I’m not sure I’d characterize the election of officials through versions of a democratic process as ‘callous’ simply because the people who elected them disagreed with your triage of the issues.
There are other issues that were more prominent to them, and in a world where the highlight reel of the media — which yes, has negative money, and yes, which is trying to make money through it’s own sensationalism if only to stay afloat — is about terrorism, which at this time is predominantly through a particular religion (unfortunately)… well, let’s say that the worst thing that the Internet gave us was a flux in the business model of traditional media where selling advertising is no longer about profit but about staying alive.
So, really, media needs a business model that allows for journalistic integrity, to better inform a public — a basis of democracy that people have an odd tendency to overlook, instead worrying about the end result of the process and attempting to sway it through cocktail parties (Establishment) and being belligerent toward it (Authoritarian).
People want safety. They believe that they are unsafe, largely due to the evolutionary fact that people look at others unlike them and do not trust them as readily — particularly in a poor economy, where the job figures being presented leave much to be desired in the people who have stopped trying to find work.
The experience of at least many people — and by the election results, around 50% of the people — varies from that of the media and/or the establishment, where they vote otherwise and ‘callously’ are self-interested to the point where they say, “racism is not my primary concern”. Is that right? Well, that’s easy to spin either way, but it simply is what it is.
And for the record, the more vocal atheists tend to draw the cameras — so if you think all atheists you hear about are all shitbags, you’re following the cameras to the anti-theists.
‘bout what I have to say. Enjoy.