Why Politics Feels So Cruel Right Now

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Why Politics Feels So Cruel Right Now"

Episode Details:

• Title: The Opinions
• Host: Michelle Cottle
• Guests: David French, David Brooks, Jamelle Bouie
• Release Date: June 2, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Opinions by The New York Times Opinion, host Michelle Cottle delves into the pervasive sense of cruelty in contemporary politics. Joining her are esteemed commentators David French, David Brooks, and Jamelle Bouie. The discussion centers on the perceived decline of empathy in political discourse and its ramifications across the American political landscape.

---

The Decline of Empathy in Politics

David French:
"We frequently talk about how politics follows culture, and I feel like we're seeing a prime example of this in what might be darkly characterized as the death of empathy." [01:02]

French introduces the idea that a cultural shift is leading to reduced empathy in politics. He suggests that when individuals feel anxious or disenfranchised, they resist messages that diminish their grievances and instead seek validation and justification for their frustrations. This shift, he posits, has intensified divisions, particularly affecting conservative men who feel marginalized by progressive movements emphasizing intersectionality.

Key Points:

• Shift from Empathy to Justification: People seek validation for their feelings rather than comparative suffering.
• Impact on Conservative Men: Progressive focus on a hierarchy of oppression has left conservative men feeling defensive and neglected.
• Perception of Empathy as Weakness: Growing sentiment that empathy is a vulnerability rather than a strength.

---

Historical Context of Anti-Empathy Sentiments

Jamelle Bouie:
"I recently read a really interesting book, America Last, which traces the contempt for empathy back to the 1920s and 30s." [02:34]

Bouie provides a historical perspective, arguing that disdain for empathy within American conservatism is not a new phenomenon. She references figures like William F. Buckley, Joseph McCarthy, and Charles Lindbergh to illustrate that anti-empathy sentiments have long been embedded in the conservative movement.

Key Points:

• Long-standing Conservatism: Anti-empathy has roots in early 20th-century conservative rhetoric.
• Resurgence in the Trump Era: The MAGA movement has brought these sentiments back to the forefront of national politics.

---

The Trump Phenomenon and the Attack on Empathy

David Brooks:
"In parts of the Trump right, there's an idea that anything that makes you feel sympathy or empathy for human beings in distress is toxic." [04:29]

Brooks discusses how the Trump era has intensified the attack on empathy, particularly within evangelical and hardline conservative circles. He observes a deliberate devaluation of empathetic responses, branding them as signs of weakness. This, he argues, stems from a feeling of neglect among certain demographics who believe their concerns are being overlooked.

Notable Quote:
"The predicament of a refugee fleeing Afghanistan... the response is toxic empathy that you just need to be more hard-nosed." [Excerpt from Brooks]

Key Points:

• Empathy as Sin: Empathy is sometimes portrayed as detrimental, especially towards those perceived as enemies or burdens.
• Cultural Exclusion: Individuals feeling left out of the national empathy narrative may respond by rejecting empathy altogether.

---

Zero-Sum Mentality in Politics

Jamelle Bouie:
"The MAGA Right is completely invested in a zero-sum notion of every single social interaction." [14:30]

Bouie critiques the pervasive zero-sum thinking within the MAGA movement, where any gain for one group is seen as a loss for another. This mentality obstructs positive-sum interactions and fosters an environment of competition rather than collaboration.

Key Points:

• Zero-Sum Thinking: Belief that resources and opportunities are limited, fostering resentment.
• Impact on Policies: Opposition to international students and foreign aid is framed as protecting American interests, despite evidence of mutual benefits.

Notable Quote:
"Everything is zero-sum. It just sort of anathema to Trump." [15:02]

---

The Erosion of Compassionate Conservatism

David Brooks:
"From the Bush era's faith-based initiatives to the current Republican stance, there's been a significant shift away from compassionate conservatism." [17:03]

Brooks highlights the transformation within the Republican Party, moving away from the compassionate initiatives of past administrations to a more transactional and exclusionary approach under Trump. This shift has alienated traditional allies and reshaped the party's relationship with religious communities.

