Isn't it better to have a "bleeding heart" than no heart at all?

It seems that whenever we liberals show concern towards the disenfranchised in some manner or other, we are often called "bleeding hearts". Since when did compassion become a bad thing? Isn't it better to have a "bleeding heart" than no heart at all?

Isn't it better to have a "bleeding heart" than no heart at all?
Not getting much love on this one, are you? Seems you've touched a nerve.





My guess is that a cold heart, or no heart, is politically expedient, since politics continually requires the majority to flog the minority into submission. Hard to do that with a bleeding heart.





Those who maintain the "big tent" approach to governing are seen as vacillating and ineffective, hence the need for heartless indifference to individual needs.





However, binary logic is not the only way to govern, and we do not need to check our hearts at the door in order to preserve equality under the law. Equal is relative.





An example is the progressive tax structure, which may seem heartless to some, but was created to impose a greater burden on those who can afford it, so the impact would be perceived as equal, even if the burden is not. In this way, the law is applied unequally out of compassion.





The pragmatic effects of wealth distribution are an attempt to level the playing field, because privilege is inherited more than it is earned, and it can be seen as heartless to fail to address this fact. A dollop of humility for the rich, and some dignity for the poor, combine to keep us all in the game.





In this way, a balance is kept between heart and heartlessness, which would not be possible had there been no heart to begin with.
Reply:Because, acting like anyone is still 'oppressed' in America is to throw out all the progress we've managed to make over the last 100 years. The 'bleeding hearts' out there seem to forget that we've OVER-compensated for the misdeeds of the past. Equality is just that, equal, not giving one person preferential treatment over the other.
Reply:You're talking to the original pile of wet wash here. Everything gets to me: abused children, hungry old people, abandoned animals, the nightly news showing soldiers kissing their wives and family good-bye, plane crashes, missing children. . .you name it, and I've probably cried over it.





I'm hypersensitive, and I know that. Sometimes I think it'd be better to be a little more thick-skinned, but I've been this way for so long that I can't imagine living any other way. So I guess I'd have to vote for "bleeding heart," rather than no heart at all.
Reply:yes
Reply:This question is flawed. Things aren't as black and white as you imply. It's not like people either have tons of compassion or none at all.
Reply:Speaking non-metaphorically, sure.





Metaphorically, though, both are bad. 'Bleeding hearts' are irrational, the 'heartless' have thier rationality untempered by humanity.
Reply:Better to have a bleeding heart. If everyone chose to have no heart just imagine how cold humanity would be.





Let me add that I could live in a world with no neo-cons but can't imagine one without the Kennedy's, Rockefellars, Clintons, Bono, Gates, and Oprah.
Reply:Compassion is not a bad thing.


The problem is that your "compassion" usually results in my wallet having less money.


Some of your "compassion" needs to turn into "tough love", and more advocating of personal responsibility.
Reply:There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a "bleeding heart", a desire to help other people or strive to correct some inequality (whether real or merely perceived).





However, some of the people for whom your heart bleeds might turn on you and stab you in the back if they don't think you are doing enough to help them. Sadly, that is another fact of human nature.





If you believe in it, though, keep working for it.
Reply:There is no room for a bleeding heart. I am more than willing to try to help someone that is willing to help their selves. This phrase "disenfranchised" is a bit over used. I am away from my family more than I would like to be. But, that is what brings the bacon home. Does that make me "disenfranchised"? If so, where are my entitlements? I put in close to 70 hrs. a week. Does that mean I should take what is mine and give it to some bum that is to damn lazy to get a job. That is the problem I have with you bleeding heart liberals. This idea that higher taxes will solve the problems these bums have created on their own. That is income redistribution, which translates into socialism. No thanks. GET A JOB.
Reply:Yes, quite right. I recommend you rent Bobby, right away!
Reply:NO! People create their own problems and therefore, by virtue, should solve their own problems.
Reply:Compassion is a wonderful thing but compassion without standards isn't. Everything in life needs to be balanced. There is nothing that can't be taken too far. We all need to listen to our hearts, but also use our brains.
Reply:It's better to have common sense then a bleeding heart. You're looking for some Utopia and it doesn't exist. Bleeding hearts have more concern for the criminals then the victims. Shame on you!
Reply:Or a heart that's so tiny it only holds the base emotions - like fear %26amp; hate.





*I'm enjoying all the spin and diversions from the question: "a heart is good *but*...... blah blah blah....
Reply:Its called political spin.When Republicans cannot defend their actions they try to trash their opponent.If you think about it,a lot of things Repulicans say make no sense.They have learned these tactics from their hero,Rush.
Reply:Bleeding hearts are a criminals best friend.
Reply:I've always maintained that being a Liberal is easy, because all you have to do is say that you care. You don't actually have to DO anything, it all comes down to what you say.





I have Liberal friends (no, really) and at any given moment they can rattle off a dozen or so "injustices" that they are "outraged" by. When I ask them to offer a solution, I typically get a canned: "I think the government should do more."





One friend in particular was railing on about V.A. hospitals, and how they are underfunded. I agreed with him, but pointed out that they had been a mess for decades (yes, through the Clinton administration as well.)


When I told him that I did volunteer work for the V.A. periodically, and that I had some contact information for him if he wanted to get involved . . . well, he looked at me funny.





The Liberal solution for everything seem to be to create a government program to manage "righting various wrongs" in society. Throwing tax dollars at problems allows certain people to walk away with a clear conscience and sleep at night, I suppose. Effectiveness really doesn't seem to be a factor, as long as they "feel good" about it.





I used to be poor. I was the one who changed that . . . I repeat . . . I was the one who changed that. I joined the military, got an education, and applied myself. If I can do it everybody can. If that makes me cold-hearted, then so be it.





Winston Churchill once that that if you aren't a Liberal by the time you're 30 you have no heart. And if you're not a Conservative over 30, you have no brains.
Reply:It's better to have no heart at all. You do more damage then good when you mistake leftism for liberalism. When you blindly bash the president %26amp; excuse Saddam, pity the criminal %26amp; bash the victim, push for new laws to protect us from ourselves are all examples of leftism - nothing liberal about it.
Reply:I don't know when compassion and empathy became a bad thing. It may have happened when caring for the environment was reduced to "tree hugging". It is sad.
Reply:I saw this movie where a guy ripped someone's heart out with his hands and then ate it. It was pretty gross.