Empathy and Politics: ‘Suicidal Empathy,’ the Extents of Moral Concern, the Oppressor/Victim Mentality, and Parochialism vs. Universalism

   

     According to Merriam-Webster, the meaning of empathy is:

“The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another.”

     Another similar definition of empathy is:

“The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.”

     Caring and concern for others and their feelings and thoughts seem important and like common sense to many of us humans.  

     Elon Musk famously or infamously said that empathy is the fundamental weakness of Western civilization. I don’t think that is correct at all. Certainly, empathy can be misplaced, and that happens frequently where people think they are doing the most good when the data show they are not. It is also difficult to know and to prioritize different actions that benefit others. Net harm and net benefit should be considered. However, immediate relief from suffering should be prioritized in most cases, in my view.

 

Empathy and Compassion Are Similar but Not the Same

     I have come across several people who say they are empaths, that they feel the emotions of others. Some of those do not like what they see as their “gift” and would prefer not to have it. To me, that suggests that empathy is not the same as compassion. Buddhists define compassion more or less as the wish to reduce the suffering of others, themselves, and all beings. The definition of empathy suggests that it is an experience, often one which the person does not choose. Compassion, on the other hand, is most often seen as a choice to act to help others, or in a lesser form, a sincere wish to help others. Empathy in itself is not good or bad, and in order to better understand the plight of others directly, it can be very valuable in fostering the choice to be compassionate. Ideally, it is like a useful precursor to compassion, but that is not always the case. Compassion does not require empathy but can be aided by it. We can be compassionate toward all beings, including the worst of beings, without sharing their feelings or seeing through their eyes.

 

The Left is Not Always More Empathetic

     While the political left is known for empathy more than the political right, those on the right tend to give a little more to charitable causes, which perhaps reflects slightly greater wealth, but also a significant amount of concern that can be construed as empathy. One case where empathy seemed to be missing among those on the far left is the October 7 massacre of civilians in Israel, where many of those on the far left said things like Israel brought this on themselves or that it was bound to happen due to Israeli policies. That was quite shocking to me and many others: that one of the most bloody and brazen attacks on civilians that included cold-blooded murder in many forms, rape, and long-term torture, including psychological torture, was met with such attitudes.

     Those further to the left often espouse an oppressor/victim mentality. This idea derives from Karl Marx and informs their views about conflicts around the world. It has become a leading narrative among them and has informed ideas like critical race theory, intersectionalism, and postcolonial theory, and is part of what has become known as post-Marxism. I do not believe that is the best way to evaluate such conflicts, whether wars or class conflicts. It may provide a lot of fodder for talking points, but it is basically a bunch of hooey.   

 

Suicidal Empathy

     An article in Vox by aid Jilani notes that:

“Suicidal empathy,” the phrase coined by Canadian marketing professor and conservative influencer Gad Saad, is suddenly on the lips of everyone right-of-center”

     Musk promoted Saad’s book, “Suicidal Empathy.” Musk suggested that liberals have empathy for the criminals but not for the victims of crimes, due to their habit of sticking up for those at the bottom. Conservatives who buy into the suicidal empathy narrative point to a 2019 study by a group of psychologists that concluded those on the right have greater concern for those closer to them, including close family and friends, while those on the right extended their concern more to those further from them, including foreigners, homeless people, and animals. Conservatives used the study to conclude that liberals value the lives of distant foreigners and strangers over those of their own family and community. However, a new paper in Political Psychology rejects that view, noting that a greater outward extent of concern does not diminish concern for those nearer. Thus, it is not a zero-sum situation where there is only so much empathy to go around. I think this is a more correct view. The quote below is a snippet from the abstract, which follows the quote.

“In unconstrained settings, greater concern for distant entities does not predict reduced concern for close others; ideological differences reflect how far moral concern extends outward, not compromised ingroup prioritization.”

