A Bit of Charity

Originally Published in the Kansas Government Journal – November 2024

If you were to read, Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman, you might assume the book is a recent publication. Consider this excerpt: “[The goal of modern society is] constant stimulation through variety, novelty, action, and movement. You are required to pay attention to no concept, no character, and no problem for more than a few seconds at a time.”  Although Postman’s comment strikes a deep nerve today, he published his famous book nearly 40 years ago, in 1985.

The constant glow and distraction of smartphones can dull the senses to what is actually happening around us. It distracts us from times of quiet and reflection, while steering us away from the meaningful connections that are so critical to a well-functioning society. Increasingly, online clickbait emphasizes differences and divides us.[1] As Stevie Nicks recently put it, “Get off the internet, and you won’t have rivals.”[2] A screen-based society has clear negatives in how we speak, act, and relate to others, so it is only natural to consider the consequences of our technology-driven, modern world.

Postman’s observations led me to think about Benjamin Franklin and societal values. In his autobiography, Franklin outlined thirteen virtues he sought to acquire, like moderation, tranquility, and humility—virtues that promote character rather than the instant gratification that modern values promote.

While discussing Amusing Ourselves at work years ago, I asked my colleagues what they thought society valued most. "Wealth!" "Beauty!" "Youth!" were among the top answers, with the common theme of individualism. While I was chewing on these modern values in relation to Franklin’s list, a line kept running through my head from another significant leader, Abraham Lincoln: “Malice toward none with charity for all.”

Charity, in Lincoln’s sense, is something more than donating to nonprofits and good causes. The word is rich in its meaning and even richer in its role for a well-functioning society. The very roots of the word carry ideas like “esteem and affection” or “love of others.” It is an ideal that is vital to a healthy society, but one that seems increasingly scarce in our polarized political culture.

True charity challenges us to limit judgmental thinking, especially when confronted by anger or cynicism. Theodore Roosevelt famously addressed this idea in his “Man in the Arena” speech, warning that “the poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer.” In today's climate of suspicion and quick judgment, we should guard against becoming cynical leaders or citizens—never developing a “sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty.” To embrace charity in place of malice is not a call to naïveté, but a deliberate choice to believe the best about others, even when our initial reaction is to think the worst.

This lesson is one I have worked hard to teach my middle-school daughters. Middle school may be one of the most challenging stages of growing up and navigating social interactions. At that age, even off-hand comments can feel like insults, so I try to guide them toward charity as the antidote.

A couple of years ago, I read them a modern translation of Enchiridion[3] by Epictetus, which is a handbook of stoicism. The book is a series of proverbs, and I would read a few and then we would discuss the materials. One that stood out went like this:

“If someone in the street were entrusted with your body, you would be furious. Yet you entrust your mind to anyone around who happens to insult you and allow it to be troubled and confused. Aren’t you ashamed of that?”[4]

So much of a screen-based society bombards us with angry and combative language. We may have limitations on our control over what others say and do, but we always have control over how we respond. And these are the occasions when charity is most critical.

In politics, charity may seem even more challenging, where quick assumptions about motives often drive discussions.[5] People often ask how I can be a part of a political environment that so often brings out the worst in people, and charity is one element of the answer. It is not that I function without cynicism or naivety about the process, but I am keenly aware that the times when government has demonstrated that which is “great and lofty,” it has been when our leaders have demonstrated the virtues that may seem outdated, with charity being at the forefront. Choosing charity is a step toward shaping our words and actions with generosity rather than suspicion.  

For those in positions of leadership, there is always an opportunity to make incremental improvements. This step happens individually first and organizationally second. When anger is met with anger, it only doubles; but when met with charity and a calm head, the result is something far better. Virtues like charity are essential for improving public discourse (and generally living a happier, less cynical life). And if the advice of thinkers like Franklin and Epictetus is too aspirational or the wisdom of Lincoln and Roosevelt too removed from today’s challenges, there is always the guidance from a rockstar: yesterday’s gone, but—with a bit of charity—tomorrow can be better than before.

Footnotes

[1] Yang, John, Kaisha Young, and Veronica Vela. "How a Small but Vocal Minority of Social Media Users Distort Reality and Sow Division." PBS NewsHour, Oct 27, 2024. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-a-small-but-vocal-minority-of-social-media-users-distort-reality-and-sow-division.

[2] Angie Martoccio, “Stevie Nicks: ‘I Believe in the Church of Stevie,’” Rolling Stone, October 24, 2024, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/stevie-nicks-fleetwood-mac-kamala-harris-new-music-1235140437/.

[3] Epictetus. How to Be Free: An Ancient Guide to the Stoic Life. Translated by Anthony Long. New York: HarperOne, 2018.

[4] Id. at 43.

[5] Reeder, G. D., & Trafimow, D. (2005). Attributing Motives to Other People. In B. F. Malle & S. D. Hodges (Eds.), Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others (pp. 106–123). The Guilford Press. Alarmingly, we tend to project our own understanding of events while being slow to appreciate the limits of other people’s perspectives.