About Apathy

“Trump really isn’t effecting me, so I don’t really care about 2020”

This is something I heard from multiple people last week whilst out at bars in Milwaukee. Many folks, without provocation, shared the sentiment that because Trump is not personally infringing on their rights, they are not passionate about our intellectual inquisition into our political climate. This apathetic opinion solely came from white folks, regardless of gender. I wonder about the geographic bounds of this apathy, about how far it stretches or its containment to white communities in the Midwest. It is interesting to think that Midwesterners would do this in a means of providing a nice, friendly society. But what are the costs and effects of subsuming oneself to a utilitarian means?

I was with my grandma and two cousins at the Brewer game and we were discussing our various college graduation ceremonies. My cousin was telling us about the student speaker at his graduation who gave a politically charged speech. I did not inquire about whether it was progressive or conservative, but my grandma quickly retorted, “That is NOT the time and place for politics! I don’t like that!” I chuckled and said, “well, my whole graduation ceremony was politically charged, spanning from the Dean’s opening remarks, to the student speaker, to the faculty speaker, and ending with the Dean’s closing remarks.” She goes, having not attended my ceremony, “I would not have liked that.”

This conversation occurred at the end of a week where I asked questions to friends, family, and strangers about whether or not politics is a thing folks discuss in their past times. The answer across the board was a resounding, “NO!” As I understand it, the risk is that because of the varying political views across the board, folks do not want to upset a stranger about a political difference. Most of the time on the East Coast, I find myself discussing politics shamelessly and without fear of arguing over a political difference, not only because most of my interactions are with the same political mindset as mine, but also, I simply don’t care if we differ. So what? Won’t discussing our differences illuminate each other to a varying and potentially important opinion?

This used to not bother me, until my cousin mentioned the observation of the geographic center’s laissez-faire attitude about politics. I am interested in examination the extension of the effects that politics has on culture–if Milwaukee had a more politically aggressive culture, not so worried on stepping on other’s toes, would culture potentially be more diverse? This is not necessarily an analysis about for whom Midwesterners will vote, but more so about how the monolithic nature of culture contributes to the political apathy of many Midwestern voters. I would like to make the conclusion that because of the lack of diversity in Milwaukee, the electorate is only faced with their own interests around election time. These interests are important, but are things that I believe would be addressed if we made policy initiative for the most marginalized intersectional folks of society.

Evident in the frequency with which I hear “gay” jokes, I find a prescient example in which marginalized communities do not only exist in the abstract for Midwesterners but are additionally created to be comedic form. Being cis-het, regardless of the fact that I’m a black woman, gives me an ear into the jokes about folks of different sexualities and gender constructions. I heard a ton of gay jokes in Milwaukee. Although it shouldn’t have been, it still felt surprising–about half the people I’m around identify as queer. No one is really joking about having a partner of the same sex because it really isn’t funny! It’s really just, life. The humor seemed more simple than offensive. Like, make a better joke?

This is all to say that the monolithic nature of culture in places with a dominated culture of whiteness, maleness, and heteronormativity leaves little room the prevalence of more intersectional identities. Thus, the culture remains dictated by folks who hold the majority percentage of demographics. It should not be surprising that any place in the US is dominated whiteness, maleness, and heteronormativity (obviously), but it feels different in the Midwest. The intersection of these three aforementioned identities have worked in a complex way to silence political discussion from even happening. In essence, whiteness, maleness, and heteronormativity is apathy. Apathy has come to define the general culture.

Many 2020 presidential hopefuls are attempting to tap into the “culture” or “interests” of white, working-class voters; this would make sense, as this is the demographic that largely supported Trump in 2016. I fear however, though, if my provocative inference is true, tapping into apathy is impossible, unless we force a conversation.

I refuse to stop at settling into an impossible-to-fix problem. This is why I think it is advantageous for safely-nestled intellectual thinkers make trips to the Midwest. A political leader cannot be trusted as the only way to garner attention towards East Coast interests. Milwaukeeans and other Midwesterners deserve to see and converse with the people who are directly affected by political interests.

I return here to a conversation I regularly have with my POC friends about where the burden of responsibility lies in the discussion of differently motivated interests that works for both Black and White folks. Whose responsibility is it to get to know the other? I would like to make the argument that because of the long history of emotional labor in which POC, and more specifically Black women, have had to engage, White people should bear the responsibility of reaching out to folks that are different than them. Unfortunately, I don’t trust that this can happen, only since it has not happened yet. Does this mean we are forced into trusting our political leaders in campaigning for our interests to an inherently apathetic group of people?

I raise a lot of broad, and possibly offensive claims here. I do this to interrogate a discussion that I anticipate is half-baked among the broad voting constituency in the Midwest. Personally, I am working hard to not think that apathy is a defining character flaw; rather, I am adjusting my thinking to believe in what alleviates apathy. This will be my next task in conversing with folks–what can compel empathy to eliminate apathy?