Democrats must strike a balance between strength and empathy
The Tesla CEO exposed his contempt for compassion in an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan. The headline in the CNN digital story says it all, 'Elon Musk wants to save Western civilization from empathy.' The hit 1960s song by Jackie DeShannon, 'What the world Needs Now (is Love, Sweet Love),' is not in the rotation on Musk's Spotify playlist but 'Sympathy for the Devil' by the Rolling Stones probably gets lots of action.
President Trump's enforcer told Rogan, 'The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit.' He went on to say, 'There they're exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response.'
Musk pointed to seniors who are recipients of Social Security in the same interview. He portrays the program as a fraudulent 'Ponzi Scheme' even though Social Security has saved millions of Americans from deprivation and despair in their twilight years.
He also took a shot at immigrants and accused them of exploiting the 'bug' in his uncaring authoritarian system. The very same people, like my great grandparents, who come to the U.S. seeking political freedom and economic opportunity for themselves and their children. The immigrants who made this a great nation built on their blood, sweat and tears.
Foolish me, I always thought that the flaws in civilization were the destructive wars that cause senseless deaths, mass famine and widespread homelessness. Little did I know. You can make a strong argument that the greed that leaves millions in abject poverty to satisfy the whims of bloodless billionaires was the real bug in our behavior. I would have never guessed that empathy is the big problem facing the modern world.
A student once asked the famous anthologist Margaret Mead what the first sign of civilization was. She replied that the first sign was a healed human femur. It was a sign that a wounded person must have received help from others. Helping someone else is where civilization starts.
Musk may not have much sympathy for seniors, immigrants or hungry kids but he does have a soft spot for cruel and callous dictators who were responsible for the murders of tens of millions of people. In his now deleted diatribe that he shared on X, he wrote 'Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn't murder. Their public sector employees did.' Musk's attitude explains his buddy Trump's loving embrace of the Russian murderous dictator, Vladimir Putin.
The Trump and Musk crusade against empathy is vividly apparent in wholesale draconian budget cuts.
There have been untold Trump unfeeling cuts in vital federal programs, but one outrageous example stands out. Last week the U.S. Department of Education eliminated funding for a program which gave schools the money to buy fresh food for students from local farmers and fishermen. It put much needed money into the hands of cash-strapped farmers and put healthy food into the stomachs of hungry kids. It was a win-win for everyone except for MAGA brutalists.
This is the worst of both worlds for struggling middle class and poor families. Working families are having an even harder time making ends meet from rising inflation, which Trump pledged to reduce on Day One of his second term. Meanwhile, their financial struggles will only get worse because of the president's call for blockbuster tariff increases and his destruction of the social safety net that protects families during tough times.
The Trump faithful love to quote scripture but they never mention Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of St. Matthew. 'Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they will be filled.'
No one will ever confuse Trump and his courtiers with the Care Bears. Democrats ooze with empathy but don't show enough spine. My party needs to strike a balance between strength and empathy because uncaring Republicans under Trump never will.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
As America Backslides On Clean Energy, States Will Fill The Leadership Void
The federal government has ceded its leadership on climate and clean energy, but America doesn't have to. And in statehouses across the country, it isn't. A slew of federal legislation and executive action, including President Trump's big tax bill, signed into law on the Fourth of July, is dismantling the policy and economic foundation that in recent years unleashed hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment into clean technology across the U.S. It's not just a loss for the climate – it's also a blow to U.S. competitiveness in a changing global economy. It means less new power at a time of growing electricity demand, fewer manufacturing jobs on U.S. soil, and weaker footing in key strategic industries that will command the 21st century. But as much as this backsliding in Washington is regrettable, it presents an opportunity in states across the country. Having seen federal clean energy policy drive unprecedented clean energy investment nationwide, state policymakers know full well what's at stake – for the climate, yes, but also for jobs, energy affordability, and innovation. If the administration won't deliver for the nation, governors and state lawmakers should seize the opportunity for their communities, businesses, and economies. Here's how. Grid modernization America's aging electric grid is in serious need of modernization to efficiently and