Key Points:

• Shift in Republican Values: Transition from compassionate support to transactional political alliances.
• Impact on Christian Organizations: Reduction in government support for faith-based initiatives under conservative leadership.

---

Gender Gap and Empathy

David Brooks:
"If women are not taking men's jobs, we're talking about women participating in an expanding economy... The constant battle of each against all is the absolute enemy of empathy." [27:44]

Brooks discusses the emerging gender gap, where increasing support and opportunities for women are perceived by some as threats to men. This perception fuels scorn and reduces empathy across gender lines, exacerbating political and social divisions.

Key Points:

• Empathy for Young Men: Growing lack of empathy for boys facing educational and mental health challenges.
• Perceived Anti-Female Sentiment: Some left-leaning spaces exhibit scorn for men, complicating the empathy landscape.

---

Challenges for the Democratic Party

Jamelle Bouie:
"Declining social trust means it's tough to sell the idea that we're going to take some tax dollars from you to provide broad benefits." [25:16]

Bouie outlines the difficulties Democrats face in promoting empathetic and redistributive policies amidst a cultural shift towards individualism and skepticism of government efficacy. She emphasizes the need for effective service delivery and rebuilding social trust to regain support.

Key Points:

• Mistrust in Government: Skepticism about the government's ability to efficiently manage and allocate resources.
• Cultural Push Towards Individualism: Societal trends favoring self-reliance over community-oriented policies.

---

Prospects for Restoring Empathy in Politics

David Brooks:
"The people who are driving this attack on empathy are not suffering people, they're the influencers and the leaders." [31:23]

Brooks expresses pessimism about the immediate return of empathy in politics, attributing the current anti-empathy sentiment to influential figures rather than to widespread public suffering. He suggests that empathy might only be restored through a gradual cultural and political shift away from current leadership dynamics.

Jamelle Bouie:
"American culture contains antecedents and strains that are producing this sort of anti-empathy moment, but there are traditions of social solidarity that may reassert themselves." [32:07]

Bouie offers a more cyclical view, positing that despite current anti-empathy trends, America's inherent traditions of community and solidarity could eventually bring empathy back into the political mainstream.

Key Points:

• Influence of Leaders: Anti-empathy is perpetuated by influential figures rather than grassroots movements.
• Cultural Resilience: Deep-rooted traditions of empathy and social solidarity may resurface to counteract current trends.

---

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a reflection on the entrenched nature of anti-empathy sentiments in American politics and the significant challenges ahead in reversing this trend. The guests acknowledge the complexity of fostering empathy in a highly polarized environment but remain cautiously optimistic that cultural and political efforts can gradually restore empathetic discourse.

Final Notable Quote:
"It might just have to happen once Trump fades from the scene." [32:47] – Jamelle Bouie

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• David French:
  "We frequently talk about how politics follows culture, and I feel like we're seeing a prime example of this in what might be darkly characterized as the death of empathy." [01:02]

• David Brooks:
  "In parts of the Trump right, there's an idea that anything that makes you feel sympathy or empathy for human beings in distress is toxic." [04:29]

• Jamelle Bouie:
  "The MAGA Right is completely invested in a zero-sum notion of every single social interaction." [14:30]

• David Brooks:
  "The constant battle of each against all is the absolute enemy of empathy." [27:44]

• Jamelle Bouie:
  "American culture contains antecedents and strains that are producing this sort of anti-empathy moment, but there are traditions of social solidarity that may reassert themselves." [32:07]

---

Final Thoughts

"The Opinions" episode "Why Politics Feels So Cruel Right Now" offers a thorough exploration of the declining role of empathy in American politics. Through insightful dialogue, the hosts and guests dissect the historical and contemporary factors contributing to this shift, highlighting the challenges and potential pathways to rekindle empathetic discourse in a deeply divided society.

