The problem is not that we have somehow become a nation of losers. That would be an easy, superficial explanation that shifts all the blame onto individuals. The real issue is far more profound: society itself has changed, and not for the better. What truly defines our age is not the existence of power, inequality, or injustice—those have always been part of human history—but the gradual disappearance of collective outrage.
We live in a time when almost nothing is capable of shocking us anymore. Every event is consumed within hours before being replaced by the next headline. Outrage has become a short-lived emotion, rarely evolving into civic engagement or meaningful political action.
Meanwhile, politics increasingly resembles a mathematical exercise. Polls, algorithms, electoral marketing, statistical models, and voter segmentation have largely replaced long-term vision and political ideals. Managing public opinion has become more important than pursuing the common good. Decisions often appear to emerge from tightly connected networks of political, economic, and bureaucratic interests, while most citizens remain passive spectators.
More than a century ago, Alexis de Tocqueville warned about this danger. In his study of modern democracy, he argued that the greatest threat was not necessarily authoritarian government but excessive individualism. When citizens retreat into their private lives and abandon public affairs, political power naturally becomes concentrated in the hands of a few. Freedom is not always taken away; sometimes it simply ceases to be exercised.
A similar concern can be found in the work of José Ortega y Gasset. In The Revolt of the Masses, he described the emergence of the "mass man"—an individual who demands rights while avoiding responsibilities, who follows prevailing trends instead of developing independent judgment. Such a society becomes increasingly vulnerable to manipulation because critical thinking gradually gives way to conformity.
The reflections of Hannah Arendt are perhaps even more relevant today. Arendt argued that genuine politics exists only when citizens actively participate in the public sphere. Freedom is not merely the absence of oppression or the ability to cast a vote every few years; it is the capacity to act together, deliberate, and assume responsibility for the community. When isolation and passivity prevail, democracy may retain its institutions while steadily losing its democratic spirit.
From a psychological perspective, Gustave Le Bon demonstrated how crowds can be shaped by emotion and suggestion. Yet today's phenomenon is somewhat different. Rather than emotionally driven crowds gathering in public squares, we increasingly encounter isolated individuals connected through digital platforms—people who react instantly, express fleeting outrage online, and then quickly move on without creating lasting forms of civic participation.
These ideas are complemented by the elite theory developed by Gaetano Mosca. Mosca argued that every society, regardless of its political system, is governed by an organized minority. The difference between a healthy democracy and a declining one is not the absence of elites, but whether those elites remain accountable to vigilant citizens and robust institutions. When the majority becomes indifferent, organized minorities inevitably accumulate greater influence.
Likewise, Antonio Gramsci emphasized that power depends not only on coercion but also on cultural hegemony. Those who shape what society considers normal, acceptable, or even worthy of attention exercise a subtle yet extraordinarily effective form of power. Indifference rarely emerges on its own; it is often cultivated within a cultural environment where everything appears inevitable and nothing seems worth challenging.
The work of Zygmunt Bauman offers another important perspective. In what he called "liquid modernity," relationships become fragile, commitments temporary, and identities increasingly unstable. Political participation follows the same pattern: people mobilize for a few days, sign an online petition, share a post, and then move on. Commitment dissolves as quickly as it appears.
Finally, Erich Fromm argued that modern individuals often seek refuge in conformity to escape the burden of freedom. Genuine freedom requires responsibility, courage, and the willingness to take a stand. Many people find it easier to blend into the crowd and allow others to make decisions on their behalf.
Perhaps this is the defining feature of our era. We are not necessarily living under a more oppressive political system than previous generations. Rather, we are living in a society where an increasing number of citizens have voluntarily withdrawn from public life. They observe, consume information, comment, and complain—but rarely organize, participate, or assume responsibility for the common good.
History reminds us that democracies do not collapse only through coups or revolutions. They can also erode gradually through everyday indifference. When citizens stop viewing public life as a shared responsibility, power encounters fewer obstacles, less scrutiny, and weaker accountability.
The central question, then, is not whether we have become weaker as individuals. The real question is whether we are forgetting that democracy survives only as long as citizens are willing to participate, dissent, hold power accountable, and protect the common good. Once that civic spirit disappears, what remains is no longer a true political community, but a passive multitude grazing quietly while others decide its future.
