What Now? From Empathy To Action

“What shall I do now? What shall I do?”/I shall rush out as I am, and walk the street/”With my hair down, so. What shall we do to-morrow?/“What shall we ever do?”

The words are from T.S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland,” published exactly one century ago, when they haunted a world shaken by a barbaric, convulsive war that had upended all received notions of a post-Enlightenment humanity embedded firmly in reason and aiming toward limitless progress and the common good.

The fact that a second, even more destructive and demonic war engulfed the world not even two decades later simply added to the tone of desperation and floundering Eliot had noted.

Today, the same questions are being asked by an almost equally shell-shocked American population, hard off the latest mass slaughter of innocents by a malformed 18-year-old youth armed with weapons of war.

And the question haunts: “What shall we do now?”


William Blake, “The Good and Evil Angels Struggling for Possession of a Child” (circa 1793-94)


Back in 1782, another poet, the rapturous, mystically inclined William Blake, wrote movingly about empathy in “On Another’s Sorrow.” In it, he makes a powerful case for empathy as a defining human characteristic that is vital and necessary precisely because it so closely mirrors the premier attributes of what he conceived as God.

Blake begins with these two stanzas, asking rhetorically whether it is even possible for humans not to be moved by another’s woe:

Can I see another’s woe,
And not be in sorrow too?
Can I see another’s grief,
And not seek for kind relief?

Can I see a falling tear,
And not feel my sorrow’s share?
Can a father see his child
Weep, nor be with sorrow filled?

Similarly themed questions follow, and then he closes, ardent believer that he was, with his description of the same empathy, sanctified by God him/herself and bestowed as a gift to all humanity:

Think not thou canst sigh a sigh,
And thy Maker is not by:
Think not thou canst weep a tear,
And thy Maker is not near.

O He gives to us His joy,
That our grief He may destroy:
Till our grief is fled and gone
He doth sit by us and moan.

Truly, we can be of little use to anyone in their time of need without the empathy that helps us identify with them as a fellow member of the human family, their suffering reflective of our own. But it is also true, in a way that Blake did not reference in this poem, that absent some impediment, empathy cannot just sit there inert, bathed only in kind words but no corresponding action to help relieve another’s suffering.

Sometimes, we can but weep by someone’s side, holding their hand in our own, and it must be enough, because it is all we can do. 

Other times, empathy is the prerequisite to specific actions we can and, I would submit, must take, as a moral imperative to forestall further suffering.

The difference lies in our ability to do something beyond uttering soothing words. If we do have that ability but fail to act out of fear or far worse, simple self-interest, then our empathy is an empty hulk, a pose, not fit for authentic human relations.

And it is these recent instances of mass shootings that point to a monstrous absence of true empathy on the part of legislators who know all too well the cost of their inaction, but accept it anyway because they fear the wrath of the NRA, or fellow legislators, or the small faction of voters who hold the most extreme views on gun rights.

I need not recite here the abhorrent statistics of gun ownership in the United States, which correlate perfectly with by far the highest rate of deaths by firearm of any nation in the developed world.

The data alone, much less the heartbreaking personal stories of family survivors, cry out for some type of meaningful, commonsense action to quell the continued slaughter of children and the adults who often die trying to protect them.

(And yes, sometimes it is adults who are specifically targeted, especially if they are black, or brown, or Asian. Sometimes, race is central to a shooter’s motivation; other times, mere mayhem is…)

What do we get instead from one of our two major political parties?

Complete stonewalling of virtually every gun safety proposal, no matter how minor, over decades now, along with repeated offerings of “thoughts and prayers” after every instance of carnage.

Also: recent suggestions from the likes of the Texas governor and the disgraced former president that we “harden the targets,” i.e. make schools into virtual fortresses, while also arming teachers with firearms so they presumably can trade shots with homegrown terrorists wearing body armor and firing away with assault rifles.


What are we to make of such people? What are we to make of the gun fetishism they proudly exhibit, their virtual worship of firearms as sacred talismans? Senator Ted Cruz, House Member Marjorie Taylor Greene and many others of their ilk practice fetishism as a standard part of their repertoire, Cruz jauntily frying bacon on his machine gun as he fires it at a shooting range, Greene in a campaign ad holding an assault rifle pointing to photos of her congressional counterparts.

It is hard to imagine the hard-heartedness it requires to make a jokey fetish of lethal firearms used in most all of our now long litany of slaughters that have left families devastated and broken and a part of the nation’s own spirit and heart broken along with them.

Even at the level of fundamental, basic human decency, doesn’t Cruz realize how offensive and hurtful his seeming worship of lethal firearms is to families in Uvalde, Chicago, Laguna Woods, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Sacramento, just to name the last six mass shootings that involved loss of life since April 3? If he doesn’t realize it, he is appallingly absent a moral compass. If he does realize it, he is all the more contemptible for his cruelty.

And that’s not even to mention his and his cohort’s wanton bastardization of the Second Amendment’s avowal of gun rights for a “well-regulated militia.”

What exactly was “well-regulated” about Salvador Ramos’s purchase of military grade weapons last week? Had we somehow all missed his appointment to the Texas State Militia?

Had he undergone a comprehensive background check? Waiting period? Mandatory firearms training? Ammo limitation? Prohibition on open carry?

No. No. No. No. No.

And the Senate will not move on any of these matters to help prevent or at least minimize the inevitable next slaughter? Why?

Because it lacks the numbers to overcome the equally inevitable filibuster on every one of them.

That is the fact of the matter, and every senator hewing to the minority leader’s decades-long stonewalling in obedience to the minority faction of his minority party that opposes any and all gun safety legislation is failing to do anything to right a grievous wrong, failing in the most basic test of empathy that defines us as human.


