Recently, Hillary Clinton resurfaced in The Atlantic with a sweeping, moralising essay accusing parts of the conservative movement — including Christian commentators and pastors — of waging a "war on empathy" and undermining core Christian values like mercy and compassion. In particular, she took aim at voices such as Allie Beth Stuckey and others she labelled as "hard-right Christian influencers."
Let's unpack this not as partisan sniping, but as a serious cultural and theological disagreement — and why her critique, rather than undermining us, only clarifies what's truly at stake.
Clinton's Argument at a Glance
In her op-ed titled "MAGA's War on Empathy," Clinton claims that the moral core of the political right has drifted away from foundational Christian teachings of compassion and mercy. She argues that certain conservative leaders have twisted faith into a justification for cruelty and social division, and that this threatens American democracy itself.
This framing is rhetorically powerful — but it misunderstands both the theological commitments and cultural critiques coming from many Christian conservatives today.
What Christians Are Actually Saying — And What It Means
1. Empathy Isn't the Ultimate Virtue — Truth Is
Christian thinkers like Allie Beth Stuckey respond to Clinton not by rejecting compassion, but by questioning the definition of compassion promoted by the Left. Their point: political rhetoric that elevates empathy above objective moral truth can too easily excuse harmful actions.
Christian ethics doesn't teach empathy as the highest good — obedience to God's truth is. Mercy without truth becomes sentimentality; compassion untethered from justice can blind us to real harms.
So the conservative critique isn't a "war on empathy" — it's a call to ground empathy within a biblical moral framework, not the moral relativism that defines much of modern political discourse.
2. Clinton's Moral Lens isn't Neutral
Clinton positions herself as defending "Christian values" against what she calls a cruel "MAGA faith." But this assumes that her interpretation of compassion is synonymous with Christian discipleship. That's a profound theological claim — not a neutral observation.
In fact, many conservative Christians argue that policies lauded as "compassionate" — whether in bioethics, criminal justice, or cultural norms — often overlook the dignity of the innocent (e.g., the unborn) or redefine moral categories (e.g., sex and identity) in ways inconsistent with Scripture.
So, when Clinton claims conservatives have abandoned mercy, her lens may fit her ideology, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the rich theological tradition of mercy grounded in justice and truth.
3. The Real Divide isn't Empathy vs. Apathy — It's Foundations
Clinton's essay treats Christianity as a universal moral reference point — which, given her own religious identity, is rhetorically understandable. Yet appealing to Scripture to condemn others without engaging Scripture's complexity invites pushback from those she criticises.
Conservative Christians don't deny Christ's call to love their neighbour — but they also recognize that:
Justice matters (Proverbs 21:15),
Truth matters (John 8:32),
And faith without works is dead (James 2:26).
This isn't a rejection of mercy — it's an insistence that mercy be whole, not merely sentimental.
Why This Critique Actually Reveals Strength, Not Weakness
Allie Beth Stuckey's response to the piece wasn't defensive fear — it was defiant clarity. She saw Clinton's attack as proof that her message resonates with many Christians who feel their faith is being misunderstood or mischaracterised in mainstream discourse.
That's an important point: when the cultural elite direct heavy artillery at a movement, it often means that movement is influential, not irrelevant.
Conclusion: The Real Cultural Fault Line
This isn't about whether one side is "more compassionate" than the other. The debate is deeper:
Clinton frames the moral life through the lens of social sentiment — what feels empathetic and humane by contemporary standards.
Christian conservatives ground moral life in biblical truth, where compassion and truth coexist, even when they're uncomfortable or difficult.
That's why calling someone's deeply held religiously informed convictions cruel or morally rotten isn't just political disagreement — it's a misunderstanding of what Christian moral reasoning actually affirms.
This clash isn't a war on empathy. It's a debate over moral foundations and the nature of truth itself — and on that ground, neither side gets to claim the high road without engaging Scripture, tradition, and reason with intellectual honesty.