“I have to add something. Reagan was smarter than the average bear - he just didn’t let on as such. He believed in precision whether is t was precision in the intelligence community or precision in thought and message. We need precision, not vagueness. Libs love vagueness. “Empathy” in government confuses things, is vague, and tends to play into the Left.”
You make good points throughout, and I think we’re essentially getting at the same things. I just think in Bachmann’s case (being the most representative of the Tea Party movement currently in the race, along with Herman Cain), there is a separate element. The left- especially recently- has demonized the Tea Party as a purely “slash-and-burn” movement designed merely to dramatically cut the size of Federal government, “making millions of Americans needlessly suffer in the process.”
Making massive cuts to bloated government, however, is predicated on the assumption that we will follow Reagan’s successful, and repeatable, model of creating 21 million jobs (and not the piddly amount “created” under Obama- which is actually a net loss of millions of jobs)- and this is where “precision” is needed. I’m ok with calling it “empathy” for understanding the concerns of everyday Americans, but I think your concerns with the term are certainly valid, especially if the term starts morphing into social policies.
You know what Reagan did? He’d talk about a real Average Joe, Mr. or Mrs. So and So in Such and Such Town, what their aspirations were, what their dreams were. He would show what they did and how they didn’t want government hand outs, just to be left alone to live their dreams. Then he would talk about all Americans everywhere with similar dreams of owning their own homes and working hard to provide for their futures - that America was about THEM and their freedom not government. In doing so, he demonstrated what we’re all about. More effective, clearer than vague Leninist “empathy” (”to the masses”) or “compassion.”