Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who went
to prison for serious corruption (he took in $2.4 million in bribes) was an
ultra-right wing Republican congressman. 
A few years behind bars have turned him into an advocate of prison reform. 

In addition he has begun teaching
other prisoners to get their GEDs.

[Too] many students have
severe learning disabilities from either drugs or genetic[s],” he wrote,
according to CityBeat. “During the past 4 years only one of my students
was unable to graduate–I taught him life skills, using a calculator to add,
subtract, [multiply and divide]. This way he could at least balance a check
book.

Cunningham’s capacity for showing empathy has grown immensely as his own fortunes
plummeted, and he encountered at a personal level suffering he had always
distanced himself from.

This
is a pretty good example of a pattern I’ve seen in among some
conservatives and right wingers.  

For example, after Ronald Reagan
got Alzheimers Nancy Reagan developed a passionate interest in T-cell research. Such research may ultimately help Alzheimers sufferers.

Frank D. Lanterman, a conservative
California Republican in the state legislature, designed the Lanterman Act,    one of the most effective measures ever developed to help developmentally
disadvantaged children.  If I
remember correctly (it’s been years since I read it and I no longer have the
book)   Lanterman became interested in this issue for family
reasons.  It carried personal
import for him. 

Perhaps my readers know of other
examples?

If this is a genuine pattern, as I suspect, the
deepest psychological distinction between conservatives and liberals may be
their capacity to empathize with others. 
Liberals have a relatively easy time of it, conservatives find it more
difficult.  This would explain why George Lakoff sees empathy as a classical Progressive value, whereas authority is far more valued among conservatives.  It also explains why Progressives appealing to Americans with both consrervative and empathetic sides (most of us) are wise to emphasize empathetic values, and not seek to prove they are ‘conservative realists’ as the current crop of Democratic politicians mostly does.  

This possibility may also shed light on
why “empathy” is such a threatening world in the right wing lexicon: they
simply aren’t very good at it. It may also explain why right wing ranks seem to
harbor a lot of those who appear to be genuine sociopaths: people incapable of
empathy.  There is little practical
difference between them and genuine conservatives until something happens to open conservative hearts to
others.  An apparent sociopath has no such experience.

I do not mean to argue that empathy alone leads to good policy.  It has to be well designed, as was the Lanterman Act.  What empathetic conservatives bring to the table is an ability to distance themselves enough to develop good policy.  Progressives can do this as well, of course, but can let sentiment overwhelm careful reasoning.    But without empathy, nothing worthwhile gets done.