Empathy vs Sympathy in Our Current Political Climate
What are the impacts of "feeling with" vs "feeling for" on authoritarianism and bridging our political divides in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination?
There’s a lot that can be discussed in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination - acknowledging Kirk didn’t deserve to be die while also acknowledging the increasing threat of political violence that the rhetoric of Kirk and others on the right have contributed their fare share to, Trump ramping up the vilification of the left with incendiary language, violating free speech privileges protected by the constitution, further threatening and manipulating corporations to exert influence over the media, increasing the pressure on AG Pam Bondi to go after Trump’s enemies, the melding of Republican/MAGA politics with white Christian nationalism, to name but a few. The Trump regime and the MAGA faithful (including those at the state level) are basically using this as a flashpoint to further consolidate authoritarian power and promote white Christian nationalism.
But what I want to focus on here instead is the right’s rejection of empathy and acceptance of sympathy (sometimes grudgingly). How we respond to tragedies like this, to political violence, and to those we disagree with, reveals much about our values (individually, as a community, as a political party, and as a nation). Examining the contrast between empathy and sympathy in this context can shed light on broader socio-political dynamics, including the Trump regime’s authoritarianism and leaning in to white Christian nationalism.
Charlie Kirk’s Take on Empathy vs Sympathy
Charlie Kirk himself had forceful opinions on this very subject. In an October 2022 episode of The Charlie Kirk Show, he bluntly declared: I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage… It is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That’s a separate topic for a different time. This idea – empathy as made-up and harmful, sympathy as preferable – has been circulated in the wake of his death. Why did he have such animosity for empathy? He likely viewed it as dangerous because of the power it has to validate another’s perspective, including those outside of one’s group.
Context from the same podcast shows Kirk, in an effort to degenerate empathy, claiming the left saves it for their own group while denying the pain of non-liberals. And later that same day, he tweeted that the same people who lecture you about ‘empathy’ have none for the soldiers discharged for the jab, the children mutilated by Big Medicine, or the lives devastated by fentanyl pouring over the border… Spare me your fake outrage, your fake science, and your fake moral superiority. In order to denigrate empathy, he portrayed empathy talk as insincere posturing by liberals who, in his view, lacked compassion for the issues and people he cared about, including those just mentioned. There’s a lot of anti-science, anti-public health, and anti-immigrant falsehoods underlying Kirk’s assertions here that he’s using to create a sort of hypocrisy straw man in order to undermine both empathy and the left at the same time (while also acknowledging liberal elites have at times shown disdain for some). And we certainly know he had motive to do this, because he wasn’t interested in empathizing with groups outside his moral universe, including the trans and broader LGBTQ+ community as well as other minority groups.
Kirk’s stance and tactics resonate with a broader trend among some right-wing and authoritarian-leaning figures who increasingly cast empathy as a weakness. (Elon Musk, for example, remarked that the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, suggesting too much empathy makes society vulnerable.) To understand why such figures fear empathy and prefer (even if grudgingly in some cases) sympathy instead, we must first clarify what these terms actually mean and illuminate some of the psychological, cultural, and political implications of the differences between the two.
Defining Empathy and Sympathy – Key Differences
Empathy and sympathy are related but distinct concepts. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another, whereas sympathy is feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune. In simpler terms, empathy involves stepping into someone else’s shoes – emotionally and cognitively grasping what they are going through. Sympathy, by contrast, means feeling bad for someone without necessarily understanding their perspective.
Psychologists note that empathy typically requires perspective-taking and emotional resonance. Dr. Brené Brown succinctly contrasts the two: Empathy fuels connection, while sympathy drives disconnection. Empathy is I’m feeling with you, whereas sympathy is I’m feeling for you. Empathy calls for staying out of judgment and recognizing another’s emotions as valid, effectively sharing the other person’s experience. Sympathy, on the other hand, doesn’t require seeing from the other’s viewpoint – it often amounts to a more superficial expression of concern or pity. As Brown quips in an illustrative example, sympathy might look down at a suffering person and say, Oh, it’s bad, uh-huh? without truly engaging, whereas empathy climbs down into the dark with them and says, I know what it’s like down here, and you’re not alone.
Empathy requires vulnerability while sympathy maintains distance. Empathy asks us to share in another’s hurt, potentially unsettling our own worldview. It can force a person to question their assumptions and feel what someone else feels – a leap that creates genuine connection. Sympathy is less risky: one can care about someone’s pain from the outside, without changing oneself. This keeps the comforter safely removed from the sufferer’s experience, which is emotionally easier but less transformative.
Why Authoritarians Prefer Sympathy to Empathy
To authoritarian mindsets, empathy’s openness is a threat. If followers start identifying with outsiders or questioning the prescribed narrative, the leader’s grip weakens. Sympathy is safe – one can express brief pity (even for an enemy’s misfortunes) without undermining the core belief that the in-group is morally superior. Empathy, by contrast, might breed understanding for opponents or marginalized groups, which is dangerous to a movement built on strict us-versus-them loyalty. Expanding on these differences, let’s discuss several reasons rooted in psychology and political strategy, why Charlie Kirk – and why many aligned with white Christian nationalism and other authoritarian-leaning ideologies – explicitly prefer sympathy over empathy.
