Over the past decade, I’ve been asked several times why I left the Republican Party. Those who knew me in the before times knew that not only was I a lifetime Republican voter, but I was also very highly involved in promoting the Party in a variety of ways. I won’t go into all the details here but suffice it to say that I’d have put my Republican “credentials” up against just about anyone’s.
So, why the change? Well, the short answer is that Trump became the Republican nominee in 2016, and that absurdity was too much for me to abide. He and his entire schtick were completely contrary to what I believed in and what I had been working for during all those previous years. He personified the very things that the Democrats had been accusing Republicans of being all along… all the things I had spent years refuting.
But there was much more to it than just Trump. Some things had been brewing in my mind for several years before he came along… things I came to recognize in the Republican Party that I was not really aligned with.
Oddly, the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk, and the rancor that has followed since that day, provided me with a much clearer and complete understanding of my break with the GOP. Although I disagreed with much of what Kirk believed and promoted, and will discuss a couple of those things here, I want to be very clear: the murder of Charlie Kirk is in no way justified by anything he said. I unequivocally condemn his brutal killing. My heart goes out to his wife and his beautiful, innocent kids. Anything more I say about him is not “celebrating his death” or in any way justifying it at all — it is merely continuing the debates he started.
One thing that really stands out to me in what I’ve watched from Kirk was his comments on “empathy.” If you haven’t seen it, he basically stated that he doesn’t like empathy and believes it to be a “made-up term”. He seemed to believe empathy had no value in policymaking because it introduced feelings into the process and that only “facts” should matter. Therefore, he preferred “sympathy” over “empathy.”
Here are his direct quotes from a podcast episode in October of 2022:
“I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, New Age term that — it does a lot of damage, but it is very effective when it comes to politics.”
“Sympathy I prefer more than empathy. That’s a separate topic for a different time.”
To be fair, I didn’t find much more detail on this from him. He said it was “a topic for a different time.” I would have liked to have delved deeper with him on what he fully believed about empathy. As it is, we can only go on these words… but also get some feeling from the way he interacted with his debate opponents, which, in my opinion, displayed little empathy.
It seems to me Kirk tied this position to the phrase “facts don’t care about your feelings,” popularized by Ben Shapiro, who’s also known for his student debates. I’ve seen Kirk use that phrase himself.
Okay, so get to the point, Steve.
The point is, after musing on all of this, I’ve determined that I strongly disagree with Kirk about empathy, and I believe that it is paramount when critically thinking about issues and in developing policies for society. And, ultimately, it is the overriding catalyst for my departure from the Republican Party.
________________________________________
Immigration
My transition began probably a decade before Trump. I started really diving into the history of our founding, the Constitution, and the people and principles behind them. Then I turned my focus to economics. My belief was that much of our political dysfunction came from an electorate uninformed about the basics… how government works, how policies affect the economy. If voters don’t know the three branches of government, or how checks and balances function, how can they judge if someone is suited for office? Likewise, if they don’t understand basic economics, how can they vote wisely on issues like tariffs?
During those studies, my views began to shift.
Take immigration. While reading Milton Friedman (an economist most conservatives would agree is one of the best), I came across something that surprised me. He said that economically, under free-market capitalism, he would support open borders — allowing immigrants free movement to live and work. But he added a caveat: this only works if you don’t have a welfare state that lets immigrants come here and live entirely on assistance. That nuance mattered. Still, it made me question the conservative talking heads who insisted immigrants were stealing jobs and draining the economy.
Then I took it further: I imagined myself as a father in South American country that offered no safety or prosperity for my family. What would I do if I saw the promise of liberty and opportunity in the United States, but also knew the legal process could take years, or never happen at all… while I had the chance to get us across the border and immediately find work, no matter how hard? Of course I would go. Of course, I would become an “illegal immigrant” if it meant safety and a future for my family. Any rational person would.
That exercise in empathy gave me a whole new perspective, especially combined with my new understanding that immigrants are a net positive to our economy.
Republicans might say, “We’re not against immigrants, we’re against illegal immigrants — they should wait their turn.” Fair point. But the system is so backlogged and broken that “waiting your turn” can mean waiting decades, or never. If the survival of my family depended on it, I wouldn’t wait decades either. The problem isn’t families doing what anyone would do in their shoes. The problem is a broken system that fails to recognize both human reality and economic reality. That doesn’t mean I think borders should be wide open. We need an orderly immigration system and reasonable security. But empathy reminded me that immigrants are not faceless statistics — they are families making impossible choices. Good policy can both protect national interests and treat them humanely.
________________________________________
Race
The same happened when I thought about race. I wondered whether a black man born the same day as me in 1964 could possibly have had the same opportunities. How could he? The Civil Rights Act had been signed into law less than six months earlier. We were just coming out of the Jim Crow era. Obviously, my father, born in 1930, had more opportunities than a black man born then… and my grandfather, born in 1900, lived in a world not far removed from slavery. These inequities carried through generations.
