Our Future Falters in Indifference
There are two quotes I often use when describing the end of a good thing.
One is T.S. Eliot’s closing line from “The Hollow Men”: “Not with a bang but with a whimper.” The other comes from the equally rich literary prowess of Queen Amidala. In Revenge of the Sith, she states: “So this is how liberty dies – with thunderous applause.”
In my estimation, the real world is not quite as melodramatic. Good things don’t end in raucous noise or deafening silence. They end with indifference.
The disease of indifference has a cure: empathy. Seven letters encompassing the spectrum of human connection. In our darkest moments – Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the like – an injection of empathy helped, at least momentarily, quell the parasitic spread of indifference.
Yet, we have invited indifference in. And the modern world has ensured that it’s as visible as ever.
A few weeks ago, I visited the sites of four Nazi concentration camps, each with its own place in a six-million-person-long ledger. It was devastating to stand where people were marched to their deaths. Now, the catastrophe and the inhumanity are all on display in memory of those tortured, desecrated and murdered by the Nazis.
What most angered me, though, was one of the cruelest features of the Nazi operation: their indifference. Indifference to dignity; indifference to suffering; indifference to life. In the camps, people were treated like cattle, disregarded and stripped of everything. And while many high ranking Nazis relished in their execution of the “Final Solution,” there were far more rank-and-file officers who participated, ruled by indifference.
While the scale of the Nazi holocaust remains unprecedented, the power of indifference continues to rear its ugly, if often hidden, head across the globe.
In Russia, Putin and his government’s supreme indifference to existing international structures has led to an all-out assault on a democratic country. In the Middle East, Oct. 7 saw Hamas express absolute indifference to human life and suffering, leaving thousands of innocent Israelis dead. Likewise, the Israeli government’s profound indifference to preserving innocent life has left thousands of ordinary people dead in Gaza.
Put succinctly, the world is embracing indifference over empathy.
And after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the United States is doing the same.
I don’t intend to draw an equivalence between invasions and sieges and the murder of political activists. Kirk’s assassination has a comparably minimal scope to international crises. That said, reactions to his death have further demonstrated just how powerful indifference is here in the U.S.
In a functioning and free society, nobody should be killed or injured for their beliefs. There’s a reason the 2017 white supremacist, neo-Nazi demonstrations in Charlottesville were allowed – and it’s not because their beliefs are anything resembling acceptable.
At the same time, it is worth saying I really did not like Charlie Kirk.
I love debate, a construct I believe centers around mutual understanding and compromise. Kirk’s form of “debate” operated more like full-blown arguments designed to engender hostility. Not to mention, I found many of his beliefs illogical, while others intentionally misled facts.
Yet, to celebrate the death of a person, even one with a potentially bigoted and discriminatory perspective, means to succumb to indifference. And while most people have been respectful, there have been far too many who saw Kirk’s death as karma.
To show empathy means to embrace humanity – all of it. Empathy doesn’t require revising history to portray Kirk as a true champion of American values. It doesn’t even mean respecting Kirk. Having empathy – rejecting indifference – does, however, require denouncing the murder of a human being, one who left behind a young family. In that light, far too many people have been far too selective with their outrage.
That goes for those on social media celebrating his assassination as him “getting what he deserved.” It also goes for those on the right who immediately jumped to conclusions, including the president, whose address blamed the “radical left.”
Granted, following his assassination, prominent voices across the political spectrum – from friends of Kirk to Ezra Klein – expressed horror at political violence. People like Rep. Ronny Jackson contended that Kirk, who devoted his time to trying to mold young minds, was slain while extending his hand to opposing points of view. Jackson wrote, “Kirk believed in open debate and honest conversation.” Irrespective of how one viewed Kirk’s true motives, his death demonstrates a tragic reality about the state of discourse – civil or otherwise – in America. For the reasons expounded upon above, though, I think that particular reading of Kirk’s actions is generous and elevates his work to a higher status than perhaps deserved.
Similarly deserving of critique are those making profound statements against political violence in the wake of Kirk’s death, whose voices were quiet following the assassination of two Minnesota Democrats, including Speaker Hortman. Not the least of whom is President Trump, who ordered flags at half-mast for Kirk but not Hortman.
It is worth noting that, following Hortman’s death, Republicans and Democrats unanimously voted to condemn political violence; 58 Democrats voted against a resolution that both condemned violence and honored Kirk. Now, obviously, that second clause is complicated given Kirk’s rhetoric. But Republicans have used that resolution to demonstrate a lack of empathy from the left. And while it’s a little misleading, they’re not entirely wrong. There is no picking and choosing who to care about.
This disease of indifference has spread to more than just human life though. There exists the same apathy towards unity.
To hear Rep. Nancy Mace blame Democrats or the President demonize the “radical left” for Kirk’s death before a suspect was in custody is precisely the opposite of empathy. Rather than unify in our collective humanity, Fox News host Jesse Waters decried “they are at war with us.”
Who is “they”? I don’t know. But to immediately declare enemies is hardly empathetic.
This general apathy was best on display when Trump went on Fox & Friends. When asked how he could help the country come together, Trump delivered a four-word plug for the disease of indifference: “I couldn’t care less.”
The politics of the Trump era have been a politics of indifference. Rather than lead with empathy, connecting with the good in people and working to help them, this administration is indifferent and apathetic towards those who need it. That doesn’t mean being weak. But empathy requires seeking out the best in people where we – and this administration – are far too concerned with finding the worst.
Perhaps it’s comforting to know that in times as tumultuous as these, indifference is both global and apolitical. Indifference wins when Russia continues its campaign into Ukraine. Indifference wins when the Israeli government inflicts pain and suffering en masse to already suffering Palestinians. Indifference wins when the world rewards Hamas for its terrorist attack. Indifference wins when Republicans assume Democrats are behind a senseless killing with no information to prove it. Indifference wins when people celebrate the death of Charlie Kirk as an act of retribution.
I suppose all of this is to say: the disease of indifference is winning. It’s contagious. And it could spell the end of a good thing. Yet, widespread cultural indifference doesn’t excuse individual indifference.
Ultimately, empathy is not a contract. Yes, it should be a two-way street; it should be mutual. But we must not predicate our own empathy on reciprocity.
The measure of a good person isn’t to respond in-kind, but to respond by being kind. And perhaps the remedy to indifference begins with more people embracing that challenge.
The image featured in this article is licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license. No changes were made to the original image, which can be found here.