You probably thought empathy was a virtue

Not to everyone

July 26, 2025 ~ Vol. 34

I promise that this will not be another diatribe about Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, but I will need to use it as a reference point for a discussion about the growing chasm between our political parties regarding the virtue of empathy. In some circles, both political and religious (particularly the Evangelical Right), empathy is now often viewed not as a virtue at all, but rather as a liability and an impediment to designing public policy, and as a character flaw in our political leaders.

Empathy is an extension of compassion or sympathy. It is the capacity to see yourself in someone else’s circumstances and imagining how they feel. In designing progressive public policy, it requires all of that— imagining yourselves in someone else’s shoes—and then responding accordingly, legislatively. This all glosses over a lot of steps in the process, of course, but the premise of the discussion has to be rooted in solving the problem and addressing the circumstances that caused the problem in the first place. Increasingly, right wing Republicans have come to view this approach as wrong-headed, asserting that empathy can cloud judgement and encourage dependency, and undermine conservative principals of self-reliance and meritocracy.

This conservative approach did not come into favor this year with the election of Donald Trump and JD Vance. Perhaps the most sustained critique of empathy in Republican policymaking revolves around the “welfare state”. Since the Reagan era, conservatives have argued that excessive compassion, or empathy, in social policy has produced perverse incentives and created a “moral hazard”, incentivizing someone to assume risk by promising to backstop any losses. Reagan famously spoke of "welfare queens" to highlight what he saw as abuse of government assistance programs. The implication was clear: policies driven by empathy for the poor were, in practice, counterproductive, encouraging idleness and fraud. Lacking from the conservative’s conversation was the plight of the children in the story. Whatever the circumstances, it is not their fault and ignoring them usually means that they remain caught in the cycle of poverty—and oh by the way—going to bed hungry.

This narrative has persisted into the modern GOP. Politicians like former House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Mitt Romney have argued for reducing government assistance not out of cruelty in their minds, but as a path to restoring dignity and self-reliance. In their rhetoric, empathy-based policymaking equates to giving handouts, which conservatives argue may solve immediate suffering but ultimately perpetuate long-term poverty by eroding the work ethic and weakening the family unit. Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill is an extension and arguably an expansion of this narrative, reducing or eliminating for some, nutritional support programs like SNAP, or restricting health care subsidies provided through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Romney’s infamous 2012 statement about the “47 percent” of Americans who are “dependent upon government” and see themselves as “victims” encapsulates this perspective. To Republicans who embrace this worldview, empathy—understood as leniency or generosity—undermines incentives for individuals to take personal responsibility for their lives.

One of the clearest examples of Republican skepticism toward empathy as a governing principle emerged during the 2009 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. President Barack Obama, who nominated Sotomayor, highlighted empathy as a desirable trait in a judge—an ability to understand the experiences of others, especially the marginalized. This immediately drew criticism from Republicans, who framed empathy as a threat to judicial impartiality. Senator Jeff Sessions, then the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, responded that “empathy is not a legal standard” and warned that it could lead to biased rulings based on emotion rather than the rule of law.

This incident illustrated a broader new Republican philosophy: that public officials, especially judges and policymakers, must resist emotional appeals and instead base decisions strictly on legal precedent, economics and the constitution. Viewed through this myopic prism, empathy leads to subjective policies that favor certain groups at the expense of legal clarity.

Immigration policy offers another domain where Republicans have portrayed empathy as dangerous or naive. President Trump’s first administration adopted an especially hardline approach to immigration, framing leniency or compassion toward undocumented immigrants as a form of weakness. The administration’s policies, including the family separation policy and the attempted end of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), were often defended as necessary to maintain the integrity of the rule of law and national security. Trying to imagine the plight of a migrant who has left their ancestral home to provide a better life for their family is not part of the process, or even worthy of any consideration.

In the words of Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, “We came into the world for the sake of one another.”

In 2018, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions actually invoked the Bible to justify the administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy, suggesting that strict enforcement of immigration law—even at the cost of separating families—was “a moral imperative”. Liberals who appealed to empathy were dismissed as advocating for lawlessness. Trump himself frequently accused Democrats of prioritizing the interests of illegal immigrants over American citizens, thus framing empathy not only as misplaced but as disloyal. That messaging worked in the opinion of most political observers, as voters dealing with their own problems viewed Democrats as more focused on immigrant rights than on their own.

