In recent years, empathy has moved from a personal virtue to a political litmus test. In Canada especially, it has become a central moral language through which public disagreement is judged. Arguments are no longer assessed primarily by their accuracy, feasibility, or consequences, but by whether they are experienced as emotionally considerate. This shift has been widely celebrated as progress. It is also quietly reshaping how power is protected, how conflict is managed, and how political stagnation is sustained.
What is emerging is not a lack of empathy, but a narrowing of what the term is allowed to mean. Empathy has increasingly been defined as emotional harm-avoidance rather than as cognitive engagement with difficult ideas. That redefinition matters. It helps explain why structural problems persist unresolved, why populist movements gain traction, and why entire segments of the population feel unseen rather than merely opposed.
This is not a polemic against empathy. It is an attempt to recover distinctions that have been lost—and to understand how their loss has become politically destabilizing.
Two kinds of empathy, collapsed into one
In psychology and moral philosophy, empathy is not a single capacity. Researchers commonly distinguish between affective empathy and cognitive empathy.
Affective empathy refers to emotional attunement: the capacity to feel with another person, to resonate with their distress, and to avoid causing them pain. Cognitive empathy, by contrast, refers to the ability to reconstruct another person’s reasoning, assumptions, and constraints—even, and especially, when one disagrees with their conclusions.
In contemporary Canadian discourse, these two forms are increasingly collapsed into one moral category. To empathize is understood primarily as to avoid emotional harm. Discomfort itself becomes evidence of wrongdoing. This collapse has been reinforced by broader cultural trends identified by psychologists such as Nick Haslam, who describes the phenomenon of “concept creep,” in which terms like harm and trauma expand to include ever wider ranges of experience. Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, writing about “safetyism,” have argued that emotional safety has been elevated into a sacred value, one that overrides competing goods such as open inquiry or tolerance for disagreement.
The result is not that Canadians are irrational or overly sensitive. It is that emotional response is increasingly used as a proxy for moral evaluation. When discomfort is treated as harm, critique becomes suspect by default.
British consensus culture: politeness as governance
This moral configuration did not arise in a vacuum. It reflects a deeper inheritance from British political culture, where politeness, civility, and deference have long functioned as governance technologies rather than mere social niceties.
Anthropologists and sociolinguists have documented how British norms of indirectness and “negative politeness” discourage open confrontation. Historically, this served important functions. It reduced overt conflict, stabilized institutions, and enabled elite coordination in a highly stratified society. Sociologist Norbert Elias famously described this process as part of the “civilizing” of power: domination became embedded in manners and self-restraint rather than enforced through visible coercion.
In political terms, this produced what scholars such as David Marquand later described as “club government”—a system in which informal elite consensus, trust-based relationships, and shared norms managed conflict behind closed doors, while the public sphere was kept orderly and restrained.
Politeness, in this context, is not kindness. It is a low-noise operating system. It keeps politics legible and stable. It also makes direct challenge socially costly, especially for those without status.
Canada’s inheritance without the counterweights
Canada inherited this British consensus culture but lost many of its counterbalancing forces. Britain retained sharp class consciousness, adversarial parliamentary traditions, and a combative press culture that could puncture elite decorum. Canada absorbed politeness and civility without fully inheriting those confrontational institutions.
The result is a political culture that values smoothness over clarity and inclusion over confrontation. Disagreement is often personalized. Authority is rarely challenged head-on. Structural conflicts are softened into procedural discussions or moralized into tone disputes.
This produces stability, but at a price. Structural problems—housing shortages, regional economic decline, infrastructure decay—remain unresolved not because they are invisible, but because naming winners and losers feels impolite, divisive, or “non-empathetic.”
Empathy, privilege, and the right to remain comfortable
This is where empathy intersects with privilege.
In a context of growing inequality and uneven decline, the modern “right to feel emotionally unharmed” also functions as a class entitlement. Those somewhat insulated from immediate material precarity but fearing potential decline— an insecurity that is common among the credentialed, mobile, urban professionals—can demand gentle language, recognition-first discourse, and moralized debate. Emotional comfort becomes a baseline expectation, an entitlement of the elites.
For people experiencing stagnation or loss, this reads very differently. Rural communities, working-class households, and lower-credentialed workers encounter declining services, rising costs, and shrinking opportunities. Their discomfort is structural, not conversational. Yet when they articulate it bluntly, they are often told that their tone is the problem.
The asymmetry is stark: elite discomfort caused by critique is treated as harm; non-elite discomfort caused by stagnation is treated as noise.
Empathy, in this configuration, does not travel downward. It circulates horizontally among those who already share cultural fluency.
1. Weaponization from the left
Progressive politics in Canada has adopted empathy as a core moral identity. This has brought real gains: greater recognition of marginalized identities, a more inclusive public language, and overdue attention to symbolic harm.
But it has also produced a blind spot. Empathy is extended selectively. Identity-coded suffering is foregrounded; class-coded constraint is backgrounded. Critique that threatens elite comfort is reframed as cruelty or insensitivity. Structural conflict is displaced by moral language.
This is not primarily a problem of hypocrisy. It is a problem of positional blindness. When empathy is defined as emotional accommodation, it becomes a shield against accountability. It protects those who benefit from the status quo while speaking the language of care.
2. Weaponization from the right
The reaction from the right is symmetrical, though not equivalent.
Right-wing movements increasingly reject empathy altogether. Affective concern is dismissed as weakness. Cruelty is reframed as honesty and rational need. Rationality is claimed while lived consequences are ignored, emotionally filtered out.