affordably deliver power across the economy. It's especially urgent as energy demand spikes with the growth of artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and vehicle electrification. Even states that are building new clean energy at a record pace – such as Texas, New Mexico, and Kansas – will face challenges in powering their economies without new capacity in the transmission lines that carry power over long distances. States can meet this challenge by both improving existing transmission infrastructure and making it easier to build new transmission lines. Some already have, with action in red, blue, and purple states alike – from South Carolina to Ohio to Colorado to Oregon. Policymakers should encourage utilities and other transmission line owners to modernize existing infrastructure, while also responsibly reform their permitting processes to make it easier to build new transmission lines so we can adequately meet our growing electricity needs without sending utility rates skyrocketing. Affordable clean cars The federal government hasn't merely targeted federal policies designed to support electric vehicle adoption. It has also taken aim at state policies, with Congress acting to revoke federal approval for vehicle standards adopted by California and several others under the Clean Air Act – even though these standards had wide support from businesses because they provided a clear, predictable timeline to increase clean vehicle sales and adoption. Despite the federal overreach, states still have a significant opportunity to support electric vehicle growth in the U.S. In June, 11 governors announced the launch of the Affordable Clean Cars coalition, which will collaborate across state lines on policies and investments that make it easier to own and operate electric vehicles. With their work just beginning, more states ought to join the coalition to help businesses and consumers access the cost-saving vehicles they want while bolstering a technology that will be critical to U.S. competitiveness in the coming years. California reauthorization California lawmakers face an urgent and crucial task in the coming weeks. For more than a decade, the Golden State has operated one of the nation's most important climate policies – its cap-and-trade program. It's exactly the kind of market-based policy approach that economists have long cited as the most efficient and affordable way to reduce carbon pollution, by putting a price on the vast risks of climate change, encouraging the private sector to act accordingly to reduce pollution while using the funds to invest in solutions that better serve the economy. And in California, the fourth largest economy in the world, it has worked. But with the program due to expire in 2030, uncertainty about its long-term future is making it less effective and reducing revenue by billions of dollars that could be used to invest in communities, including by taking action to protect against climate-driven threats and rising energy bills. Lawmakers must reauthorize the cap-and-trade program through 2045 before the current legislative session ends in September. Providing a clear, predictable, and market-based policy foundation will position California to continue leading the nation in climate and clean energy policy at a time when that leadership is so strongly needed.
Newsweek
a minute ago
- Newsweek
Brett Kavanaugh Warns of 'Danger' in Some Supreme Court Opinions
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday defended the Supreme Court's practice of not fully explaining certain decisions that have allowed the Trump administration to advance its policies. Speaking at the Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference in Kansas City, Missouri, Kavanaugh said there can be "danger" in issuing written opinions too early in a case, particularly when the court is only weighing a party's likelihood of success rather than the merits of the case itself. Writing at that stage, he cautioned, risks creating a "lock-in effect" — a snap judgment that might not reflect the court's final position. "That's not the same as reviewing their actual success on the merits," Kavanaugh said, according to CNN's reporting. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
From Power Of The Purse To Power Of The President
During the first six months of the Trump presidency, an assertive executive branch has wrested some budgetary power from Congress. Whether this trend continues is an open question, but it is unfolding against a backdrop of now-standard disagreement and dysfunction over how to fund the government for the coming fiscal year. The White House has capitalized on procedural ambiguities and executive tools to assert greater control over spending decisions—raising legal and constitutional questions and the stakes of future budget showdowns. To be sure, the administration has achieved notable success in advancing its fiscal agenda, including: While the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, this authority does not constitute a legislative monopoly over fiscal matters. The executive branch plays a vital role in administering appropriated funds. As I have written previously, the Trump administration appears determined to expand that role—at times in ways that raise legal concerns. They have used tactics to delay, cancel, and otherwise not spend funds provided by law. The full impact of those actions may not be