
But don’t glorify them as “pragmatic.”
Thanks so much. And, once again, I’d like to say it’s the spirit of the FDL community that deserves the praise. From breaking news and analysis to thoughtful participants and comments, it’s a righteous wonder!
I wouldn’t call them pragmatic but I do think they are correct. The MSM would love nothing more than to spend at least the next 2 years writing about what the Dems are doing to the Rs instead of writing about health care, etc. I still think the investigations should go forth and let the chips fall on all the Bushies.
The only commission I’ll accept , with all attendant flaws, is a jury of 12.
“Complicit” also works — at some point, those who enable torture by preventing its investigation are themselves war criminals.
What does it say about the level of empathy of a nation that would vote against something like s-chip or those states that would not use federal help to increase/prolong unemployment assistance?
I think what George means is that there are some who will skip their own moral worldview in consideration of what they perceive is politically possible. As he has described in many books and essays, the trouble (moral and practical) is that progressive values too often go unexpressed and moral action to infrequently taken.
As he writes in the piece, our brains make it entirely possible to be different people on Saturday night and Sunday morning. It’s up to us to make clear that the activation of one’s “political reality” network is in stark disagreement with one’s moral view.
From the bottom of my 3′ X 4′ latest protest sign titled ” Nuremburg 2.0″
Quote from the head Psychiatrist to the NUREMBURG trials:
Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man.
Man now I want to go quail hunting w/ dick to bond. NOT
It’s a long story! :)
But, I don’t believe empathy is any less present in America. I think liberals for too long focused on what is now known as a faulty idea about what a human being is. We’re not rational actors after all. For decades progressives, wedded to a constrained idea of Enlightenment Reason, felt facts and logical arguments were sufficient. They are not. Reason and emotion are locked in a forever bear-hug. The error promoted and sustained a so-called practical, superficial and ineffective progressive presence in the political sphere. Of course, it also proved to be a handy excuse for skipping past actions demanded by a progressive morality.
Our task is to active empathy, that is as we say, the very foundation of democracy.
This is an excellent point.
At base, what renders torture a crime against humanity is precisely the deliberate infliction of great pain and suffering — and all that entails in terms of our own moral instincts — to coerce. The perception of that pain and suffering is not something that is mediated or altered by some rationalizing argument or legal guidance from the outside. Each of us, directly, is able and obligated to recognize the evil of such acts independently — as was true of Nazis who implemented the Holocaust. This is why no significant players in the enactment of torture — not upper level officials in the WH, not their lawyers, and not the CIA, down to those who poured the water over the detainees — should escape prosecution as participating in the torture. They knew all they needed to know when they understood the pain and suffering the acts produced.
I posted a diary the other day arguing mostly this point.
Good question. The number of people who aren’t adverse to torture is higher than I would have thought. From the Guardian,
Yes, the perception of the inflicted pain and suffering is unmediated, though, the pathological might not be able to feel it because of a diminished capacity for empathy. Those are the ones I say are unprepared for democracy. And, by the way, it makes them no less culpable.
Just to follow up a bit on my previous post.
I really do think that the sort of points raised in Lakoff’s post, and in my post, are destined to take front and center in the debate over who should be prosecuted, and, indeed, in whether anyone should be prosecuted.
Each party has a rationalizing excuse — someone or something they can point to outside themselves that would allow them to endorse the policy of torture. Both the CIA and upper level officials can point to the legal memos; the lawyers themselves can point to their instructions from the upper level officials and loopholes in the law.
It’s only by looking directly at the acts themselves that one can see that they were, unquestionably, inducing severe pain and suffering. And every party aware of those acts would have seen that that was so.
I believe the contest is long-standing in America. Certain dominant powers do see the gains to their power and wealth from a diminished national capacity or understanding of empathy. Slaveowners, for instance. But there has always been a counter-tradition, a counter-tradition that’s actually the authentically democratic tradition. It’s this we recognize in presidents we consider our greatest — Lincoln and FDR.
Such a crucial point. I hope many pay attention to your insight here.
This was the largest mass execution in american history. Those not hung were sent to prison for life. These sentences were based on trials that lasted at most five minutes and in which there was no defense.
Which shows the vulnerability of human empathy. Jefferson was a slave-owner, too. As Hillary Clinton said the other day, we can recognize what is good and great in leaders while condemning what is not. To say that the tradition of empathy emerged in Lincoln is not to deny or hide atrocities such as the one you mention.
How much of the support for torture in this country is based on seeing the torturers as “just like me”?
Why don’t people who are in favor of torture ever seem to consider that our military people might also be tortured in return?