What appears as a defense of reason is really narrowing of it selectively. By rejecting empathy outright, the right mistakes hardness for clarity and substitutes provocation for analysis. It offers recognition through violation rather than understanding.
The problem is not that one side is empathetic and the other is not. It is that empathy has been weaponized in opposite directions—one side to block critique and sustain the status quo of elites, the other to justify harm against outcasts.
Populism as stress test
In this context, populist figures function less as problem-solvers than as diagnostic tools. They act as stress tests of elite norms.
Figures like Donald Trump succeed because they violate the moral economy of politeness and imposed empathy that many experience as exclusionary. They force institutions to reveal how much legitimacy rests on tone rather than substance.
This does not make populism admirable. It makes it intelligible. Where recognition is withheld, disruption becomes a substitute.
Germany after 1945: a different lesson
Post-war Germany drew a radically different conclusion from catastrophe.
German educators concluded that Nazism didn’t rise from too much disagreement but rather that it arose from an emotional consensus of pain, followed by charismatic mobilization, and then the suppression of dissent. Empathy, when defined as affective alignment with a collective myth, had proven dangerous. Based on this analysis, I believe, Germany took a different intellectual pathway than Britain after WWII.
German educators responsed pedagogical as well as institutional. Civic education was rebuilt around disagreeability. The Beutelsbach Consensus, which still governs political and social education, enshrined the principle that what is controversial in society must be taught as controversial. Students were to be protected from emotional indoctrination, not from discomfort. This is why every German student will have a school excursion to a concentration camp, where they can first hand witness the holocaust that was committed by our ancestors. Evoking the feeling of discomfort became a pillar of German education, a necessity for structural thought, and inconvenient conversation.
Empathy was redefined as a cognitive discipline, a skill: the capacity to reconstruct opposing arguments precisely, to understand their appeal, and to test them under constraint. Discomfort is not a failure of care but evidence that real questions were being addressed.
This model accepted higher interpersonal strain in exchange for democratic resilience.
Germany today: when discipline meets decline
As an aside, the German model is now under strain.
Germany’s recent rise of right-wing populism exposes a new mode of failure. The education system was designed to prevent moral catastrophe driven by charismatic mobilization and unexamined consensus. It was not designed to integrate slow and long-term economic degradation, downward mobility, and demographic ageing into democratic legitimacy. It was also not designed to deal with class blindness.
After the reunification in 1990, Western entitlement culture emerged that centered on social mobility, professional credentials, and cosmopolitan ease. This culture proved inaccessible (and even undesirable) to many who grew up in the former East, and to young men with lower educational attainment across the country. Similar to the rural white population in the US, many young fellows feel excluded culturally and procedurally. Mainstream democratic politics proceeded as if they were irrelevant. The moral language started policing how they expressed their grievances, without paying attention to a true core.
My friends in the trades reflect this angle: everyday economic interactions between working people and increasingly cash-constrained professional elites. Tradespeople work for clients who hold stable salaries, cultural authority, and moral confidence, but who aggressively protect their own assets. A minor imperfection of a trade work is leveraged for large discount demands. Their critique framed as “quality control” or “holding German trade standards” becomes a tool to directly erode the tradesperson’s wage. This way, class differences increase. The same client may speak fluently about fairness, empathy and progressive values, while quietly externalizing their financial pressure onto someone with less bargaining power. From the tradesperson’s perspective, this feels like a collapse of reciprocity: moral superiority paired with economic extraction, moral arrogance, disconnection, and class blindness. Many trades people share the experience on a daily basis, and it is not wonder that it produces resentment toward cultural elites! The new right offers a release valve here.
Germany’s strain is also arithmetic. The welfare state is increasingly shaped by retirees as a decisive political bloc and by pensions as a fiscal sink. Budget analyses show social welfare benefits—primarily pension subsidies—absorbing the largest share of federal expenditure, with estimates suggesting that roughly a third of tax revenues are required to stabilize pension insurance in the mid‑2020s. The problem is the opportunity cost: housing supply, skills formation, childcare capacity, innovation diffusion, and future-facing infrastructure compete for shrinking fiscal space.
For younger cohorts, the signal is corrosive. Entry into adulthood is marked by high housing costs, credential inflation, and insecure work, while political energy reliably mobilizes to protect yesterday’s entitlements. Empathy is performed; investment is deferred. Demographic ageing becomes a legitimacy problem when politics communicates that it can always find money for the past but hesitates to commit to the future.
This helps explain why segments of younger voters—especially young adults rather than the very youngest, and particularly in stressed regions—are receptive to hard-right rhetoric. The pattern is not uniform and not purely generational; it cuts across status, region, and gender. But where grievance is moralized rather than addressed, populist actors can convert recognition into support by rejecting elite scripts and empathy norms.
The result is a mechanistic convergence with North America. Elites misread stability as consent; structural erosion accumulates below the threshold of recognition. Populism becomes a crude release valve for those who feel overlooked.
Canada in the mirror
Canada is not Germany or Britain, and it is not the United States. But the pattern seem to reappear.
Empathy-as-comfort allows us to avoid naming winners and losers. It smooths conflict while preserving inequality. It produces paralysis rather than inclusion.
This is not a failure of kindness. It is a failure of seriousness.
The constraint we refuse to face
Structural change requires discomfort. It requires disagreement sustained long enough to surface trade-offs. It requires the willingness to name loss.
Empathy that cannot tolerate this does not make societies more humane. It makes them conservative in the most literal sense: protective of what already exists.
That is the unresolved constraint.
And avoiding it will not make it disappear.
Recent Comments