clear until the current fiscal year ends and agency chief financial officers issue financial statements. Still, the persistent risk of unilateral funding decisions—and the use of arguably unlawful 'pocket rescissions'—may prompt Congress to reassert its budgetary powers as the scope of such practices becomes more apparent. Sharing Budgetary Power Through Impoundment Controls Like other legislation, appropriations bills—whether standalone measures, omnibus packages, or continuing resolutions—are considered and passed by Congress and then sent to the president for approval or veto. Once enacted, the president assumes the constitutional duty to ensure that the law is faithfully executed. The process of obligating and disbursing funds is referred to as budget execution. Much of the framework governing budget execution is rooted in the power of the purse statutes: the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Antideficiency Act. I've written previously about the 1974 Act's impoundment controls, which outline a lawful process for the president to delay or withhold spending of appropriated funds. Despite President Trump's views that impoundment controls represent an unconstitutional constraint on executive authority, those statutory procedures were followed earlier this year when the White House proposed and the Republican-led Congress enacted a rescission package aimed at reducing funding for USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Whether the executive branch will formally submit additional rescissions or resort to pocket rescissions in the final weeks of FY 2025 remains to be seen. The Other Power Of The Purse Statute Budget execution is guided by the Antideficiency Act, prohibiting federal agencies and employees from incurring financial obligations without explicit legal authorization. Dating back to 1870, the law is designed to enforce constitutional separation of powers, ensuring that Congress—not the executive branch—controls how taxpayer dollars are spent. It has been amended and reinterpreted over time. For example, at the end of the Carter administration, then–Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a pair of legal memos from the Department of Justice (DOJ) offering a narrow definition of the types of government activities that could continue during a lapse in appropriations. Along with subsequent DOJ guidance issued in 1995 clarifying the scope of emergency exceptions, the memos have served as the foundational legal framework for shutdowns. Since 1981, agencies have generally been barred from obligating funds beyond what has been appropriated or from entering into contracts before appropriations are enacted. Agencies are also prohibited from accepting voluntary services or employing staff, except for activities involving emergencies related to the safety of human life or the protection of property. Unlike the impoundment control features of the 1974 act, the Antideficiency Act includes significant administrative and criminal penalties for willful violations, ensuring a high degree of compliance. Nevertheless, as discussed in a 2024 paper by Eloise Pasachoff, different administrations have taken inconsistent and sometimes legally questionable approaches to keep parts of the government open during funding lapses. And there is no reliable way for courts, Congress, or the public to assess the legality of these decisions due to the short duration of shutdowns and a lack of transparency. Could Government Shutdown Rules Be Revisited? Before the DOJ memos, agencies generally operated under the assumption that they could remain open during temporary funding gaps, based on the belief that Congress did not intend for a government shutdown to result from routine delays in appropriations. While nonessential activities—such as hiring or discretionary travel—were curtailed, core operations typically continued. Then–Comptroller General Elmer Staats supported that approach, arguing that the Antideficiency Act was meant to prevent overspending and unauthorized commitments, not to bring government functions to a halt. In his view, congressional intent did not support a complete cessation of agency activity during short-term funding lapses. The DOJ memos effectively created the modern concept of a government shutdown by requiring agencies to halt all non-excepted operations and furlough employees during a funding hiatus, under threat of legal penalties. Notwithstanding the plain language of the Antideficiency Act, another administration could conceivably revisit the memos to reinterpret the scope of executive branch authority to guide shutdown operations and keep favored programs and policy priorities operational while shuttering activities deemed less important. Congress has made some progress on FY 2026 appropriations, but the risk of a full or partial shutdown remains. Lawmakers engaged in high-stakes budget negotiations should recognize the potential consequences of ceding discretion over government operations to President Trump—particularly given his demonstrated willingness push the boundaries of emergency powers and other executive tools. A failure to complete on-time appropriations could once again see the balance of budgetary powers swing toward the executive branch. A future shutdown might not only be a fiscal standoff but a test case for reimagining the structure—and constitutional boundaries—of shutdown governance itself.
