The Erosion of Compassion
How We Lost Our Way and How We Can Find It Again
I’m sure this isn’t news to you, but over the last decade, public discourse has devolved in ways that seemed unfathomable in 2014. Conversations have grown increasingly coarse, reactions more visceral, and our capacity for understanding one another has dramatically diminished. Civil dialogue has been replaced by hostile exchanges marked by knee-jerk reactions and condemnation, leaving little room for thoughtful engagement or genuine connection.
In my upcoming book, The Case for Compassion, I delve into this disturbing trend. Our society has shifted away from understanding and tolerance, moving instead toward a fractured reality where opposing perspectives are not merely dismissed but often vilified. This breakdown in meaningful communication cuts to the core of our shared humanity, and diminishes each of us as humans.
The Architecture of Division
The modern outrage machine, powered by social media algorithms and legacy cable news networks, has created an ecosystem where anger and division thrive. We've developed sophisticated tools for communication, yet paradoxically, we've never been more disconnected from each other. Behind computer screens, people feel emboldened to express the worst of human nature, often forgetting there's a real person on the receiving end of their words.
What's particularly alarming is how this degradation operates at multiple levels:
Societally: We've normalized the demonization of those who think differently, treating ideological opponents as enemies rather than fellow citizens with different perspectives.
Communally: Certain groups find themselves targeted and vilified, their humanity reduced to caricatures that fit neatly into predetermined narratives.
Individually: People are increasingly hardened, depressed, and hopeless, as reflected in rising suicide rates and mental health challenges.
The Leadership Vacuum
The Bible presents a clear leadership paradigm through many of its central figures. Moses led through humility, mediating between God and his people. Solomon exemplified wisdom, seeking understanding before judgment. David, despite his flaws, showed remorse and the capacity for change. Throughout scripture, effective leadership is dependent on character. True leaders demonstrate wisdom in decision-making, compassion for the vulnerable, and the ability to unite diverse groups under a common purpose.
Contemporary versions of “leadership” stand in stark contrast to these biblical principles. Where Moses descended from the mountain to intercede for his people, today's leaders often remain on top of the mountain, stoking divisions from above. While Solomon sought wisdom to serve his people justly, some modern politicians prioritize winning arguments over solving problems. Instead of David's humility in accepting correction, we see defensive posturing and an utter inability to acknowledge mistakes.
This departure from biblical leadership principles has transformed governance from a sacred trust into a tactical game. Modern leaders often adopt what I call a "pugilistic approach" – treating every interaction as a fight to be won rather than an opportunity to serve. They weaponize disagreement, turning natural political differences into unbridgeable chasms. This behavior directly contradicts the biblical model where leadership is fundamentally about service, unity, and the collective good.
The consequences of this leadership failure extend far beyond politics. When leaders abandon wisdom and compassion for tactical advantage, they eat away at the very fabric of society. They model behavior that validates our worst instincts rather than inspiring our highest ideals. The result is a culture where division is celebrated, compromise is seen as weakness, and the biblical virtues of humility and servant leadership are dismissed as naive.
The Echo Chamber Effect
The transformation of social media from connective tissue to divisive force represents one of the most significant cultural shifts in modern history. What began as platforms for sharing family photos and reconnecting with old friends has evolved into sophisticated opinion-reinforcement mechanisms. These platforms don't just reflect our biases – they amplify them through complex algorithms designed to maximize platform engagement rather than understanding each other.
Consider the mechanics of this digital isolation: Each like, share, and comment shapes an increasingly narrow worldview. The algorithms, functioning as invisible curators, systematically remove opposing viewpoints from our feeds, creating an artificial reality where everyone appears to think as we do. This manufactured consensus creates a false sense of moral and intellectual superiority. When 98% of our digital interactions confirm our existing beliefs, the remaining 2% of opposing views don't just seem wrong – they appear incomprehensible.
The consequences extend far beyond online behavior. This digital tribalism fundamentally alters how we process information and relate to others:
We lose the ability to engage in substantive debate, as we've forgotten how to encounter disagreement without experiencing it as a personal attack
Our capacity for nuanced thinking atrophies, replaced by binary, us-versus-them mentalities
The skill of charitable interpretation – assuming good faith in those who disagree – diminishes
Our emotional bandwidth for handling different viewpoints narrows, leading to heightened anxiety when confronted with opposing views
Most troubling is how this digital architecture affects our capacity for empathy. When we only encounter carefully curated versions of reality, we lose the essential skill of recognizing humanity in those who think differently. The person who disagrees becomes an avatar of wrongness rather than a human being shaped by their own experiences and struggles.