Transcript

[Oracle Representative]

In business, they say you can have better, cheaper or faster. But you only get to pick two. What if you could have all three? You can. With Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, OCI is the blazing fast hyperscaler for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs where you can run any workload for less. Compared with other clouds, OCI costs up to 50% less for compute, 70% less for storage, and 80% less for networking.

[Jamelle Bouie]

Trust.

[Oracle Representative]

Try OCI for [e-mail] NYT oracle.com NYT.

[Michelle Cottle]

This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.

[David French]

I'm Michelle Cottle, and I cover national politics for Times Opinion. And I'm sitting with my fabulous colleagues, the columnist David Frank and Jamelle Bouie. So hi guys.

[David Brooks]

Hey, guys.

[Jamelle Bouie]

Hello.

[David French]

So today I want us to talk about something of a vibe shift that seems to be happening right now in politics. So, like, we frequently talk about how politics follows culture, and I feel like we're seeing a prime example of this in what might be darkly characterized as the death of empathy. So hear me out. I think that when people are feeling sour or anxious, they do not want to be lectured that other people have it worse than they do. They want to be told that they are justified in being upset and aggrieved, that, as Bill Clinton used to talk about, their leaders feel their pain and it's even better if they are given a convenient group to blame for their troubles. So now, for years, progressives have engaged in a competition of which subgroup is the most oppressed in the kind of hierarchy of intersectionality who has the most right to be upset, which I think has put conservative men in particular on the defensive at a time when they're already freaked out about shifting social and economic hierarchy. So you got a lot of people who are tired of feeling guilty, and they are very open to the idea that empathy or compassion is, in fact, a weakness. So I want to know if you guys are seeing this, and if so, where and when have you noticed the shift?

[Jamelle Bouie]

I think I disagree somewhat with the premise that American progressives have been engaged in this sort of hierarchical, this game of like establishing a hierarchy of oppression. I think that is a unfriendly gloss on sort of like maybe progressive concern with marginalized people. But just speaking as someone who's, like, around progressives and has been for a long time, that's like, not really something I've ever perceived. But setting that aside, I do think that there is sort of a disdain for empathy. But I don't necessarily see that as sort of like a novel phenomena of American politics in this moment. And I recently read a really interesting book, America Last, by an author whose name I cannot recall at the moment. But it's sort of a history of the American right in a lot of ways, not the conservative movement, sort of the larger right over time. And you see antecedents to this kind of contempt for empathy going back to like the 1920s and 30s. So I don't think it's new. I do think that it's newly in the forefront of like national conservative politics because of the preeminent role of kind of the MAGA right in national conservative politics. But it's a thing, I think it's always been there and is newly resurgent, you might say.

[David French]

So like you're thinking Ronald Reagan, welfare queens.

[Jamelle Bouie]

I'm thinking, you know, buckley in the 50s, sort of expressing contempt for, you know, liberal professors. I'm thinking of McCarthy. You know, if you start to really go back, I'm thinking of Charles Lindbergh in the 1930s.

[David French]

Like, oh, now that's a deep cut.

[Jamelle Bouie]

Yeah, yeah, it's, it's, it's been there.

[David French]

David, what about you?

[David Brooks]