Perhaps the best recent examples of Republican apathy can be found in the outcomes and personnel and personal casualties of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) headed by tech billionaire, Elon Musk. Musk used a chainsaw to illustrate his approach to cutting (read gutting) the professional staff in government agencies engaged in what the administration considered to be “woke” programs like foreign aid or climate change or medical research, appearing onstage with an actual chainsaw to demonstrate his methods. Although not a Republican officeholder, Musk’s cultural and political commentary—particularly on X (formerly Twitter), which he owns—has become influential in conservative circles. Musk has repeatedly argued that policies grounded in empathy, especially around homelessness and immigration, are misguided. In 2022, he criticized California’s progressive approach to homelessness, stating that it was driven by “misplaced compassion” and only led to urban decay and increased crime.

Elon Musk: “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy.”

On immigration, Musk has similarly criticized what he views as excessive leniency. After visiting the U.S.-Mexico border in 2023, he stated that “a country without a border is not a country” and called for a “strict and fair” immigration system. He has dismissed empathy-centered policies—such as asylum leniency or sanctuary cities—as harmful to national cohesion and unsustainable in the long run. In his view, emotional appeals distract from the hard decisions necessary for functioning institutions.

Even in discussions about artificial intelligence and free speech, Musk has warned against what he calls the “woke mind virus”—a term he uses to describe progressive ideologies rooted in empathy and inclusivity. He suggests that these ideas, while well-intentioned, pose existential risks to technological progress and social cohesion.

The current Republican focus on curtailing or eliminating prior Democratic human rights initiatives, including women’s rights, gay rights, and DEI programs, further illustrates the widening chasm in the philosophies and values of the two parties and their followers. Look no further than the companies and organizations that spend advertising dollars on partisan media platforms. On MSNBC, home of liberal darlings Rachel Maddow, Nicole Wallace and Chris Hayes, advertisers appeal to the (assumed) empathetic sensibilities of the typical MSNBC viewer. Some advertisers are the liberal organizations that you would expect to see. NAACP and ACLU are ever-present program sponsors. Others are not and are there solely to appeal to the empathy of the liberal audience. Covenant House petitions viewers to support their “Safe Place to Sleep” program. The ASPCA petitions viewers for help for their disaster relief program. St Jude Medical Center asks you to become a “Partner in Hope”, followed immediately by an entreaty from Save the Children, accompanied by heart breaking photos of malnourished children in Africa. As an armchair statistician, I am always amazed, and perplexed, by the fact that you can support any or all of these organizations’ programs for exactly the same price: $19 per month, $.63 per day. Apparently, you can feed an elephant, save a seal, or higher a civil rights lawyer for the same amount of money. Over on FOX News, you will see none of this. The advertising there appeals to their viewers’ self-sufficiency and self-reliance. Expect to find offerings to help you invest your IRA in gold, in case their end-of-days-if-Mamdani-becomes-NYC-mayor comes to fruition.

From welfare to immigration, criminal justice to judicial appointments, and now even tech governance and urban policy, the Republican stance has often portrayed empathy as a potentially distorting influence on policymaking. In their view, good public policy must be impersonal, rational, and oriented toward long-term societal order—regardless of the personal impact on people’s lives in the short term.

As we wrestle with questions of justice, equality, and governance, the debate over empathy's place in public life remains central. For Republicans and influential allies like Elon Musk, the challenge—which they are ignoring—lies in balancing a commitment to personal responsibility with the imperative of having empathy for our fellow human beings at the same time. Formulating public policy should not be a zero sum calculation. Climbing the economic ladder does not necessitate stepping over and stepping on everyone else. A just resolution and an equitable public policy allows for everyone to benefit. Republicans have lost sight of that.

Comments and suggestions are always welcome, as are Shares. If you like what you have read and you would like to receive a Saturday morning email with the current week’s Adirondack Diary update, please consider subscribing. All posts are public and available for free.

Further reading on Empathy in public policy An essay by David French.

(Free Gift Article)

Behold the Strange Spectacle of Christians Against Empathy

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/opinion/trump-usaid-evangelicals.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Join me on BlueSky @northcountryjoe.bsky.social~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~