By the mid-70s, my dad was a Colonel in the Marine Corps. I don’t remember seeing black families among the ranks of high officers in our neighborhood. Almost all the black kids in school were children of enlisted men, not officers. I’m not saying that my dad and other white officers did not deserve their rank. He worked extremely hard for everything he earned and was a great Marine Corps officer. I’m only saying that he didn’t have to overcome the long-held biases and historical injustices that a black man would have in that era. The advantages my father had passed down to me and my siblings. After the Civil Rights Act, things got better each generation… but the problems weren’t solved. People shaped by Jim Crow are still alive today, many in positions of power, both in the private sector and in government. Their biases still shape opportunities for others.
That’s systemic racism. It’s improving… but not gone.
Some will say, “Stop living in the past. We ended Jim Crow laws. Slavery is over. Everyone has equal opportunity now.” But that ignores how generational advantage works. My dad’s officer career gave me opportunities that black kids whose fathers were barred from those roles didn’t have. Pretending that all those disparities vanished overnight in 1964 is like saying a runner can spend half the race chained at the starting line, and once you free them, it’s fair to declare “now everyone’s equal.” Empathy tells us that the race is still uneven. Recognizing this doesn’t mean condemning every white American as a racist or ignoring individual responsibility. It means acknowledging that opportunity gaps still exist and we should work toward closing them — not pretending they were erased overnight.
________________________________________
LGBTQ+
But one of the most profound wake-up calls came the day my son told me he was gay.
My immediate reaction was: “That’s okay, I love you, I support you, I just want you to be happy.” I gave him a hug and then joked, “Whew! I thought you were going to tell me you were voting for Democrats…”
But here’s the thing… he was 27. He had avoided telling me for years because he knew I was deeply involved in the Republican Party, and he knew the Republican Party was against gay marriage and the gay community. He was afraid I wouldn’t accept it. I didn’t think of it that way until later. It wasn’t until I put myself in his shoes… imagining what it must have been like to keep that secret for so long… that I realized my political involvement played a role in that. We have since discussed that and confirmed that it was a big factor.
It was empathy that opened my eyes. That personal experience gave me a completely different perspective on LGBTQ+ issues. I was never “anti-gay”, and I don’t think I ever said anything homophobic. Really, it’s not in my nature to bash marginalized people. But I also didn’t speak out when I heard others doing it. And I would have defended the Republican Party when accused of hating gay people. Until it became personal, I didn’t see it as a top priority issue.
In watching the now MAGA Republican Party, I fully realize that the accusations were correct all along, at least for a much larger percentage of the Republican Party members than I ever thought. There can be no doubt that the current Republican Party is doing everything they can to push the LGBTQ+ community back into the closet and out of public view everywhere. And, yes, Charlie Kirk was absolutely, without question, a huge voice in that effort. All with no empathy concerning how they are impacting that entire community.
Without a doubt, the nonstop attacks from the MAGA Republicans on the LGBTQ+ community has caused more division, more animosity, more hatred and, most worrisome, a less inviting, less accepting, and more dangerous place for LGBTQ+ people to pursue their own happiness. And that, frankly, is un-American, un-Christian, and it really pisses me off. I honestly can’t understand how anyone who has an LGBTQ+ family member or friend who they love is not just as pissed off and worried about it as I am.
When my son first came out, I was grateful we were in a place where most people accepted and supported him. It made me feel he’d be safer than in decades past. But the MAGA Republican Party is doing everything it can to reverse that acceptance.
All the studies show LGBTQ+ people are far more likely to struggle with mental illness or suicide when they feel unsupported or rejected — especially by family. Think about what that must be like… to realize you’re gay at an early age but be too scared to tell your parents… to carry that for years, all alone in your own head. That’s bad enough even if, when you finally tell them, your parents accept you. But what about all those who finally come out only to be rejected by the people who matter most? My heart breaks for all the kids (and adults) who never tell their parents at all because of the hateful rhetoric those parents have embraced. There are hundreds of thousands of those stories. And that’s messed up.
Don’t even get me started on the “conversion therapy” bullshit. All a child wants from their parents when they come out to them is acceptance and love. If, instead, they get sent to “conversion therapy”, I can only imagine (yes, through empathy) the extreme devastation when they realize that instead of acceptance for who they are, their parents think something is wrong with them and they need to be “fixed”. The very people that they needed most of all to just be on their side.
And it’s not just the fringes of the Republican Party that is routinely disparaging the LGBTQ+ community. We have leaders at the very top — including the President, cabinet officials, and members of Congress — calling LGBTQ+ people “freaks,” “sickos,” “contagions,” “abominations.” They’re pushing policies to strip marriage rights, ban Pride parades or displays, and deny healthcare to transgender people. Some members of Congress (Nancy Mace and Ronny Jackson) have even suggested rounding up all transgender people and locking them away. And I am convinced that many others in the Republican Party would not only support outlawing gay marriage, but they’d also support outlawing being openly gay at all.
