Dave Rubin Explains How MAGA Could Lose It’s Way & How to Keep It Together

.
.

THE PITFALL OF EMPATHY: Dave Rubin on How the Left’s ‘Suicidal’ Tolerance Destroyed Liberalism

 

By A. J. Hamilton, Political and Philosophical Analyst

SYDNEY | MIAMI – The political discourse in the United States is currently defined by a profound paradox: the very principles of classical liberalism—individual liberty, free speech, and reason—are now being championed not by the Left, but by the conservative movement. In a recent, reflective interview with Rob Forsythe, host of the Liberalism in Question podcast, Dave Rubin detailed his personal and political journey, explaining how the progressive movement’s philosophical and psychological failures led to the “hollowing out” of the political center.

Rubin argues that the contemporary Left has fatally elevated “tolerance” to the highest virtue, resulting in what social theorists call “suicidal empathy.” This ethical miscalculation, combined with the abandonment of traditional and transcendent moral anchors, has led to a political force defined by utopian, centralized ambition and a destructive intolerance for dissenting thought.

The analysis is a critical look at the price of ideological overreach and how the chaotic, uncohesive MAGA movement has emerged as the necessary gravitational center for those seeking to defend the foundational values of a free society.

I. The Collapse of the Center: Defining Modern Illiberalism

 

Rubin began by clarifying the distinction between the “liberalism” he once espoused and the “progressivism” he now opposes.

Liberalism vs. Progressivism

 

For Rubin, classical liberalism is defined by:

Logic and Reason: Commitment to rational debate and evidence.

Individual Rights: Primacy of individual liberty over the collective.

Limited Government: Advocacy for free enterprise and laissez-faire economics.

The modern “progressives,” in contrast, are seen as the “illiberal people.” Their main goal is a continuous, centralized progression toward an undefined ideal, which comes “at the expense of liberalism.”

“The liberal believes that you can change the world on the margins… The progressive believes that they can grab the world and change it immediately, and if they can’t change it immediately, they will destroy the person who’s trying to stop them.”

This shift, catalyzed by the rise of “cancel culture” and the immediate labeling of ideological opponents as “racist or a Nazi,” forced Rubin out of traditional left-wing circles. He found that the liberal principles he believed in were being defended better by conservatives—people he once considered ideological opponents (like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro).

The Soft Underbelly of Tolerance

 

Rubin identified the philosophical failure of the Left as the “soft underbelly of liberalism.” While liberals are open-minded and tolerant, they failed to secure their core values:

“Liberals just decided to just give it all away. And they did that because they put tolerance at the top of their hierarchy of importance.“

Tolerance, Rubin argued, should be third or fourth on the hierarchy, not first. Placing tolerance at the top creates an “unbelievable amount of intolerance,” as the system welcomes those with “cultural and religious beliefs that are completely antithetical to your own beliefs,” leading to a culture that is “wildly intolerant” of the very liberal society that welcomed them.

II. The Psychology of the Extreme Left: Suicidal Empathy

 

Rubin further explored the psychological and philosophical factors driving the progressive movement’s destructive tendencies.

The Suicidal Empathy Critique

 

Citing Professor Gad Saad, Rubin termed the psychological mistake of the Left as “suicidal empathy.” This occurs when compassion becomes so overwhelming and unchecked that the desire to help and tolerate “everybody” actually ends up hurting the core society:

“Because you have so much compassion, you have so much empathy, you want to help everybody that you actually end up hurting everybody.”

This unchecked empathy prevents liberals from “guarding the door,” allowing illiberal forces to enter the society they seek to maintain.

The Transcendent Hole

 

The second, deeper philosophical issue addressed is the progressive abandonment of a “transcendent layer” or belief in God.

Rubin posited that when belief in the transcendent is given up, “then everything goes into politics.” Since politics is then the only arena for meaning, disagreement becomes a moral, even religious, battle.

Limited Expectations: Classical liberalism is a philosophy of limited expectations and humility, acknowledging the limits of human ability (citing Hayek). It seeks gradual, calm change.

Utopian Destruction: Progressivism, in contrast, is driven by a utopian quest—the desire to “upend everything” and remake the world immediately. Since utopia (literally “no place”) does not exist on Earth, this pursuit inevitably leads to destructive, authoritarian outcomes.

This explains why the Left, in its attempt to achieve purity, becomes intolerant of those who preach patience and limited expectations—they hate liberals “more than they hate the conservatives.”

III. The MAGA Response: A Necessary Gravity

 

The hollowing out of the political center—with figures like Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. migrating to the Right—is seen by Rubin as a natural reaction to the Left’s ideological overreach.

The Nature of MAGA

 

Rubin characterized the MAGA movement not as a cohesive ideology, but as a “cult of personality” centered around Donald Trump, which brought the idea of fighting the “deep state” and “fake news” to the masses.

However, despite its lack of pure ideological cohesion, it served a vital purpose: it became the gravitational center for the politically homeless—those who still defend classical liberal principles but are rejected by the modern Left.

Rubin argued that the challenge for the future is to ensure that MAGA, which he supports, does not veer into unprincipled authoritarianism, a risk inherent in movements built around personality cults. He stated he intends to remain on the Right, working to ensure the MAGA movement “does not abandon the good liberal principles that have come in.”

The Solution: Returning to the Founders

 

Rubin’s proposed solution to combat the internal rot of polarization and illiberalism is a return to foundational documents and individual action.

He cited the example of the draconian COVID lockdowns in California. The solution was the one intended by the founders: “You can move to another state. You don’t have to leave the country if something’s bad.”

Rubin’s personal choice to move to the “Free State of Florida” (a “citadel of freedom”) was an act of “voting with his feet,” utilizing the built-in safeguards of the American system to escape tyrannical local governance. He concluded that the framework for stability exists in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and Americans simply need to return to those “fairly simple documents.”

IV. Conclusion: World-Weary Optimism

 

Rubin defined his outlook as “world-weary optimism.” He is not a naive optimist, but a realist who acknowledges the constant fight required to maintain freedom.

“I think that we have to fight relentlessly. You can never stop fighting.”

He argued that Americans grew “fat on our success” and stopped fighting, leading to the current crisis. The solution lies not in utopian idealism, but in the humility to recognize that change is gradual (“nudge things one way”) and the unwavering commitment to the principles of reason and individual liberty, guarded by the strength of those who refuse to let the barbarians take the gate. The battle, he suggests, is not over; it is a relentless, necessary defense of the greatest liberal project in history.

.