What is the biggest problem of our time?

The answer might not be what you expect.

Introduction

Climate change, poverty, and war. If any of these problems populated in your mind as the biggest political failure of our time, it missed the mark on the source of our inaction in the first place: a severe deficit of empathy.¹  

Empathy, the ability to understand and share experiences/feelings with one another, has much more to do with political decision-making than it is given credit for. Beyond the realm of psychology and science where empathy is most closely related, the political process is driven by empathic legislators, drafting legislation and casting votes toward issues that matter to their constituency. It’s driven by empathic judges, some of whom fold their own policy views into rulings (judicial activism) rather than toe the line with rigid constitutional interpretation (judicial restraint). It’s driven by empathic voters, voting for political candidates on the basis of their character, charisma, and values over the minutiae of policy agendas. Empathy and emotion supercharge the human ability to care about different issues, naturally compelling us to be active players in the game of politics.

That is, in an ideal world.

Investigating the decline of empathy

Where, then, did empathy go awry? It’s impossible to pinpoint an exact moment in time where empathy was lost in the aether, but there are three powerful causes that I’ve identified, explaining its fizzling out over time.

The first cause has much to do with the discouraging state of political affairs in the status quo: party infighting, gridlocked governments, and the perception of no net change. Such collective perceptions, regardless of its merit or truth, have harmed political participation across the board. Issues such as voter apathy/low turnout, political disenfranchisement, and general disillusionment with the establishment make for a challenging political landscape to exist in.

The second cause concerns the natural roadblocks of empathy, which largely fall under two umbrellas: 

1. The natural difficulty politicians face in persuading citizens to care about issues distant from them; and

2. the natural difficulty that citizens face in internalizing empathy regarding issues distant from them. 

Both of these roadblocks stem from the innate human calculus to focus on problems most proximate and consequential to you, your family, your friends, and your community, at the expense of the out-group. Politicians understand this calculus to a tee, mostly because their employment relies upon it; either craft solutions to problems most relevant to your own electorate, or face the consequences (namely, criticism from your own party and/or losing your position in public office.) In an act of permeating active ignorance, politicians do much legwork to demean the policy platforms of opponents and convince their voters that the very act of addressing issues external to their own is a waste of public resources/taxes, an active harm to their safety/welfare, or both. 

For citizens, the difficulty to care about issues very far away is more passive ignorance than anything else: as brutal as it may sound, citizens are busy with their own problems/livelihoods and, in a sense, are reasonably justified in their frustration. It’s hard for people to truly care about issues if they aren’t the ones being directly affected by it, it’s hard to support policies if they aren’t the direct benefactors of them, and it’s hard to be aware about solutions to problems you’re not directly affected by. 

The dangers of active or passive ignorance transcend domestic policy: it’s just as relevant to foreign matters like humanitarian aid, foreign military spending, and others, all at the mercy of public and party opinion. For instance, the Biden Administration has allocated upward of $100B in direct aid to the Ukrainian government. Though there is broad bipartisan agreement that Russia poses an imminent threat to Ukraine’s existence, sharp cuts in aid are deeply rooted in our fears of Ukraine’s failure, a lack of confidence in our intervention toward effectuating change, and/or our inability to empathize with the hardships of the less fortunate. Without a shadow of a doubt, the United States would act swiftly and decisively had it been Ukraine’s neighbor or in Ukraine’s position itself, else it risks the United States’ own national security.  

I think it’s important to backpedal a little bit on the assumption made in the above paragraph. It is not fair to suggest that the majority of our problems stem from ignorance and/or a severe lack empathy entirely. Some are uninformed about issues asphyxiated of airtime/coverage because it doesn’t attract enough clicks, likes, or views to large corporations. Many are overwhelmed by issues that do dominate news cycles to the point of despair or anger, forming a paralysis that progressively worsens over time.

A more charitable and true characterization of the average citizen’s mindset is a mental contradiction that I term “the recognition-solution mismatch”: recognizing a problem but feeling unsure, unwilling, or unable to take action. This mental roadblock, while extremely justified, is all-too-familiar for voters, and it contributes to the unending sense of hopelessness in the political system. In short, we need a paradigm shift toward the belief that the average citizen does, in fact, have the capacity to take action on issues larger than themselves.

If we lacked the foresight to understand the value of having the SMAP satellite to detect crop yields nearly a decade ago, much of the world’s famines would be addressed reactively and not proactively.² If we didn’t understand the utility of developing asteroid detection technologies in defending our planet in times of peril, we would endanger a generation of humans yet unborn just about everywhere.  