This choreographed isolation represents a significant break from historical patterns of human interaction. Traditional communities, despite their limitations, were forced to engage with diverse viewpoints through physical proximity. The local diner, town hall, or church gathering naturally brought together people of varying perspectives. While these interactions weren't always comfortable, they maintained our collective ability to see beyond ideological differences to our shared humanity.
The Paradox of American Individualism
The American ethos of individualism represents one of history's most successful experiments in human organization and achievement. The founders envisioned a society where individual liberty and communal responsibility worked in concert – where personal achievement lifted all boats. This vision produced remarkable results.
Today, this founding principle has mutated. The modern interpretation of individualism has been stripped of its context, retaining the form while abandoning the substance.
The Historical Context
The original American individualist ethos operated within a framework of mutual support:
Barn-raising communities where independent farmers gathered to help neighbors
Church congregations that supported members through hardship
Local business owners who understood their prosperity depended on community wellbeing
Civic organizations that channeled individual success into collective improvement
The Modern Distortion
Today's twisted version of individualism manifests as:
The elevation of personal convenience over community responsibility
The reframing of basic civic duty as an unwarranted imposition
The celebration of wealth accumulation divorced from social contribution
The interpretation of any collective action as an assault on individual rights
In the name of protecting individual freedom, we've sacrificed the very social bonds that make meaningful freedom possible. The rugged individualist who built a homestead relied on neighbors for survival. The entrepreneur who built a business needed an educated workforce, reliable infrastructure, and stable markets – all products of collective investment and shared sacrifice.
The Casualties of Misinterpreted Individualism
This warped individualism exacts a toll:
Community institutions decay as participation is seen as optional rather than essential
Public discourse deteriorates when every issue is filtered through the lens of personal impact rather than the common good
Social trust erodes as collective challenges are reframed as individual responsibilities
Empathy diminishes when suffering is attributed solely to personal failure rather than systemic causes
The founders understood that liberty without responsibility becomes license – that individual rights flourish only when balanced with civic duty. Jefferson didn't envision a nation of isolated consumers but of engaged citizens. Franklin's famous "join or die" cartoon wasn't just revolutionary propaganda, it expressed a fundamental truth about human society: we survive and thrive together.
The founders pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" not to create a nation of isolated individuals but to forge a society where personal liberty and common good reinforce each other. Reclaiming this vision isn't just about preserving our past – it's essential for navigating our future.
A Path Forward
The erosion of compassion in our society may have been a gradual process, but its restoration begins with a deliberate decision to act with compassion in our daily lives. Compassion isn’t a passive emotion. It’s an active, transformative force. History shows us the profound strength of compassion when it is practiced intentionally. Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mother Teresa demonstrated how compassion, expressed through action, can heal divides and inspire lasting change.
To find our way back, we must first break the cycle of reaction and retribution that dominates our discourse. Compassion creates the space for understanding, even in the face of anger, fear, or disagreement. It doesn’t mean abandoning our principles but instead acknowledging the humanity in those we oppose.
Behind every viewpoint is a person shaped by their unique experiences, struggles, and hopes.
The path forward begins with the intentional choice to listen to someone whose perspective challenges us, pausing before reacting to inflammatory comments, and seeking to understand rather than to judge. These simple acts may seem insignificant, but they accumulate, creating a ripple effect that fosters genuine connection and understanding.
At the community level, this means supporting spaces and institutions that encourage dialogue, celebrating leaders who model compassion, and rejecting the cynicism that divides us. It means fostering environments where people feel safe to have difficult conversations without fear of judgment or hostility. Compassionate engagement doesn’t weaken our convictions—it strengthens the bonds that hold us together as a society.
Choosing compassion requires the courage to remain open when it’s easier to shut down, to believe in the potential for good even when evidence of failure is all around us, and to prioritize understanding over judgment. But in making this choice, we find a sustainable path forward that preserves both our principles and our humanity.
As we stand at this crossroads, the choice is ours. We can continue down the path of division, or we can choose to restore compassion as the foundation of our interactions. Through acts of understanding, persistent efforts to connect, and a commitment to seeing the humanity in others, we can begin to repair the fabric of our shared life.
The way back to a connected and compassionate society starts with each of us—our next conversation, our next decision, our next act of kindness. Though the journey may be challenging, it is the clearest and most hopeful path toward the society we aspire to build. The choice is ours, and the time to act is now.
This piece is adapted from the upcoming book "The Case for Compassion," exploring how we can rebuild bridges in an age of division.