You know, I, I learned something really fascinating when I years ago, a million years ago. I was president of Fire foundation at the time as foundation for individual rights and in education. Now it's foundation for individual rights and expression. And we were very, very, very scrupulously nonpartisan. In other words, if you were a liberal or conservative, it didn't matter. We were going to defend your free speech rights. And so that meant I very deliberately went to conservative gatherings. I very deliberately went to more progressive gatherings. And one of the interesting themes that I saw in both sides was this. We think clearly, we are thinking analytically, we are thinking through the problems and they're emoting. And so you kind of always had this like back and forth about who's really thinking analytically here versus who's emoting. But that's an old thing. What's happening now is, I think, more specific to the Trump phenomenon. And I'm especially seeing in evangelical spaces they're taking on the very notion of empathy itself, calling empathy, for example, a sin or talking about toxic empathy. And you talk about like the predicament of a refugee fleeing Afghanistan or the predicament of kids cut off from help from usaid. And then the response to that is this, is that toxic empathy that you just need to be more hard nosed, as if the Appeal to the heart is all by itself illegitimate. And this is what I've begun to see in parts of the Trump right is this idea that anything that makes you feel sympathy or empathy for human beings in distress, especially if they're human beings in distress because of the actions of the administration, that's toxic, that's wrong, that's making us weak. But the reality is that if you actually spend much time at all in these spaces, they are desperate for empathy for themselves and for their allies. And so part of me is thinking what's really going on here isn't so much an attack on empathy itself, but sort of a feeling by a lot of people that they've been left out of the empathy calculus and so feeling neglected, feeling as if no one is caring for their concerns, they're bulldozing the concept itself.

[David French]

Well, this is what I was talking about starting out, which I completely take Jamel's point that it sounds like I'm picking on progressives, but I think there's been an awful lot of energy spent, especially by progressives in the last few years, about making sure nobody gets left behind. But at a time when there. There's so much change in the traditional structures, then the people who used to be completely on top, especially quite conservative men, feel like they're getting left behind, and everybody else is paying more attention to, say, you know, immigrants, women, you know, like, I think your whole thing about toxic empathy just reminds me of, like, taking toxic masculinity and flipping it on its head. So we have to worry about it from a completely, completely different angle.

[Jamelle Bouie]

I find myself of two minds, especially as the conversation relates to maybe conservative white men or just maybe men in general. Right. That it is absolutely true that sort of like, we're in this. This time, this era of changing social norms, gender norms, changing ideas of what it means to be a man, and there's not necessarily a script to follow. And it may feel, in fact, that if you are committed or, you know, attached to very traditional notions of what manhood is, it may feel that there might not be very much space for you in this society. But at the same time, if conservative men feel that not enough empathy is being extended to them, like, the question I have is sort of like, what specifically is the kind of disadvantage or crisis that is that you're facing on the basis of being a conservative white man that demands sort of like, special attention? You know, this is not to say that I don't think people have legitimate feelings, even maybe legitimate feelings of grievance, but I think it's also worth asking, just sort of like, what. What are we talking about here? Like, the reason, for example, why there was so much conversation or there has been so much conversation about, say, black maternal mortality rates is that they're really high. It's like, it's a. It's like an actual social problem.

[David French]

But that speaks to David's point that it's not rational. It's like. And so the thing that has always struck me is that traditionally Democrats have struck me as the party that's always trying to talk about the head, while Republicans have always been much better at going for the gut. So it's not that you can list six ways in which policy is not working for you. It's that you feel that something's being done unfairly or that you feel like you're falling behind. And in Trump's case, he can tell you exactly whose fault that is.

[Jamelle Bouie]

Yeah, part of my, the other part of my difficulty is that, like, I do think that there's a complex relationship between what a public thinks and the behavior and actions of political elites. And so there may be, right, like, a sense of feeling inchoate, sense of, you know, I'm not being appreciated in this society. But that may not rise to the level of something that's, like, politically activated unless, like, political elites begin to cultivate it and, like, try to make it a salient sort of political feeling. And so part of me also wonders, like, to what extent is this feeling itself a product of, like, a deliberate and concerted effort to convince people that they live in a society that is actively trying to diminish masculinity or actively trying to, you know, tell white people that they're bad. And if that's the case, if part of this is supply driven, right, like, there are political figures actively putting this into the world, media figures actively putting this into the world, then it's hard to think about what to do about it.

