In reviewing Hillary Clinton’s essays, particularly one titled “MAGA’s Fight with Empathy,” I found myself experiencing an unexpected emotion: a hint of empathy, perhaps even for her perspective.
Clinton, regarded as one of the most shrewd political strategists of recent history, nearly attained her ultimate goal—the presidency—only to be defeated by Donald Trump, who often depicted her as a comical figure during the 2016 election cycle.
The most concerning aspect of the debate surrounding Clinton’s take on empathy is arguably her limited grasp of Christian teachings.
It would be easy to view her article in The Atlantic as merely a cynical move, laden with political falsehoods, using Minneapolis as a backdrop to criticize the harshness of Trump’s Republican Party. Yet, this piece highlights something beyond mere political maneuvering; it underscores the moral foundation—or lack thereof—within the contemporary Democratic Party.
If Clinton merely aimed to make a statement, she could have easily broadcasted it on social media or penned a brief op-ed. The fact that she wrote 6,000 words suggests she had something substantial to say. In that regard, I might differ, as noted by Pastor Joe Rigney, who received a significant response for his commentary.
Clinton has long advocated for “empathy.” In her infamous “basket of deplorables” speech, she called for a need to empathize with the non-racist, non-sexist portion of Trump’s supporters. Following her loss, she lamented the lack of “fundamental empathy,” asserting its importance in both policy and politics—a theme she has maintained ever since.
However, she seems to misinterpret both the Republican Party and the concept of empathy itself.
Empathy on the Left: A Blind Spot
Numerous surveys indicate that liberals, unlike conservatives, struggle to extend empathy across political divides. Liberals more frequently classify their opponents as evil rather than simply misinformed. Additionally, they express a heightened desire to sever ties—be it friendships or business dealings—based on political disagreements.
Interestingly, conservatives often find it easier to empathize with liberals than the other way around.
Clinton also appears to misunderstand Trump. Many who meet him personally commend his warmth; he is known to reach out to individuals in distress and provide comfort to victims and their families. His harsh public rhetoric is often strategically calculated for political purposes, playing into his opponents’ psyches.
She assumes that those supporting deportation take pleasure in causing suffering, though that’s rarely the case. Many hold empathy for undocumented immigrants, balancing their compassion with rationality.
Personally, I advocate for deporting those here illegally and significantly limiting legal immigration. Yet, I manage to empathize with individuals who have resided here for years or those brought here as children—after all, they contribute to society in valuable ways.
Nonetheless, it’s critical to consider incentives. If expressing sympathy translates into a halt on deportations, then border security becomes compromised. True leadership entails making tough, sensible decisions that prioritize the nation’s welfare, even when they come at a personal cost to some individuals.
Clinton has praised a Minnesota group monitoring immigration enforcement as an example of “neighborly love.” However, she overlooks the troubling fact that many of these “neighbors” may be violent criminals or other offenders.
Christianity and Misunderstandings
One of Clinton’s fundamental errors concerns her interpretation of Christian values. She criticized “far-right” Christians endorsing Trump for neglecting dignity and compassion. Though those virtues are crucial, they are not the entirety of Christian teachings. Mainstream denominations that have emphasized only these aspects have flagged.
A political figure with Christian values must maintain a balance. There are times for compassion and moments that require decisiveness. This doesn’t contradict a properly understood empathy; it acknowledges the limits of Scripture. Sympathy that jeopardizes societal stability doesn’t align with biblical love.
Clinton’s essay doesn’t promote empathy; rather, it weaponizes it and transforms virtue into a lever against political adversaries.
She accused Trump, J.D. Vance, and other critics of the Rev. Marian Budde of lacking empathy. Budde turned a moment of respect into a critique without showing any understanding for Trump or his supporters, thus embodying selective empathy.
Clinton’s critique extended to Blaze TV host Allie Beth Stuckey and her work “toxic empathy,” labeling it an “oxymoron” that raises questions about moral clarity or bankruptcy—either way, it’s alarming.
Clinton consistently falls short in recognizing the reasoning behind opposing views. A deeper examination of Stuckey’s argument would emphasize how progressives may misuse Christian mercy rather than outright condemning empathy itself. Clinton’s retort smacks of condescension towards what she perceives Jesus advocated.
Even in her praise for radical forgiveness from Erika Kirk, her understanding appears superficial. Genuine Christianity necessitates forgiving personal grievances upon repentance, while judges must seek justice for the community. Clinton’s simplified version of Christian morality has undermined the teachings of churches espousing it.
Clinton expresses surprise that many Republicans and Christian nationalists believe “empathy is a dangerous emotion” that disrupts our ability to create a society reflecting God’s truth. Yet, this reaction is understandable; many perceive the left’s use of empathy as a tactic to inflict punitive policies on citizens while rewarding wrongdoing.
Empathy Without Judgment Can Be Harmful
Clinton posits that MAGA supporters view a world rife with vengeance and humiliation, an outlook suggesting they lack the capacity for generosity. This is paradoxical. My own sense of shared humanity with all Americans motivates me to advocate for various causes, including immigrant rights. However, a superficial understanding of empathy can clash with long-term social stability, even when Clinton and her supporters ridicule those who express this viewpoint.
Clinton expresses hope that conservatives will see the humanity in families of undocumented immigrants and conclude that mass deportation “goes too far.” I already see that humanity, but if policy is shaped solely by perceptions of humanity, it becomes challenging to justify strict border controls. That approach could lead to chaos.
If, hypothetically, MAGA supporters regarded illegal immigrants with warmth as they boarded deportation flights, would that cause Democrats to cease their resistance to enforcement? I have serious doubts.
Wise Christian leadership demonstrates mercy only after emerging victorious from conflict. As unchecked immigration erodes social cohesion, knowledgeable leaders must prioritize the long-term interests of their communities while rebuffing emotional manipulation that has characterized much of Clinton’s discourse.
The roots of Clinton’s understanding of “empathy” extend back over 50 years and are reflected in her earlier statements. This conceptual framework cannot endure real-world constraints, thus reframing limits as cruel and labeling dissenting views as hatred.
Ultimately, Clinton’s essay in The Atlantic does not champion empathy; instead, it weaponizes it for political ends.