Luca Giordano, “The Good Samaritan” (1650)


“And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’  He said to him, ‘What is written in the Law? How do you read it?’ And he answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.’ And he said to him, ‘You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.’

“But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’ Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘You go, and do likewise.’”

Which of these, indeed. These were not hard questions Jesus asked. Nothing counter-intuitive designed to shake listeners out of their normal consciousness and behold the creation and their place in it in a new way.

Far more basic and direct than that: You see a person suffering, you stop, you look to help.

Words first: “I’m so sorry.”

Followed by, “What can I do to help?”

And then you act.

Today, all of us common citizens can vote, can write, can march, can cry out and implore, but right now, in these coming days and weeks and months and (let us hope not) years, our legislators at all levels of government have the power to enact meaningful measures to help curtail gun violence in this country.

And almost as important, to signal that they care by being committed to doing, not just talking.

Will they be up to it?

And if not, what are all the rest of us to do?



Check out this blog’s public page on Facebook for 1-minute snippets of wisdom and other musings from the world’s great thinkers and artists, accompanied by lovely photography.

Deep appreciation to the photographers! Unless otherwise stated, some rights reserved under Creative Commons licensing.

Elizabeth Haslam, whose photos (except for the books) grace the rotating banner at top of page.

Library books photo by Larry Rose, all rights reserved, contact: larry@rosefoto.com

Hand-in-hand by NJ-foto  https://www.flickr.com/photos/25218490@N06/

William Blake painting, “The Good and Evil Angels Struggling for Possession of a Child,” from the public domain

Father and son by Squiggle  https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenr/

Gun fetish art from the public domain

“The Good Samaritan” painting by Luca Giordano, from the permanent collection at the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Paris

6 comments to What Now? From Empathy To Action

  • Jamie Marron  says:

    Superb and illuminating. Gratitude for it especially when anything that gives direction and/or balm to all this horror and sorrow is so needed.

    • Andrew Hidas  says:

      Hesitated to address all this, but finally succumbed to my need to work out some of my own horror and sorrow, Jamie. Thanks for coming along with me…

  • Mary  says:

    Horror, sorrow and RAGE. Rage at the waste, the twisting lies, the smoke and mirrors. I loved this country with all my heart, and it is dying in front of my eyes. We are being betrayed in broad daylight, every day.

    WHAT CAN WE DO? Voting is an obvious step, but change through that avenue, though laudable, is slow, so slow. Are we to batten down the understaffed grocery stores and arm the overworked clerks, too?!

    How many deaths will it take til we know
    That too many people have died?

    • Andrew Hidas  says:

      Mary, you put your finger on the complete absurdity of the “harden the targets” approach. As if there isn’t a nearly infinite number of “soft targets” anyone with a weapon and a mental disorder couldn’t just migrate to next. Change the venue, but the slaughter continues, big whoop…

      It’s hard not to give in to despair. I hear it in people’s weary voices, frowns, slow shaking of their heads; words almost failing, shoulders finally shrugging. Feel much of the same myself, and then I remember how useless despair is. What kind of country do we want? An impressive number of polls tell us not this kind, but that relative consensus on gun laws has to result in votes to oust the people squashing any possibiity of change. Otherwise, we have met the enemy, and it is us…

  • Robert Spencer  says:

    Drew, you “HIT THE TARGET” on this blog. Mary’s observation that the America she has loved is now being destroyed before her very eyes unfortunately reeks of the truth. Last week, just after the Uvalde shooting, I emailed you my poem “It’s Gonna Take More Than a Prayer”. I wrote it four years ago following the slaughter in Parkland, Florida. I was angry and disheartened then, and now I’m even more so. I’m not holding out much hope for any meaningful legislation, either. Once the dust has settled, the soulless Republican elephants will stomp their feet, bellow defiantly, walk trunk-to-tail (nose-to-ass) on that all too familiar path. You would think at some point at least one in the herd would ask, “Hey, guys, why don’t we try a new path? One that is less taken. It might make all the difference.” However, I’m not holding my breath. Finally, piggybacking on Blake’s “The Good and Evil Angels Struggling for Possession of a Child”, take a look at Rubens’ painting “The Massacre of the Innocents”. It depicts stunned and screaming mothers futilely attempting to protect their babies from the spears of Herod’s soldiers. If Rubens was alive today, he would simply replace Herod’s soldiers and their spears with Republican politicians caressing assault rifles. To the Republican Party, Columbine and Sandy Hook and Parkland and Uvalde are mere dots on a map and nothing more.

    • Andrew Hidas  says:

      I know, it’s hard to be optimistic about the prospects for meaningful reform, Robert. I find myself alternating between “Are you kidding?” and “Well, we gotta start somewhere…” For an example of the latter, I’d cite the seeming eternally practical/optimistic Nicholas Kristof in the NYT last week, outlining several key and what he considers achievable small bites on the gun safety issue, as a prelude, hopefully, to more down the road. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/opinion/texas-shooting-gun-control.html
      On the opposite end, his colleague Michele Goldberg last week, who sounded dire warnings about not only intransigence on the part of the gun lobby, but about preparations/readiness on its fringes for all-out civil war, almost to the point where they are relishing the prospect. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/opinion/uvalde-shooting.html

      Meanwhile, I’m maintaining a “Believe it when I see it” approach to the prospect of sincere Republican cooperation on even tiny measures to allay this public health epidemic, and am particularly dispirited when I read that any sort of reform on the purchase of assault weapons is a non-starter from the Republican side. It is truly a morally indefensible position, no matter what kind of Second-Amendment-individual-rights mumbo-jumbo they wrap it in.

Leave a Reply