[David Brooks]

I would say I think of it two different tracks. Here's one that is very legitimate critique from the right, and here's one that's very illegitimate. The one that's legitimate is really, as I said earlier, the attack on selective empathy. So one way of that, I think it's a valid critique of the way we approach empathy sometimes would be to say, hey, when we're talking about the crisis on the border, if we're emphasizing the very real, very serious plight of the people, both the lack of economic opportunity, the physical dangers that they face, the persecution they might face, or physical violence, they might face back. We should feel empathy for people who are crossing the border. We should. But then there's also a community in the border, within the border, that is very heavily impacted by waves of migration, communities along the border that struggle to provide basic services, the strain on city services. And a lot of people felt that it was all running one way, that there were strains and difficulties, and that you get this on. It gets expressed very bluntly on social media, where people would be like, where's the empathy for Blake and Riley and her family? You know, this woman who was murdered by an illegal immigrant? And in that circumstance, the actual approach is to be more holistic in our approach to empathy, to say, look, we need to take into account everybody's experiences here, positive and negative. This illegitimate thing that is happening is rather than sort of saying, hey, what we need is to be more holistic in our empathetic response. It is to say, we need to be more restrictive in our empathetic response. In other words. And the USAID example is that perfect example. USAID's budget is such a tiny fraction of the government's total spending, with such massive positive effect on real people's lives that that empathy calculation. Who's suffering in America because of usaid? Well, nobody that I can discern. Nobody who's suffering as a result of USAID being cut off. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people are suffering. So raising that suffering in this calculus is not abuse of empathy. It's exactly how it should be used. It's exactly how we should awaken the conscience. And so, like so many issues we're dealing with right now, we've had a legit. I think there are some legitimate concerns that are being addressed with this brutal, blunt sledgehammer that's actually ending up making everything worse.

[David French]

Well, this speaks to Jamel's point about chicken and egg to some degree. You do see people out there, elected officials, saying, oh, well, we need to take care of people at home rather than send money overseas. And we've done millions of surveys, not millions, but tons of surveys over the years that show Americans think the foreign aid budget of the country is about 10 times what it actually is. And so you have this combination of misinformation and bad intent that then feeds this idea that if something bad is happening in your community, it must be because somebody else is getting your resources.

[Jamelle Bouie]

Yeah, I think, David, you point to something that might even be a little larger than or part of this attack on empathy, which is sort of the way that I think the MAGA Right. Is completely invested of sort of a zero sum notion of every single social interaction. Right. There, there's nothing can be positive sum. Right. There's, there's no. Anything given to another group of people is necessarily taking something from.

[David French]

Which is straight from Trump. Right. Everything for him is transactional.

[David Brooks]

There's always.

[David French]

Yeah, it's always a binary choice.

[Jamelle Bouie]

Everything is zero sum. And so you're seeing this right now with the attacks on international students. Right? We have to end visas for foreign students because they're taking spots from American students. It's a zero something. When in reality. Right. Like anyone who's even like remotely familiar with colleges, college finances knows that international students who pay full fright to American colleges and universities are basically a cross subsidy for Americans with like less opportunity. Right. You can charge a kid from China, you can charge a kid from Nigeria $50,000 a year and then use some of that to subsidize a kid. I'm thinking I'm going to use a Virginia example. Subsidize a kid from Emporia Virginia, down in the south part of the state and give them a full tuition scholarship. That's crude, but that's basically how the value proposition works. And so in fact, it's positive sum. Right. No one's actually losing out here and in fact everyone gains. But that notion of positive sum interactions such that you don' no one's losing here. It's just sort of anathema to Trump, to the maga, right. To their vision of how the state ought to operate.

[David Brooks]

I'm glad you said that. This view that if so and so is winning, I'm by necessity losing. Similarly, in the gender gap, there just seems to be this view that's emerging that if women are gaining, men must be losing. And that is not the case at all. That is not the case at all if women are not taking men's jobs. We're talking about women participating in an expanding economy, an expanding workforce. And so this constant battle of each against all is the absolute enemy of empathy. That is what drains you of your empathy is this idea that if somebody else is gaining, I must be losing.

