In recent political discourse, the concept of empathy is no longer being presented as a virtue, but rather as a strategic liability. This shift is evident in the rhetoric of figures like Robert Jenrick, who recently used the term suicidal empathy to justify slashing welfare spending in Britain. The phrase originates from a controversial book by Gad Saad, an academic whose work enjoys the loud endorsement of Elon Musk. To these thinkers, the instinctive desire to help others is not a moral strength but a biological bug or a psychological vulnerability that progressives exploit to weaken Western civilization.
This movement represents something deeper than a typical cultural skirmish; it looks more like a deliberate moral counter revolution. Across the Atlantic, the philosophy of Trumpism increasingly suggests that power equals right and that compassion is merely for the weak. This sentiment isn’t confined to fringe pundits or provocative podcasters who frame empathy as a sin. Polling indicates that this worldview has permeated a significant portion of the electorate, with some white evangelical Protestants in the United States explicitly stating that empathy can be dangerous rather than foundational to a healthy society.
The practical application of this ideology is visible in leaders like JD Vance, who prioritizes loyalty to family and nation over universal humanitarian concerns. By narrowing the scope of who deserves compassion, these politicians create a hierarchy of worthiness that excludes the stranger and the outcast. When viewed through this lens, empathy becomes an obstacle to efficiency and national survival—a tool for manipulation rather than a bridge toward understanding.
Historically, however, this rejection of shared suffering marks a departure from the very foundations of Western ethics. Historian Tom Holland notes that early Christianity fundamentally transformed the Roman world by introducing systemic care for orphans, widows, and the sick precisely because divine love demanded concern for the derelict. While current political trends seek to erase this legacy in favor of cold pragmatism and exclusionary nationalism, they are essentially attempting to undo centuries of moral evolution in order to return to a world where might makes right.
