Just as these countries are being rent asunder by protests and demands for change, we have experienced growing wealth inequality and a wider income gap.

Our national unemployment rate continues to stay slightly below the 10 percent mark; Michigan clocks in a little bit above that (10.6 percent in December). Perhaps most importantly, food prices have risen dramatically within the past several months.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reported in early February world food prices had risen 3.4 percent from December 2010 to January 2011 — the highest jump since the index began tracking prices in 1990.

Rising food prices are certainly something we can relate to in the U.S. It might seem silly, but the reality of rising prices didn’t hit me until I realized I was paying $1.19 for a soft taco at Taco Bell.

Not too long ago, they cost less than 90 cents. Never thought fast food would make me have an epiphany.

If we in the West are affected just as strongly as everyone else in the world, it would seem reasonable to conclude we would be experiencing some kind of similar popular backlash against the large interests controlling our government.

After all, we live in a republic — our government is supposed to be receptive to the demands of the people, and we are supposed to be able to change it for the better.

But here in the U.S. not only have we seen a gradual rightward shift in who we’ve elected, but we also have seen the emergence of a movement whose members make it loudly known they support the economic and social system that is harming them.

Groups such as the Tea Party call for cuts to government-run programs that by and large benefit most of their poor members, all the while advocating lower taxes for the rich, of which they are certainly not a part. The top 10 percent of those controlling the wealth don’t go out and protest; they convince the 90 percent to do it for them.

The cognitive dissonance implicit in these movements is astounding. Why are the people Alexis de Tocqueville — a French political thinker and historian best known for his work “Democracy in America” — considered most aware of the smallest differences in wealth so willing to sacrifice their own self-interest in the name of something that directly will harm them?

It has something to do with the developing social psychology of the modern American. We as a people have been so atomized and alienated from one another that the notion of collective action is as strange and unsettling as the idea of being ruled by Sharia law.

We are bearing witness to the death of the communal aspect of American political behavior. I wouldn’t be so naive to chalk up this crime to a sole dominant cause in our consciousness — there seem to be many factors. The progress of technology and refinement of production techniques to allow mass production of advanced consumer items certainly has something to do with it.

While there’s a lot that we’re upset about, we’d rather walk by the protest outside the capitol listening to our personal MP3 player. We want to get back to our bedrooms with our flat screens and log onto Facebook on our personal laptops so we can “Like” the cause we passed by in the real world.

We’re able to filter out what we find unpleasant in our lives and to tailor the world to our personal tastes. This only has advanced further the atomization of the American people.

What we need to do is simply log off and participate — but this quickly is becoming an unrealistic request. The best we can do is use the tools available to us to self-criticize and hold accountable those whom we elect.

It’s our last best hope.

Matt Korovesis is a State News guest columnist and a political science and Russian senior. Reach him at koroves1@msu.edu.