Lead with heart

Honesty in words and transparency of character can take you far.

A few months ago I wrote a column with this theme arguing that as free-market conservatives, we must lead with love and respect. We should show empathy and understanding for the poor, needy and marginalized before we propose solutions.

Our solutions have the power to change the world for the better. But if we want people to listen, they need to know we care.

That seemed like a pretty straightforward position. Still, I got a response from a reader that said, “You shouldn’t embrace having a bleeding heart.” I emailed back: “Why not?”

“Because using their language concedes the argument,” the reader responded. “And we use ‘bleeding heart liberal’ to make fun of them.”

Words are signals. Conservatives use words that explain to others what their political leanings are, such as “capitalism,” “competition” and “free markets.” Democrats, similarly, have their own set of sacred words, such as “progressive,” “liberal” and “social justice.”

And for some reason, we never cross over. When a liberal talks about the benefits of capitalism or a conservative discusses social justice, it feels like an oxymoron.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

When the government affairs team at our partner organization, Illinois Policy, approached a Democrat lawmakers a few years back to work with us on a school-district consolidation bill to provide more money for classrooms without hiking taxes, her feedback was “don’t use the word ‘consolidation,’ that’s a Republican word.”

It was good advice.

We changed the word “consolidation” and replaced it with the word “efficiency,” and what happened? A few weeks later, every member of the Illinois House of Representatives voted “yes” on our bill.

We changed the words, and it worked.

And we aren’t the only ones who do this. Take the word, “liberal.”

“Liberal” comes from the Latin word “liber,” meaning “free.” It’s also the root of “liberty.” European schools explain to their students that “In America, ‘liberal’ means the opposite of what it means here.’”

They stole our word. Why?

It turns out that competing for the other side’s turf is one of the best ways to win in American politics.

Political scientist Danny Hayes has done extensive research sifting through years of data and has come to a transformational conclusion. He writes, “A political candidate can gain an electoral advantage by successfully ‘trespassing’ on their opponent’s trait territory.”

In other words, if a politician uses the language of his opponent, it doesn’t hurt that candidate –in fact, they gain a significant advantage.

According to Hayes, Americans believe that Republicans are “stronger leaders” and “more moral,” and they believe that Democrats have more “empathy” and “compassion.”

Hayes’ study shows that if a Democratic candidate can overcome his deficit and be viewed as a “strong leader,” voters will break 60 to 40 in favor of the Democrat. Conversely, if a Republican manages to show that he is as empathetic as his Democrat opponent, the Republican candidate will win with 65%.

That is not to say that we should fake it. We shouldn’t.

But being a conservative who has empathy is not a weakness, it is something we should be proud of.

Nobody ever became a conservative because they hate the poor, or dislike children. Just the opposite. We fight for school choice because we are working to give every child the best opportunity. I fell in love with the free market because I saw how it transformed the life of the poor.

That’s why we shouldn’t be afraid of showing our empathy. We cannot run away from having a ‘bleeding heart’. Rather the opposite, we need to embrace it.

Teddy Roosevelt summed it up best: “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”