Being more sensitive toward issues others face must occur with caution. Politicians can manipulate and weaponize our emotions to conjure up xenophobia and distrust in service of bad political agendas. In the wake of 9/11, then-Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz convinced Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush to invade Iraq with the express purpose of assigning blame, unifying a fear-stricken United States, and uncovering weapons of mass destruction—only to discover none were present.³

The third and final cause is related to the faulty notion of political compromise as weakness. The very act of agreement, be it wholly or partially, with the other side bears consequences—for example, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) renounced her Democratic affiliation in late 2023 and announced her intent to retire. Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) caught flak from his party in the December 2021-March 2022 news cycle for refusing to support Biden’s Build Back Better Act proposal. This pervasive belief of compromise as weakness isn’t exclusive to politicians—citizens are both victims and perpetrators of this backlash, too. The implications of dissent within social circles can be severe, from ridiculing individuals to cutting people off entirely. When opposing beliefs and views are perceived to oppose our very way of life, distrust is irreversibly sewn into the fabric of democracy. 

What this essay does not argue is that we should cease disagreement or endlessly seek agreement with others, nor does it contend that empathy deficits are native to certain ideologies/party affiliations along the political spectra. To espouse such a belief is to fall victim to the very problem of empathy deficits. Rural conservatives cannot realistically be expected to back agendas restricting firearm access for self-defense, nor can urban progressives be expected to support laws cracking down on immigration. Every individual has unique circumstances and conditions forming their political stance, and an inability to understand someone else’s perspective all lead to bad disagreement. 

To agree, disagree, or agree to disagree

In recent years, the term ‘disagreement’ has adopted a sharply negative connotation in the political context. Yet, disagreement is necessary to constantly stress-test our democratic institutions and policies. In more concrete terms, disagreement is what improves policymaking and the political system. The question becomes how we help others internalize the idea that disagreement can be a net positive instead of a net negative.

The answer starts by dichotomizing good and bad disagreement. The former fulfills its duty of advancing ideas and thought; the latter divides people across all social strata. This bad disagreement is termed as ‘polarization’, ideological and affective division that spirals out of control. If we cannot reconcile the fundamental distrust between one another, it will become nearly impossible to discuss them without the perception that the other person doesn't care about your view. 

While there is no single panacea to our empathy deficit problem on an institutional level at once, there are several instruments in our toolbox to reduce it for various stakeholders.

1. For citizens: Seek out and/or spark good disagreements. This means being more comfortable exiting our comfort zones—the same go-to forums where we discuss political opinions, the regular-rotation news outlets where we consume political commentary engineered to harmonize with our views. We crave consensus to the fault of ignorance, and challenging that comfort is key to building empathy. Moreover, when entering an argument, it is critical to set the terms of the conversation. Clarify the purpose of the conversation, determine what you want to get out of it, and evaluate the exigence of the arguments you spark/engage in. With a baseline level of respect and practice of active listening, arguments will seem less hostile and more approachable.

2. For the media: make an active effort to maintain a civil environment for political discourse. It might counterproductive to overwhelm viewers with 8 commentators simultaneously yelling over each other. Maybe that’s a hot take, I’m not sure.

3. For politicians: don’t give in to blind partisanship for political advancement. Don’t be sheep! History won’t look favorably on you.⁴

The precursor to good disagreements and productive ideological clashes is active recognition of the issue and the necessity for solutions. Discussion about the best approach to forming solutions is the purpose of our democracy, often driven by different ideologies that form the basis of our party affiliation. Opinion will shift with the ebbs and flows of time, but that good disagreement facilitates the exploration for the best solution. It is only when recognition of an issue and pursuit for solutions is a universal constant, regardless of your location, your financial circumstances, your political leanings, or other factors, that the empathy gap has finally been bridged.⁵

It is our collective responsibility to build that bridge, preserve its structural integrity, and beckon billions to walk across it for generations to come.

—AK

1. I had written at length about empathy and peace in my last post, but I thought that expanding upon its relation to political decision-making was valuable!

2. Watch this cool Mark Rober video asking the question: Is NASA a waste of money? This video discusses useful space technology applications to our planet… and America’s absurdly low budget allocation toward our national space program.

3. Here’s an interesting Johnny Harris video detailing how the aforementioned political officials initiated America’s invasion on Iraq.

4. Inversely, those make choices grounded in their own beliefs and with an openness to opposing ideas should be celebrated/appreciated more often. An instance that comes to mind where this happened is the nail-biting John McCain vote (which saved Medicare from the Republican skinny repeal).

5. At this point, it’s very reasonable to make the statement that this piece had a very non-controversial take/that all of this seems obvious. What I hope this piece did was spark some reflection about how we, if at all, practice empathy in our own lives and in political discourse. Most of us do this actively practice it less often than we think. Approaching politically-charged conversations with some more empathy can solve the political tensions we feel on a micro-level/in our everyday lives, healing the paralysis that has gripped this country for decades.