A major problem we face in being able to look directly at this hideousness is the complicity of elite opinion-makers and -shapers. If, as seems to be the developing case, torture was used with the explicit goal of eliciting false confessions of links between al-Q and Saddam to build a case for war on Iraq, America must once again face the false case for war on Iraq in all its messy, criminal, vengeful glory. And many of the elite opiners who now say from their perches, “Move on, just keep walking, don’t criminalize policy differences” are the same ones who told us in 2002 and 2003, having been fed talking points by the cabal, that every once in a while America needs to slam a little Middle Eastern country up against the wall, knock down citizens’ doors in the middle of the night, bring a little shock and awe into innocent civilians’ lives.
A real investigation will unearth untold horrors, while making McLean dinner parties practically impossible.
Yes, and it’s a profound obstacle. Even those elite troubled by this horror know they didn’t say or do enough, and the psychological difficulties of facing that fact are tough. That is why we speak out loud, over and over again. You know, when Eastern European dissidents spoke up, there were many “elites” who sympathized with them but that also felt that the protection of their own status (and lives, I guess) forced upon them an immoral silence. But, in the end, many joined the dissidents.
It is as though there is to much savagery in the world and it has a numbing effect. Israel’s tactics against Lebanon and Gaza should in a moral and empathetic world be condemned and yet they have been allowed to get away with war crimes too.
I’ve been reading Bob Altemeyer’s book “The Authoritarians” he was quoted extensively in John Dean’s book Conservatives without Conscience. I hear these right wing authoritarians on talk radio and cable tv constantly.
In Altemeyer’s book (a free download) he explains that the RWAs can easily maintain the two different world views in their head (the Sat night, Sun morning views).
George said:
My view is that talk radio and Fox News is a big part of the process of decaying people’s upbringing and helping people acquiring other circuitry to inhibit or bypass empathy.
If you are an RWA and you listen to a “Double high” (a RWA leader) you get drummed into your head both linguistic reasons and the modeled behavior of a non-empathic person.
I have multiple examples from radio station KSFO in the Bay Area. I invite the good professor to turn into 560 am to listen to Brian Sussman, Lee Rodgers, Melanie Morgan and Officer Vic as they embrace torture and give their reasons for why we must torture.
Listening to Sussman talking about how he would cut off the finger and then the penis of an Iraqi is chilling. (audio link) 2005 (longer audio) Recently, Jan 2009, talked about how he would just shoot them in the knee. (audio link)
Rodgers wants to torture and kill common criminals by attacking electrodes to their testicles and then blowing their brains out (audio link). He and Melanie Morgan also work to minimize torture, and redefine it. They also deny it even happened.
If you listen to them for years will it help decay your sense of how horrible torture is? It is interesting to note that Rush Limbaugh is often quoted a minimizing torture. Hannity works on the “Patriotic” angle and the fear angle. “If we don’t torture we will be attacked.” and “We did torture and LA was saved!” even if the LA saved was proved false, you can’t disprove the future “we might be attacked” line.
George, what is happening in the mirror neurons of the listeners to this program? If they hear that torture is good are they acquiring circuitry to inhibit their normal empathy? I’m hearing people gleefully laugh about how they would waterboard as well as describe in great detail how they would torture and how it is risking Americans lives to NOT torture.
And when these hosts are not challenged, because of the format of the program, they go out with approval. They go out with the approval of the advertisers.
Last week as Rodgers and Morgan joked about torture and redefined waterboarding as “harsh interrogation” they cut to a live read commercial for Pro-flowers with Rodgers telling listeners to buy Mother’s day flowers from Pro-Flowers and to put “Rodgers” in the box to let the advertisers know that their listeners were compelled to buy product on the host’s recommendation. Besides the ironic juxtaposition, there is the proof of the host’s power in a call to action.
It is my view that much of the mega church has aided in the demise of morality. The single minded focus on abortion – we now have churches devoted to prosperity.
This is why George has been an outspoken champion for investment in a progressive communications and research infrastructure. You are exactly right. These right-wing radio voices and other parts of the conservative communication machine are corroding the capacity for empathy. Unchallenged, they can wire around empathy. I hope George is able to stop by later. He will no doubt want to elaborate on your spot-on observation.
It is exactly this normalization that makes me oppose the Hannity waterboarding stunt. I am very disappointed in Olbermann for picking that up and encouraging it. We must oppose torture in ALL forms: for our enemies, our adversaries, and its advocates. Under no circumstances, ever, is torture okay. Ever.
The only way that a water boarding of Hannity could be comparable is if we turn him over to the taliban to conduct it.
