I'd add that emotion cannot be uncoupled from some policy decisions. A wonderful example is gay marriage. There is no "data" one can fit to decide whether it is right or wrong to permit/recognize as valid. If all US states decided to legalize gay marriage or ban it, there is no way anyone could decide whether it was a "net benefit" to society, mostly because homosexuals are a minority of the population. The rights of any minority, granted they are small enough to be but a ringing ontop of your signal, it shouldn't matter if you are just thinking like a utilitarian.

So, from whence comes individual rights? The usual argument is, "imagine if that were you!"--that's empathy. More seriously, we guarantee individual rights for others because that means we have them for ourselves.

This leads to my second point: I think the reason empathy even is a thing is that we are inherently selfish, and for anything to be really done for the "greater good" individuals need to either have a stake in that greater good or they need to trick their selfish selves into thinking they are actually in that situation too, which, again is empathy.

Empathy works for the most part. It sounds like the author is trying to fix something that isn't broken. I'd say the current problems in Washington are in fact a lack of both listening to data _and_ a lack of empathy. I think more empathy would be beneficial, not detrimental.