[David French]

What I'm fascinated by, David, is your discussion of how Christian compassion is on the wane because traditionally you've had the Christians at the forefront of the abolitionist movement, civil rights, all kinds of pepfar. The AIDS program overseas was definitely deep into George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism movement. And, and if that is going to die, that seems like it's going to be a big shift for where we go from here.

[David Brooks]

There's been a very big change, Michelle, that I've noticed in the last 20, 25 years. So if you go back to the Bush administration, one of Bush's first executive orders was about this faith based initiative where you would have compassionate Christian agencies like, say, a World Relief or a World Vision or Samaritan's Purse or others, who were then able to receive funding from the government on an equal basis as secular relief agencies. And the impulse behind this was entirely compassionate. It was, these are agencies doing real good in the world for the most vulnerable people. They need more resources. They shouldn't be arbitrarily cut out from government grant making because they have a religious perspective and secular perspectives get government money. And so you Fast forward from 2004 to 2024, and all of a sudden you have a Republican administration cutting off a lot of this money to Christian relief agencies, with Christians actually applauding. That's a big change. It is a shift. And part of that shift is due to that coarsening of the Christian public in the Trump era. It is where you have seen that Trump has had more of an impact on the church and than the church has had on Trump.

[Jamelle Bouie]

I think, to go back to an earlier point, that sort of there is supply and demand here, right? So if I remember correctly, back in 2016, 2015, the public religion Research Institute put out some great surveys on just sort of how white evangelicals perceive their position in American culture. I think it's kind of important to specify the white part of this because the dynamics are quite different in the black church. But many white evangelicals perceived themselves to be in a losing cultural position, right? That, like, the American society was passing them by. So that maybe is like the demand, right? That there is real anxiety and worry. And we can, you know, you can discuss how valid that was, but it was a real feeling. But then the supply comes in the form of Donald Trump making this explicit alliance with, you know, the most at the reactionary end of the conservative evangelical world. You sign up with Trump and he's a brute. Like, clearly a guy with no particularly strong moral sense. Clearly a guy who sees everything in this zero sum exploit or be exploited kind of worldview. And it runs counter to your expressed values, but it is delivering political victories. And so you kind of have to make a choice, whether explicitly or implicitly, like, do I reject the political winds that I think are necessary to preserve my cultural position because I think this guy is just a bridge too far, or do I rationalize it and say well, you know, God chooses people who are flawed.

[David French]

And King David excuse Trump.

[Jamelle Bouie]

Right. Trump is a flawed vessel.

[David Brooks]

The King David stuff is old news. It's Jehu now.

[David French]

Yeah, sorry, sorry. I'm behind the curve.

[Jamelle Bouie]

I think that's sort of the dynamic. It's hard for me to figure out how one moves past it, because it seems in the same way that sort of like Trump seems or is fully kind of part of what it means to be a Republican now, such that there are. There's at least two generations of young Republicans for whom Trump is the central figure. He is the Reagan for a lot of evangelical Christians. Like, support for Trump seems to be part of what it means to be an evangelical Christian, to the point that you have. And this shows up in surveys, too, people who identify as evangelical but do not attend church, but they do love.

[David Brooks]

Trump, going all the way back to 2016. I had so many white evangelicals talk to me about Trump and say, I know he's not a good guy, but it's the lesser evil. As a citizen, I have a responsibility. If I've got a greater evil and a lesser evil, I want the nation to at least pursue the lesser evil, follow the lesser evil than the greater evil. And my response was like, how about not doing evil at all? But, you know, look, radical idea. There's this very powerful argument that you choose amongst the lesser evils, especially when people are cynical about politics to begin with. But here's the thing that's interesting about human beings. We don't like to be on Team Lesser Evil. Like, no one's running around chanting, lesser evil, lesser evil. We want to be on the side that's good. So. And if you can't make Donald Trump good, you'll just redefine Donald Trump as good. And this is part of what is all happening, is if you can't change the MAGA culture, they're redefining the MAGA culture to try to assimilate it within Christian or to assimilate Christianity into the MAGA culture. And so that's why I think it's quite clear to me why these attacks on empathy are now coming up several years into the Trump era. And it's because it's this long, slow process of how do we make Trump good? Well, you can't make Trump good, so how do you change our definition of what is good to meet Trump?