Excellent point. Where are the voice on the religious right on the torture issue? The religious left has always been against this and fought against in specifically in South America.
I would like to see about getting some of the religious right on the record talking about torture AND specifically condemning right wing politicians and talk radio and TV hosts for their support of torture. I would also like to get them on record defining torture. The focus on physically pain and permanent damage is interesting as if you can’t see it it doesn’t count. They live in a world of invisible being that you can’t see that make a huge impact on their lives, can they not see that psychological torture would have a huge impact on others?
The “Passion of the Christ” by Mel Gibson had a huge audience, what would they say if this was Christ being waterboarded in Gitmo? Some guy with a beard out of dessert in the middle east mistaken for Christ? I just can’t see any connection…
i’m sorry to say glenn, because this is otherwise a very find post, but this is just bullshit. if empathy had anything to do with obama’s response to torture (to say nothing of other issues), his concern would be for the victims and their families.
has he ever said anything about them and what we owe them?
I always struggled with the definition of evil and the one in this post is excellent. Evil is the absence of empathy. Excellent article and may the whole world read it.
And I think that Teddy is right, they don’t seem to get the difference between consent and non-consent. The difference between knowing that there are medical support people right there to stop the problem and knowing that tomorrow they will come again and do the same and might not stop.
This is a moral issue. Hannity is a Roman Catholic. He needs to have a Roman Catholic priest talk to him, and corret him on his views, other wise Hannity is his own moral authority. But what if the bishop from his Arch Diocese sends him a statement telling Hannity the current Catholic Church view of torture, in all it’s forms? The American Bishops should be able to pull that together.
Hannity needs to submit to a moral force that is greater than him. I know that the Catholic Church has a crap record in LOTS of area, but Hannity is still a member of the Church and their views on abortion are followed by him, maybe he will submit to their views on torture.
my apologies for mistaking the author of the post.
Glenn, thanks. The advertisers should know something about emotional connection and empathy. That is one reason that they have the radio hosts read the commercials live.
I have too many relatives who call themselves Christians that pay more attention to Rush Limbaugh’s views than to the views of the authentic Jesus Christ as shown in the synoptic gospels.
When it is Rush or Hannity talking to you 7 hours a day on current events it’s hard to connect with a 1st century Jew whose parables have been through 5 translations. Too bad Jesus didn’t have graphics like Fox News.
I can see the whoosing of the graphic. “LOVE THY NEIGHBOR!”
With the Chryon below listening who is your neighbors. “Neighbors include, Muslims, Jews, Samaritans, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Republicans, Democrats, San Franciscans, New Yorkers, Texans, Mexicans, French…”
I can just see them denying him communion – yeah right with pigs flying in circles overhead.
George is describing Obama’s own assertions about his policy agenda, not recent statements on torture. If I could make the neo-liberal policy tug disappear from D.C., I would do it. It’s obviously tugging on Obama, as it tugged on both Clintons.
While I believe the moral imperative far outweighs consideration of possible political consequences — say, dimished chances for health care reform — I have no disagreement with pausing to weigh those consequences. Denial of health care is torture too, and so it seems moral to me to look at possible consequences. I know where I come out. I hope the administration agrees.
No worries, selise. George and I ran back to back posts, and I’ve been answering comments for him since he’s tied up in a conference.
That is something that I DON’T want to see. But did you see my phrase up there? “submit”. The more I think about it the better I like it. Hannity is a classic double high. He is a leader of other Right Wing Authoritarians, but HE also needs an Authority to follow.
The Catholic Church actually have a very good record on discussing torture and their disgust for it. And standing up against Hannity FOR Muslims who are being tortured would be good for their image. If they can’t condemn Hannity (because they don’t want to get into a fight with a mad man with 12 million listeners) they can see it as an educational opportunity. He attacks priests who have connections to Obama, the key here is to find someone Hannity respects who profoundly disagrees with him and has said so on record. Hannity will have a hard time arguing with the authority figure priest.
And I don’t want to go with an ‘elite priest’, although I’d love a good Jesuit in there to mix it up with him. I know some Jesuit priests that could tie him in a knot. Hannity needs to hear from a blue collar Long Island Irish priest who is older than Hannity and maybe was his parish priest when Hannity was a kid.
This statement is so incredibly revealing. Empathy, among other emotions, is INDEED the basis of “progressive political thought.”
That’s what conservatives find so frustrating about “progressive” policy proposals: they are founded on laudable goals, inspired by laudable feelings…but dead wrong.