Empathy threatens a rigid worldview: Empathy is inherently transformative. If Kirk tried to empathize with those he opposed (for example, undocumented immigrants or LGBTQ+ individuals he often disparaged), it might soften his stances or create cognitive dissonance. He would have to acknowledge the validity of experiences outside his own. This is precisely what authoritarian and ultra-conservative ideologies discourage. Such movements thrive on a clear division between us and them, painting the other side as immoral, dangerous, even sub-human. Trump exemplified this at Kirk’s memorial, stating I hate my opponent[s] and I don’t want the best for them, indicating the Department of Justice was investigating networks of radical-left maniacs who fund, organize, fuel and perpetrate political violence.
Empathy erodes these walls by humanizing the them. As psychologist Louis Hoffman observed, When people are discouraged from being empathetic… it is easier to persuade them to align with the ‘truth’ of the authoritarian leadership and view people they do not understand as the problem. In short, discouraging empathy serves authoritarian governance: it keeps followers from straying emotionally into enemy territory.
Sympathy preserves hierarchy and moral superiority: Kirk’s and many white Christian nationalists’ preference for sympathy aligns with a controlling paternalistic mindset. Sympathy allows them to feel righteous and benevolent without conceding equality. They can say, I feel sorry for you to someone suffering, yet implicitly add in their mind, because you’re wrong/lesser/sinful and if you don’t repent you are worth hating. This was illustrated starkly in an incident involving a Protestant deacon Ben Garrett reacting to calls for compassion (specifically Bishop Mariann Budde urging President Trump to have compassion). He warned:
Do not commit the sin of empathy.
This snake is God’s enemy and yours too. She [Bishop Mariann Budde] hates God and His people. You need to properly hate in response.
She is not merely deceived but is a deceiver. Your eye shall not pity.
To such extremists, empathy is literally framed as a sin – because it might lead one to pity or forgive those they view as enemies, undermining the moral hierarchy they believe in. Instead, they offer sympathy only to those within their in-group or those who repent to the in-group’s values. This one-way compassion is compatible with a worldview that divides the righteous from the damned. It’s no coincidence that Kirk said he preferred sympathy for politics – sympathy is top-down. It doesn’t ask you to question yourself or society, only to pat the suffering on the head (while holding your nose).
“Empathy is weakness” – a trope of “tough” ideologies: In macho, authoritarian cultures, empathy is often stigmatized as softness. Kirk calling empathy a new age term was a way to delegitimize it, suggesting it’s touchy-feely nonsense. Elon Musk’s comment about Western civilization’s empathy being a weakness echoes this view that caring too much makes a nation weak. Historically, fascist and ultra-nationalist movements extol strength and tough-mindedness while deriding compassion for the out-group. Social psychology findings back this up: people who score high in authoritarian or social-dominance traits tend to have lower empathy and higher aggressiveness.
In fact, a tough-minded personality defined by a lack of empathy is strongly associated with preferring hierarchical, authoritarian social structures, according to researchers. For such personalities, expressing sympathy in a limited way – perhaps seen as noblesse oblige or honor – is acceptable, even laudable, but actually empathizing is anathema (seen as emotionally yielding or blurring group boundaries). In Kirk’s case, he prided himself on being bold and remorseless against opponents. Empathy would be, in his eyes, a strategic and moral liability – fake outrage as he called it when his opponents display feeling.
Sympathy can be weaponized: Another cynical reason sympathy is preferred in these circles is that it can be selectively deployed as propaganda. One can show sympathy to victims of causes that serve your agenda (for example, Kirk often highlighted crimes by undocumented immigrants to evoke sympathy for American victims, thus bolstering his anti-immigrant stance). Meanwhile, by rejecting empathy, he gave permission to ignore the suffering of those outside his group (for instance, dismissing the plight of transgender youth or refugees). This selective sympathy creates an emotional narrative where only certain lives merit concern.
We saw this play out in the political reactions around Kirk’s own death: leading Democrats extended sympathy and condemned the violence unequivocally, because their values encourage empathy even for ideological opponents. In contrast, some on the far-right, including Kirk in life, often withheld sympathy when their adversaries suffered. (For example, after former Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman, Democrat, and her husband were assassinated, U.S. senator Mike Lee, allied with Kirk, mocked the tragedy instead of offering condolences.) The ideology Kirk espoused measures virtue in loyalty and toughness, not empathy. Thus, showing no empathy (or even basic sympathy) toward enemies is worn as a badge of honor – a sign of unwavering commitment to the cause. It’s a grim mirror image: their opponents’ empathy is mocked as fake, while their own lack of empathy is celebrated as keeping it real.