[Jamelle Bouie]

But I feel compelled to say that, like, this has kind of been a part of, like, American religion for a long time. Like one of a movie. I like a lot is Elmer Gantry from 1960, which is based off of a Sinclair Lewis book from 1927 that is basically about this, basically about like, you know, charlatans using revivalist religion for their own gain and also putting forth a vision of that religion that's very transactional. Like so many things, I think in our culture there's new permutations of it, but there are deep roots. There's a way in which all of this is just so deeply American in the bad ways, but nonetheless deeply American. The other thing I wanted to say, and this kind of relates to our conversation about zero sum thinking, is that it has been interesting to observe the discussion over the big beautiful bill in the House and the Senate which cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, from the supplements nutrition assistance program. And that there is.

[David French]

It's all waste and fraud, Jamel.

[Jamelle Bouie]

Right. There's talk of we're not spending money on Americans. And then when it's time to spend money on Americans, it's like, well, it's all waste and fraud that we're spending. And it does feel like from at least the top, from like not so much from maybe ordinary people, but from the top. It feels like a shell game. Right. Like this really is all just a way to get people to sign on to the upwards redistribution of their tax dollars so that frankly, Donald Trump and his kids can pay a little less to Uncle Sam in as much as they pay anything to Uncle Sam to begin with.

[David French]

Okay, so let's flip that. So in many ways, the Democratic Party built its platform on the idea that people should have empathy for the least well off in society. So how should they be countering this? And to what degree do we think in this moment that's actually playing into why they have crashing popularity?

[Jamelle Bouie]

So as far as their crashing popularity goes, I kind of think it's a function of the fact that they kind of just seem like weenies right now, not have much fight about them. But I do think there's this larger cultural challenge. Declining social trust means a lot of things, but one of the things it also means that it's just tough to sell to people the idea that we're going to take some tax dollars from you to provide broad benefits that will help you. We're going to help you middle income person, but we're also going to spend money on helping working people who don't necessarily have jobs that provide health insurance or we're going to spend it on children who don't necessarily have access to regular healthy meals. Right. Like that's it's hard, it's hard to sell that to people because you don't have a captive audience, right. Like you make this pitch and then you have the other side saying, well, this is all going to waste front and be, it's going to lazy people, it's going to layabouts, et cetera, et cetera. And so I think part of the challenge for not just like Democrats, but just like American liberalism is how do you bring rebuild a higher trust society, one where people can buy in to like a redistributive program. Part of that is going to be done just by Democrats in places where they have power delivering services effectively and efficiently. Right. Like if the government's working well, people are gonna be more inclined to trust the government to do things. That's part of the secret sauce of the New Deal is that like a lot of those things ran pretty well and persuaded people that they should support more benefits. But the other part of it has to be cultural. And I think that's the big challenge. It's like there's a broad cultural push towards a kind of very self focused, anti community kind of way of being. I'm on TikTok too much and it's like hustle culture is a big thing. And getting rich off of crypto, which are things that are ultimately very inwardly focused. Sort of like you're not going to get ahead by collaboration and community with other people. You're going to get ahead by essentially getting in on something before other people do and letting them hold the bag when you profit or by kind of dominating other people. And that's just. Those are not, those are not attitudes conducive to kind of pro social policy of any kind.