When confronted with the suggestions that the welfare state perpetuates poverty, that affirmative action destroys minority self respect, that greater fairness in the levying of taxes is better for revenues and the health of democracy, that equality of opportunity (and not results) is what a free country is supposed to protect, “progressives” do the intellectual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears. And why? Because it runs contrary to how they feel.
The road to hell is, after all, paved with good intentions.
well, that’s better, but barely. obama has frequently claimed to be acting on behalf of ordinary people and the victims of circumstance while he acts on behalf of the powerful. that, so far, is the pattern that is developing.
i’m getting increasingly frustrated with being told what obama has said when it’s clear from his actions that his words are nothing more than deceptive advertising.
btw, i agree re healthcare – that is one reason i’m so upset that progressive leaders have fallen in with the by all appearances bogus private/public plan and are silent on any kind of single payer plan.
thanks. i also wanted to say i appreciate your thoughtful responses to my frequently contentious comments.
Excellent posts, George & Glenn — thanks.
Nuremburg 2.0
Whether Alyssa Peterson died by the hand of a fellow soldier or by her own, I consider her to be a casualty of conscience and a citizen who gave her life in defense of the Constitution.
It’s going to take public demonstrations like those from the late 1960’s to reverse America’s institutionalized policy of torture and hold accountable those who authorized and committed these acts.
As for Nuremburg style justice, Germany was a defeated nation put on trial by the Allied Powers after the end of WW II for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Absent overwhelming internal citizen demand, there is no external power capable of imposing such justice on the United States.
Unfortunately current & past administration, congressional & media complicity make it impossible for investigations to achieve the necessary result.
And so, America will remain a prisoner of the lack of conscience.
I don’t find them contentious. They are passionate. I won’t always agree, or will agree and take a different tactic while pressing ahead, but we should all admire and even envy your passion.
Nah, they’re all much too busy condemning Notre Dame for inviting Obama to give the commencement address.
This article expresses what I feel (and have felt for years)! The majority of Americans are: “Or a progressive on the environment and a conservative on the freedom of gays to marry.”
It is selfishness and a “me first” mentality. That is why so many Americans are the vaunted “Independent.” Think scummy Independents are only politicians who are trying to get votes? Not hardly. Yet, the media slobbers over independents as the only ones who are “real.” They are cowards, IMO.
Just to make clear — the TRUE independents who believe what they really truly feel, and have thought out, are not who I am talking about. But that is a small percentage of those who say they are Independents.
I think progressive commentators need to stop assuming that Obama is working from a base of empathy for the people, and look at what he does more dispassionately. Everything he does is given an overlay of “but his motives are good” by many. I mean, this is what the right thinks should excuse the Bushistas: they were doing bad for good reasons. But the bottom line remains the bad that is done.
As for George’s piece, well, he’s a smart guy but even he is not going to convince people that they even ought to have empathy for people who would cheerfully murder them, their family and everyone they know. I don’t think that there is any prospect of making progress on the basis that we ought to have been nicer to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, however true that is (and I know that’s a gross simplification of George’s position, but issues tend to be presented in grossly simplified frames, don’t they?). I think that ultimately you will have more success stressing that it’s not something you should do, in a more abstract sense, than something that you shouldn’t have done to you.
psycotics have no empathy. I don’t believe all that agree torture is ok sometimes,easy to say ,i wonder if they could hold someone down. i do think if a person pushes past his revulsion they can stop any empathy they might have had but can they bury that forever? Some soldiers have killed themselves later when drugs or beer can ‘t keep back the ghosts. Seymore Hersh once told of a female soldier he knew who came home and started tatooing herself,her mom called hersh once and said her daughter has almost covered her boby “like she wants to get out of her own skin” oh god this is too hard for me to write about.gaby
Did it, perhaps, occur to anyone here that maybe the Bush administration had more empathy for the people KSM sought to kill…than KSM himself?
When it comes to “commissions” my confidence in justice and open facts and prosecution to the truth level faulters in relation to the 9/11 commission.
The 9/11 commisssion provided some insights of willful neglect, covering up, Bush and Cheney holding hands to answer questions, lack of disclosing information, and the putrid silencing of the public.
Independent prosecutors have their plus and minus.
Open hearings in Congress if they had the spine and ability over the whines of partisanship. On CSPAN. But Congress can’t even get Karl Rove, Andy Card or harriet Miers to appear in front of congress. Oh, both political parties can bring in celebrity baseball players and scold them about steroids. You think they could really get Cheney in a hearing in front of John Conyers?
I don’t think so.
For now, lets let what information pulically flow and see where all this goes while piecing together any illegal activity that should be handed over for prosecution.