This is personal to me. It directly affects people I love… my children, my brother, my nephew, and other family and friends. And if you think it doesn’t affect anyone you know and love, you’re delusional.
Some will say, “We’re not anti-gay, we’re just defending traditional values.” But when your “values” translate into stripping rights, mocking people as “freaks,” and trying to erase their existence from public life, that’s not values… that’s cruelty. And cruelty wrapped in religion doesn’t make it holy. It makes it hypocritical. Yes, there are fair debates to be had over topics like gender policies in schools or youth medical decisions. But too often, the rhetoric coming from the MAGA movement goes beyond policy and into dehumanization — and that makes the country less safe for everyone in the LGBTQ+ community.
________________________________________
Christianity
Which leads me to Christianity. It is particularly interesting to me because Kirk (and most of the Republican Party) pretty much based all his positions and arguments on his Christian faith. But what is Christianity without empathy? Strip empathy away and the whole faith collapses. According to Christian belief, God stepped into human flesh as Jesus to experience life as we live it. In other words, Jesus was God’s empathy in human form. Every message he gave was grounded in empathy. The Golden Rule itself is empathy distilled: treat others as you would want to be treated.
Now think about the Old Testament. Its voice often thunders with rules and consequences: “I am God, here are my commands—obey or face the penalty.” It is justice in stark black and white, heavy on law and punishment and light on empathy. And yes, woven through are calls to care for widows, orphans, and strangers—but the dominant tone is strict obedience. Then came Jesus (God’s human experience in empathy), who turned the focus toward compassion, forgiveness, and love. He did not erase justice, but he re-centered it through empathy.
That’s why it makes no sense to claim Christianity while rejecting empathy. To follow Christ and deny empathy is a contradiction. Policies and laws without empathy don’t reflect the spirit of Jesus—they echo the harsher tones of the Old Testament rather than the forgiving grace of the New. Christianity without empathy isn’t Christianity at all.
Some Christians argue empathy leads to moral compromise — that too much “understanding” of sin excuses it. But empathy isn’t excusing sin, it’s seeing people as people, trying to understand their plights and treating them with dignity and grace. It’s certainly not sneering at them and blaming them for all of the ills in society.
________________________________________
Conclusion
So ultimately, it was empathy (or the lack of it) that finally drove me away from the Republican Party as it now stands under Trump’s MAGA vision. And since Trump’s rise and continued power is only possible because of the support of most Republicans, this lack of empathy was obviously much more widespread than I ever imagined.
We can see it in almost everything they do:
• The way they talk about LGBTQ+ people… “freaks,” “sickos,” a “contagion”. Jesus would never do that.
• The way they refer to immigrants as vermin “poisoning the blood of our nation.” Jesus would never do that.
• The way they laugh at the idea of immigrants being eaten by alligators. Jesus would never do that.
• The way masked ICE agents grab people off the street and send them to some brutal, foreign prison with no due process. Jesus would never do that.
• The way they cheer when reporters are mocked or silenced. Jesus would never do that.
• The way they say “fuck them” about people abroad suffering and dying when aid is withheld. Jesus would never do that.
• The way they dismiss the accounts of police brutally beaten for hours while defending the Capitol on Jan. 6. Jesus would never do that.
Yes, Charlie Kirk debated peacefully and invited dialogue. But since empathy is the essence of Christianity… and he rejected empathy… his words rang hollow to me, no matter how polished they were.
In conclusion, empathy — or the lack of it — is what finally drove me away from the Republican Party. First it was the nomination and election of an ignorant, dishonest, divisive, virtue-less demagogue. But what sealed it was realizing that the people in the Republican Party continue to support all of it.
The Trumpist, MAGA Republican Party is devoid of empathy, epitomized by the very leader himself. And since its supporters seem fine with that, it is no longer a Party I want any part of.
Does that mean I’m a woke, leftist Democrat now?
Call me whatever you want. All I know is that I am not what the current version of the Republican Party is.
________________________________________
Closing Note
If you made it this far, thank you for reading. Even if you disagree with me, I hope this at least explains where I’m coming from and to let friends and family who I know and love that are being directly affected by this politics that lack empathy that they are not alone. My goal isn’t to change anyone’s mind, which seems futile at this point, but to share why I couldn’t stay in a Party that abandoned empathy. And yes, I can anticipate someone pointing out that there are plenty of things that some Democrats say and do that would suggest a lack of empathy toward their opponents, and that would be true. But, in my opinion, this is way more problematic at the leadership levels and throughout the ranks of the Republican Party right now who are actively creating laws and policies and more on the fringes of the Democrats.
