Senator Rob Portman’s switch to the pro-marriage equality team should be applauded as an act of political courage. However, as a recent piece by Jonathan Chait points out, Portman’s conversion didn’t come about because of life-changing revelation or newfound compassion for his fellow man. Portman changed his mind because he has a gay son whom he rightfully would not like to see regarded as a second-class citizen.

Chait’s observation got me thinking: if the knowledge that he has a gay son caused Portman to change his mind about issues affecting the LGBT community, what would happen if the junior Senator from Ohio had a son who belonged to other groups not usually invited to attend CPAC dinner parties?

If Senator Portman had a child who needed government programs like TANF or the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program to put food on the table, would he have stood by Mitt Romney and his 47 percent comment? Had Portman’s children been denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition or because they couldn’t afford private insurance would he have so fervently condemned the Affordable Care Act?

Maybe a son or daughter who worked for an NGO in a developing nation and who had firsthand knowledge of the lifesaving potential of family planning services and information, would have stopped the Senator from voting to reinstate the Global Gag Rule on U.S. foreign aid.

These examples, and the actual change of heart that Rob Portman had on marriage equality, make plain the empathy gap that exist in Washington. There are people in D.C. who seem unable (or unwilling) to consider the circumstances of the people that their policies affect. This is not a problem unique to the right side of the aisle.

When Democrats talk about the urgency of climate change legislation and cutting carbon emissions, they often forget that there are people in this country whose livelihoods depend on coal and other emission-heavy energies. When they describe their intention to cut defense spending (a position certainly not endorsed by all members of the party), they don’t always consider the positions of defense sector workers who rely on government contracts to feed their families.

This is not to say that global warming isn’t a pressing concern, or that spending our money wisely isn’t important, but to point out that a West Virginian coal miner might not like hearing a Democrat call coal "evil," any more than a member of the LGBT community likes hearing Republicans compare same-sex relationships to slavery. Understanding that could go a long way in bridging the gap between right and left.

Empathy is one of the most important traits a lawmaker can possess. After all, how can one person represent millions of constituents without being able to walk a mile in their shoes and understand the issues affecting them? The ability to understand the concerns of a single mother unable to make ends meet, a hunter who is worried about government seizure of his rifle, or a factory worker terrified of having a job outsourced doesn’t make someone unprincipled. It makes them a good lawmaker, and probably a good person, too.

Rob Portman’s acknowledgement that gays and lesbians are every bit as deserving of dignity as the rest of society probably won’t get many conservatives to jump on the equality bandwagon. Similarly, it might be a waste of time to convince Democrats of something they’ve already been convinced of. But Portman’s conversion does present the opportunity for members of both parties to consider a perspective that is not their own - an occasion I feel certain most will pass up.

 

Reach Columnist Christian Patterson here; follow him here.