     The abstract of the 2019 paper, below, presents the study as a comparison of parochialism and universalism. Parochialism refers to expressing more compassion for more structured and less encompassing entities, and universalism refers to more compassion for less structured and more encompassing entities. However, I don’t think being conservative has to mean restricting one’s circle of moral concern, nor do I think being liberal has to mean extending it. There is another Buddhist idea known as equanimity, or impartiality, where one extends compassion while not distinguishing between those near and far. Compassion is extended to all beings without exception. This is easy to say but perhaps much harder to do since we probably have instincts to protect those closer to us. However, those instincts may be motivated by selfish concerns.

     Jilani notes that Kyle Fiore Law, an assistant psychology professor at the University of Utah and one of the authors of the 2026 study, thinks that the 2019 study was not robust enough to give the full prioritizations of liberals and conservatives.

“The 2019 studies measured how far moral concern extends, and they did that well,” Law wrote to me in an email. “They were not designed to detect whether concern for distant others competes with concern for close others, because both tasks built an outward-expanding structure (e.g., from close humans to distant humans to non-human life to eventually the natural world and non-sentient targets) into the measure itself.”    

     The research suggests simply that liberals tend to expand their moral concern further outward than conservatives. This makes sense. Liberals don’t value strangers’ lives more than close friends’ lives, and it is a bit absurd to think that they do. They simply tend to have more concern about those strangers than conservatives tend to have.

“In our data, extending concern outward did not come with reduced concern for close others,” he said.

     Jilani writes:

“Tradeoffs are a fact of life. Whether we should be willing to modestly increase the national debt or taxes to increase foreign aid, for instance, is a question of values rather than something that can be empirically derived.”

     The recent shutdown of USAID is a shining example of a shrinking moral circle of concern by conservatives. Thus, I would say the problem is not liberals with wide circles of concern but conservatives with smaller ones.

     Jilani writes:

“As a species, we succeeded not just because of our capacity to defend our in-groups — our family, friends, community, nations — but because of our ability to understand the interests and values of those far away.”

 

Idiot Compassion

     Buddhists are usually quite familiar with the notion of idiot compassion, where one may harm another more by seeking to ease their suffering in ways that don’t work. It often occurs when one wants to ease their own selfish concerns, rather than truly help others.

     According to a Microsoft Copilot search:

“The term idiot compassion was coined by Tibetan Buddhist teacher Chögyam Trungpa and further explained by his student Pema Chödrön. It refers to being kind or accommodating in ways that ultimately cause more harm than good. This occurs when compassion is expressed without wisdom, boundaries, or courage, often to avoid conflict or discomfort. Essentially, it is compassion that serves the giver’s desire to feel good rather than the recipient’s actual needs.”

     I am not sure if this is the best example, but countries giving money and resources to Gaza, with much of it ending up going to the terrorist group Hamas, which has effectively ruled the region for decades. They used that money to build tunnels and to build up their military capabilities instead of making their society prosperous. It may not be a good example because some of that money did and does relieve suffering. However, some of it is siphoned off by a group that does not care about the suffering of its enemies nor of its citizens. For instance, the UN paid salaries for many employees who were essentially operatives of the terrorist organization.

References:

 

The right says “suicidal empathy” is destroying the West. Here’s the truth. Zaid Jilani. Vox. July 28, 2026. The right says “suicidal empathy” is destroying the West. Here’s the truth.

Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle. Adam Waytz, Ravi Iyer, Liane Young, Jonathan Haidt & Jesse Graham. Nature Communications. volume 10, Article number: 4389 (2019). Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle | Nature Communications

Ideological differences in moral concern reflect circle expansion, not inversion. Kyle Fiore Law, Seoyeon Bae, Liane Young, and Stylianos Syropoulos. Political Psychology. Volume 47. Issue 3. June 2026. Ideological differences in moral concern reflect circle expansion, not inversion - Law - 2026 - Political Psychology - Wiley Online Library

Idiot Compassion and Mindfulness. Derek Beres. Big Think. October 30, 2013. Idiot Compassion and Mindfulness - Big Think