[David Brooks]

You know, one area I think the Democrats, look, we have a highly tribalistic politics right now. We have parties that are very good at sort of. Well, maybe very good is overstatement. They're not very good at much of anything. But to the extent they have competence, they have a core competence in sort of delivering to the core, their core constituencies some of the goodies that the core constituencies demand. So it's not crazy for people to look at politics and think, oh, this is all transactional because politics is being treated in this very transactional way. And so, you know, Democrats have long won more female voters than male voters. Over time, a perception takes hold that the Democratic Party likes women, it's women voters and doubles down on taking care of women and sort of neglects or leaves men behind. And I've been in rooms where I will talk about the plight of young boys in this country. And I'm not talking about the boys who are wealthy and elite. We all know that, you know, men are still overrepresented in the boardrooms and that the top ranks of various tiers of society, I'm talking about the big broad bulk of young boys in this country. You're looking at much less academic achievement than girls, much greater disciplinary problems, much higher suicide rates, much higher rates of anxiety, depression, adhd, et cetera. And I have been in left leaning spaces where just this look of skepticism comes over your face, like boys. This is a patriarchal society. Boys are on top in this society. What are you talking about? And there has been, and I have seen a lack of empathy in left leaning spaces for what's happening with young men now. That's changing. It's changing. And the sad thing is though, I think one of the reasons why it's changing is because the lack of empathy for boys has grown so profound that the gender gap is one of the things that gave Trump the presidency. And so the shock of the political loss has caused people to sort of reevaluate their approach, but it shouldn't have to take that. So I have seen it on in these left leaning spaces in much the same way I see in a lot of right leaning spaces, just outright scorn for women. That's a part of this attack on empathy that we've not talked about yet. It is rooted especially in some of these more hardcore fundamentalist, evangelical spaces and a real scorn for what they perceive as a feminine characteristic, empathy as a feminine characteristic. And so anything feminine needs to be purged from sort of government and leadership. And so you see that pro male perspective of the GOP morphing into anti female. And I have seen the pro female move on the left morphing into anti male.

[David French]

Let me just take one step back. And so there's an argument to be made that it's hard to get people to worry about big picture ideas like social justice, climate, immigration, or even foreign aid when they're struggling to meet their basic daily needs. And we had just come out of a pandemic hangover. Inflation had a big bite, the system was not working for a lot of people. And the Biden administration did not cover itself in glory in terms of letting people know that it felt their pain. So when people are feeling better about the economy again, do we think that we will see a return? There's at least a space for the return of compassion. We, or have we Gone beyond that. And we'll have to actively work to claw it back.

[David Brooks]

I don't think we'll see it because let me put it this way, Michelle. The people who are driving this attack on empathy are not suffering people, okay? They're the influencers and the leaders and the ministry leader. I have not seen very many poor people attacking empathy. What I've seen are wealthy MAGA influencers, influential MAGA influencers attacking empathy. Now, that's not to say the whole Trump coalition is like that. There's a bunch of working class people in the Trump coalition who do struggle a lot. But you know what? They're not on Twitter talking and arguing about empathy. They got bigger things to do with their lives.

[David French]

Jamel, you got any thoughts on bringing compassion back?

[Jamelle Bouie]

I tend to see things as quite cyclical, so I think. I don't know what will bring it back. But in the same way that American culture does contain sort of antecedents and strains that are producing this sort of anti empathy moment, there are real traditions of social solidarity and community feeling that may reassert themselves. And I think they might. I think they might. But that's not. It's not. It's obviously not gonna be an automatic thing. It's gonna be like political work done to re force them back into our mainstream political culture. And it might just have to happen once Trump fades from the scene.

[David Brooks]

And also, it could have Democrats stopped being weenies.

[Jamelle Bouie]

Yes.

[David Brooks]

Also, let's not forget the influence of an American Pope who has a very different ethos than the one that we've been talking about.

[David French]

I don't want to put that kind of pressure on the Pope. That's a lot of pressure.

[David Brooks]

He's the Pope. He can handle it.

[David French]

So with that, I want to thank you guys again. This has been great fun and I want to do it again soon. But farewell for now.

[David Brooks]

Thanks so much, Michelle and Jamel. It was great chatting with y' all.

[Jamelle Bouie]

Yeah, this was a real pleasure. Great to see you both.

[Michelle Cottle]

If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Vishaka, Darba, Christina Samulewski and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Saborough and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Aman Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. The director of Times opinion. Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.