“Civilisational Suicide?”: The Misunderstood, The Misrepresented and The Right-Wing Takeover of Empathy

Pictured: Elon Musk and Donald Trump

Lately, empathy has become a point of political contention. While empathy is recognised as a fundamental human skill—one that helps people connect, collaborate, and make thoughtful decisions— it is now being reframed by some right-wing figures in the US as a liability rather than a strength. Critics argue that too much empathy leads to poor decision-making, emotional overreach, or policies that prioritise feelings over logic. However, this perspective often misrepresents what empathy truly is and how it functions in both personal and societal contexts.

Elon Musk has cautioned against “civilizational suicidal empathy,” arguing that while empathy is important, it can be exploited and lead to decisions that harm society in the long run. In doing so, Musk echoes a broader argument made by some political commentators: That empathy, when applied too liberally, can weaken institutions, soften national priorities, or lead to policies that prioritise emotion over practicality.

However, critics such as Musk aren't understanding the true definition of empathy. Empathy is not about replacing logic with emotion; rather, in a business scenario, it is about enhancing decision-making by incorporating a broader, more detailed perspective.

For instance, in corporate leadership, studies have consistently shown that empathetic managers foster stronger, more productive teams.  A 2021 study by the Centre for Creative Leadership found that employees who reported having empathetic leaders were more engaged, innovative, and less likely to experience burnout. Fostering empathy allows policymakers and business leaders to consider the experiences of employees, customers and beyond, leading to solutions that are not just effective in the short term but sustainable in the long run.

Source: Centre for Creative Leadership

A 2021 study by Catalyst also showed that employees with empathic managers and leaders are more innovative, engaged in their work and have a lower turnover risk. Additionally,  women from marginalized racial and ethnic groups with empathic senior leaders experience less burnout.

The misconception that empathy is inherently at odds with strength or rationality is false. True empathy does not mean giving in to every emotional appeal or ignoring practical concerns—it means understanding different viewpoints to make informed, balanced decisions. By mischaracterising empathy as weakness, critics risk shutting down valuable discussions and missing out on its potential to drive meaningful change.

What is Empathy, Really?

Empathy isn’t about simply feeling sorry for someone, putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, or making decisions based purely on emotion. True empathy is about being able to recognise, connect to emotions and take on the perspectives of others—understanding others’ experiences and using that insight to inform our actions.

We define empathy as the skill and ability to understand another person and allow them to reveal their authentic self whilst reserving judgement. Crucially, empathy involves understanding another person’s emotions, perspectives and experiences, and using that understanding to guide interactions and decisions. It’s not about blindly agreeing with others or disregarding logic. Rather, it is about broadening our awareness and making more thoughtful choices.

When it comes to immigration policy, empathy is often dismissed as naïve or overly emotional — but this oversimplification misses the mark. Choosing a compassionate stance doesn’t mean ignoring data or practical concerns. In fact, many who advocate for humane immigration policies do so with a full understanding of the social, economic, and political factors involved. Research from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) shows that non-EU immigrants contributed approximately £4.6 billion more in taxes than they received in benefits and public services — a clear indication that compassion and economic logic aren’t mutually exclusive. (Source)

Selective Empathy-ing?

Interestingly, empathy is not being rejected entirely by these figures—it is often applied selectively. Political leaders and commentators demonstrate a deep understanding of certain groups, whether it be small business owners, farmers, or victims of crime. However, when empathy is extended to marginalised communities, immigrants, or refugees, it is sometimes dismissed as excessive or misplaced.

Currently, U.S. President Donald Trump has been highly effective at using empathy, not in the sense of compassion as most people use the word, but in his ability to understand the perspectives, frustrations, and motivations of his supporters. He recognises and understands the concerns of different voter groups, adapts his messaging accordingly, and engages in ways that resonate with them. This demonstrates how empathy, as a skill, can be used for different purposes—sometimes to unite, and at other times to reinforce division.

So, Why Does This Conversation Matter?

When empathy is framed as a weakness, it limits meaningful discussion. If the default stance is that "we can’t afford to understand another," then opportunities for problem-solving are lost. Understanding different perspectives does not mean abandoning rational decision-making—it enhances it.

Empathy has historically played a crucial role in driving social progress, from civil rights movements to global humanitarian efforts. Instead of viewing it as a liability, we should recognise its potential to create more informed, balanced, and effective policies.

Ultimately, the question isn’t whether empathy is good or bad—it’s how we choose to apply it. A more constructive conversation about empathy would acknowledge its complexity, nuance and its power to shape society for the better.