Honestly, the word "empathy" has become a total minefield in American politics. You've probably seen the clips or read the headlines: Charlie Kirk, the firebrand founder of Turning Point USA, once famously declared he "can't stand" the word. For some, this was proof of a "culture of cruelty." For his supporters, it was a refreshing takedown of what they see as a manipulative political tool.
But if you look at the actual context of his remarks—specifically from a 2022 episode of The Charlie Kirk Show—the picture is a bit more nuanced than a simple "empathy is bad" soundbite. Kirk didn't just wake up and decide to hate being nice. He had a very specific, almost clinical gripe with how the term is used to shut down debate.
The Viral Moment: Why Kirk Called Empathy "New Age"
Back in October 2022, Kirk dropped a line that still circulates every time his name hits the news cycle. He called empathy a "made-up, new age term" that does "a lot of damage."
It sounds harsh. In a world that constantly tells us to "walk a mile in someone else's shoes," Kirk was basically saying the shoes don't fit and the walk is a lie. His beef wasn't with kindness itself, but with the political application of empathy. He argued that empathy is "very effective when it comes to politics" because it’s used as an emotional cudgel.
Think about it. How many times have you heard a policy debate end with: "If you don't support X, you just don't have empathy"? To Kirk, that's not an argument; it's an ambush. He saw it as a way for politicians—he specifically pointed to the Bill Clinton "I feel your pain" era—to pretend they have a shared experience they simply don't have.
The Sympathy vs. Empathy Divide
Kirk made a distinction that most people completely gloss over. He actually said he prefers sympathy over empathy.
Now, why does that matter?
- Empathy is about feeling with someone. It’s trying to internalize their pain as your own.
- Sympathy is about feeling for someone. It’s acknowledging their suffering from a distance without claiming to "be" in it.
Kirk’s logic was basically: "I can't feel what you feel, and pretending I can is dishonest." He viewed the claim of empathy as a form of "stolen valor" for emotions. You're trying to hijack someone else's struggle to make yourself look virtuous.
Selective Empathy and the "Ordo Amoris"
There’s a deeper layer here that links up with broader conservative philosophy. Kirk often talked about how the Left has "selective empathy." He’d point out that the same people lecturing the country about empathy for one group seemed to have zero empathy for soldiers discharged over vaccine mandates, or families losing kids to fentanyl.
It ties into a concept called ordo amoris—the order of love.
His close friend JD Vance has talked about this too. The idea is that your empathy and responsibility should be concentric circles. You owe the most to your family, then your neighbors, then your fellow citizens. Kirk’s view was that modern "empathy" tries to flatten those circles, demanding you feel the same for a stranger across the globe as you do for your neighbor, which he felt led to a kind of moral paralysis or "performative" caring.
The Backlash and the Tragedy
We can't talk about Charlie Kirk views on empathy without mentioning the tragic events of September 2025. Following Kirk’s shooting death, the internet became a dark laboratory for his own theories.
Some critics used his "I can't stand empathy" quote to justify a lack of mourning. They argued that if he didn't value the concept, they didn't owe it to him. It was a "reap what you sow" moment for many. On the flip side, many observers pointed out the irony: the "party of empathy" was suddenly very comfortable with selective indifference.
Psychologists like Maxine Iannuccilli noted that this is exactly what happens when empathy becomes "tribal." We stop seeing the human and start seeing the "side." Kirk might have argued that this proved his point all along—that "empathy" is just a mask for political alignment.
Empathy as a "Satanic" Tool?
Kirk wasn't the only one on the Right pushing this. People like Allie Beth Stuckey have written about "toxic empathy." In this worldview, empathy becomes a "sin" when it leads you to affirm something you believe is morally wrong just because you "feel" for the person.
🔗 Read more: How Much Did Trump Win the Popular Vote: What Really Happened in 2024
Kirk leaned into this. He felt that if your "empathy" for someone makes you abandon your core principles or the truth, then that empathy is actually destructive.
What This Means for You
So, what do we actually do with this? Whether you love the guy or think he was a provocateur, the debate over Charlie Kirk views on empathy highlights a real problem in how we talk to each other.
- Watch out for the "Empathy Trap." Next time someone tells you that you lack empathy because you disagree on a tax hike or a border policy, ask yourself: are they arguing the facts, or just trying to win the "niceness" contest?
- Lean into Compassion. Kirk often pointed toward compassion or sympathy rather than empathy. Compassion doesn't require you to pretend you're someone else; it just requires you to help.
- Check your "Selective Empathy." We all do it. We feel more for people who look like us or vote like us. Recognizing that bias is the only way to get past it.
Kirk’s stance was fundamentally a rejection of emotional performance. He wanted a world where we stick to our convictions even when they aren't "nice," believing that honesty is ultimately more helpful than a feigned shared feeling.
To dig deeper into how these views shaped modern conservatism, you might want to look at the works of Thomas Aquinas on the "Order of Charity" or listen to the full 2022 Rumble episode where Kirk lays out the sympathy/empathy distinction in his own words.
Understanding the "why" behind the rhetoric is the first step toward having a conversation that actually goes somewhere.
📖 Related: The Black Hawk War: What Really Happened in the 1832 Conflict
Next Steps:
If you want to understand the philosophical roots of this movement further, research the concept of "Universalist vs. Particularist" morality. It explains exactly why some people believe empathy should be reserved for those closest to them, while others believe it should be a global default.