In the end, Kirk and like-minded adherents prefer sympathy because it keeps their ideological armor intact. Sympathy says I acknowledge your pain but on my terms. Empathy, however, asks, What are your terms? Can I suspend mine for a moment to truly understand? – a bridge too far for those guarding the walls of an absolutist worldview critical for authoritarians and white Christian nationalists.
The Case for Empathy
Charlie Kirk’s death is an undeniable tragedy – a young father and prominent figure gunned down. One can sympathize with the loss his family and friends feel - even empathize with that loss and associated grieving as my friend
recently did. And so we should ask: What do we lose when we lose empathy? Kirk’s legacy, among other things, challenges us to consider the value of empathy in public life.Despite the derision from some quarters, empathy remains an essential virtue for a healthy society. History and moral philosophy show that true justice and reconciliation are impossible without the ability to see one another as fully human. If I remember the New Testament correctly, Jesus taught the power of love, compassion, and understanding over hatred and hardness. We find those same threads in other religions, social justice movements, and civic leadership. Empathy isn’t about agreeing with someone’s views or excusing wrongdoing; it’s about recognizing their humanity. In contrast, those who preached only strength, domination, and hatred of others have been widely condemned by history.
In our authoritarianism-trending times, empathy is even more critical. Psychologist Louis Hoffman warns that devaluing empathy in favor of mental toughness is part of a toxic cultural shift – one that encourages selfishness and cruelty, undermining mental health and democracy. Empathy is not a weakness; it is desperately needed, he writes, noting that discouraging empathy makes it easier for leaders to incite followers against scapegoated groups. Far from being a sign of weakness, empathy requires courage, Hoffman emphasizes. It forces us to look beyond ourselves to consider the community and the human race as a whole. It’s a courageous leap to consider perspectives that make us uncomfortable (something we all should be doing) – and doing so is how we grow and how society heals.
Ultimately, sympathy alone is not enough. Feeling sorry from a distance may comfort us momentarily and ease our conscious, but it doesn’t bridge divides or challenge injustices. As Brené Brown noted, Rarely can a response make something better. What makes something better is connection. That connection often results from empathy. In the aftermath of political violence and in the face of ideological polarization, we might be tempted to harden our hearts – to limit our sympathies only to our own side. Kirk’s own followers, by and large, expect and even demand sympathy from their opponents right now, even if they haven’t always reciprocated. But a more hopeful path is to practice empathy universally, not selectively. And I admit this is only increasingly more difficult for myself - it’s hard to have empathy for those who want to erase your son. But I also know this is precisely what Trump and many of his acolytes and sycophants want. Division serves their purpose.
The call to action is simple: practice empathy in your own life. This doesn’t mean surrendering your principles or never feeling anger. It means, at minimum, acknowledging the humanity even of those you oppose. It means listening to understand, rather than just to respond. For example, one can empathize with the pain of Kirk’s grieving family (as any person should) while still criticizing the harmful and hateful ideas he promoted – these are not mutually exclusive. Likewise, one must empathize with those who feel hurt, demeaned, and threatened by Kirk’s words. Empathy enables us to hold people accountable without hatred, and to mourn loss without endorsing a person’s views.
In a world riven by cultural and political battles, embracing empathy over icy toughness is a radical act of defiance against authoritarian logic. It affirms that everyone’s life and experiences matter in some way. As we reflect on Charlie Kirk’s life and death, the contrast of empathy vs. sympathy takes center stage. In the short term, sympathy may allow some superficial interactions across divides, but empathy is what will ultimately knit our fragmented society back together. It challenges us to see things from the perspectives of others – be it an ideological opponent, a stranger from a different background, or anyone whose story is unlike our own. That is difficult work. Yet, as many traditions teach, love thy neighbor as thyself is the bedrock of a just community – and empathy is simply that love in action.
Empathy isn’t about capitulation; it’s about connection. It is to assert, in the face of forces that tell us to only care about our own, that we choose to care about all humankind. That choice – the choice of empathy – is what can turn mere sympathy into real solidarity, and enemies into fellow humans. It’s what can ensure that even as we condemn violence and hate, we do not ourselves become callous. The world that Kirk, Trump, and others envision, one divided by us and them, is a poorer, more brutal world. We can reject that by doing the hard, brave thing: listening to others and opening our hearts. And remembering that opening our hearts - caring about others as humans - includes holding them accountable.
Empathy, in the end, is an act of hope. It’s a refusal to accept that we must be locked in eternal conflict, insisting instead that understanding is possible. And it starts with each of us, in everyday moments, choosing to listen and care – truly care – about someone else’s point of view (as we also protect the most vulnerable and resist our slide into authoritarianism). That is the way out of this spiral into division and political violence. As we move forward, may we all find the empathy to feel with others, and not just the sympathy to feel for them, because this is also necessary for building something better. Given the threats before us, including climate change, our society and shared humanity depend on it.