Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Loneliness, Gun Violence, and the American Abdication

Opinion

Loneliness, Gun Violence, and the American Abdication

Loneliness and gun violence are twin crises eroding America’s social fabric. Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson explores how isolation, easy access to firearms, and political paralysis threaten life, liberty, and belonging.

Getty Images, Tetra Images

We are a nation unmoored from itself, where loneliness spreads faster than any virus and gun violence stalks our communities with metronomic certainty. The numbers, at this point, are almost numbing. But the ache they represent is not.

Loneliness is an epidemic. Once considered a private crisis, loneliness has metastasized into a public health catastrophe. Former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy believed loneliness "as dangerous as smoking fifteen cigarettes a day." We keep scrolling, liking, streaming, and yet so many of us are left feeling profoundly alone. Aloneness is not simply a byproduct of excessive technology or social media engagement, though these play their part. Unfortunately, Americans worship individualism, giving way to the fraying of communal threads. To paraphrase my friend, Eric Liu, executive leader of Citizen University, we are witnessing the fading of shared spaces and the thinning of civic ties and bonds of mutual affection. Thus, as we drift apart, violence fills the space more and more.


Gun violence in America is no longer an aberration—it's an ambient fact of life. Mass shootings title headlines, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Every day, guns claim the lives of nearly 130 people in the U.S., many by their own hand. Suicides account for a significant number of all deaths by firearms. These same instruments, revered as a symbol of liberty, are for thousands the tool of self-harm.

Loneliness and gun violence are twin symptoms of a deeper malaise. When people feel unseen, unheard, and undervalued, the risk of self-harm and violence against others grows. What's more, the easy access to firearms transforms fleeting moments of pain into permanent tragedy.

So, where, in our so-called democracy, is the response? Here is where the American project falters most conspicuously. We like to believe that ours is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." Yet, on issues that cut closest to the bone—mental health, gun safety, the basic architecture of belonging—our representatives seem frozen in amber. Poll after poll shows broad popular support for reasonable gun laws, for expanded mental health care, for robust investment in community life. And yet, the legislative gears grind to a halt, jammed by monetary debates, polarization, and a kind of learned helplessness.

The result is a country that professes inalienable rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—but fails to secure them for millions. If suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in the U.S., if gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and teens, if loneliness is eroding our lifespans, what does it mean to say we are free? What is the value of liberty in a society where so many are left unprotected from despair and violence?

There's a word for this kind of impotence: abdication. It is not, as some would like to pretend, merely a matter of "gridlock" or "partisan bickering." It is a choice—a refusal to wield the tools of democracy to secure “the good life” for all. The failure of policy does not just evidence abdication; it reveals a lack of imagination and a diminished sense of what is possible and promised. We should not allow ourselves to become hostage to this reality. The American story, at its best, is one of collective resolve and willingness to look honestly at our brokenness, while daring to build.

First, we must refuse to accept loneliness as a private problem. It is a civic emergency, and it demands civic solutions. That means rebuilding the public square—not just metaphorically but literally. Invest in libraries, parks, community centers, and transit. Support organizations that foster connection, not just consumption. Reclaim the idea that the government can be an engine of belonging, not just an administrator of transactions.

Second, we must treat gun violence as a public health crisis, not a partisan wedge. That means universal background checks, safe storage laws, red flag policies, and restrictions on weapons of war—the basics, supported by the vast majority of Americans. However, it also means investing in upstream solutions, such as accessible mental health care, trauma-informed education, and economic policies that reduce desperation and isolation.

Third, we must demand more of our representatives—and of ourselves. Democracy is not a spectator sport. If those in power refuse to act, we must make it impossible for them to do otherwise. That means organizing, voting, protesting, and running for office. But it also means practicing democracy in our daily lives: showing up for neighbors, joining local boards, and breaking bread with those unlike ourselves.

Above all, we must reclaim a sense of agency—not just as individuals but as a nation. The sovereignty of civil society is not a given; it is something we must continually assert, defend, and renew. It requires that we see one another, not as threats or strangers, but as fellow travelers, bound together by fate and choice.

We are a country where the right to life, liberty, and happiness is more than a slogan. Where loneliness is not a death sentence, and where our democracy is measured not by its promises but by its practices. A nation that is honest about its failures. Audacious in our hopes. A society learning and yearning to belong to one another. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less