Out of Sight, Out of Mind: How Fading Empathy and Frustration with the “Homeless Crisis” Shaped the 2024 Election

By Michael Kelman Portney

Homelessness has become a deeply polarizing issue in America, with empathy toward people living on the streets at an all-time low. While homelessness was once widely viewed as a humanitarian crisis, many Americans now see it as a persistent public nuisance that politicians seem incapable of resolving. In the 2024 election, this frustration reached a boiling point. Public tolerance for encampments has faded, and voters increasingly distrust what they view as the “homeless industrial complex”—a network of nonprofits and government initiatives that some believe is more focused on maintaining its own funding than on solving homelessness. Instead of permanent solutions, this complex is often seen as doling out temporary fixes like tarps and needles. This paper examines how these attitudes influenced voter behavior and campaign platforms, pushing homelessness to the center of the 2024 election.

Section 1: Fading Empathy, Growing Frustration

• Decreasing Tolerance for Encampments: As homeless encampments became a fixture in urban centers, many Americans grew increasingly frustrated, seeing them as evidence of political and social failure. People once sympathetic to the plight of the homeless began viewing these encampments as a blight on communities and public spaces, with rising concerns about safety, sanitation, and quality of life.

• Perceptions of the “Homeless Industrial Complex”: Frustration wasn’t directed only at the visible presence of homelessness but also at the systems ostensibly set up to address it. Many Americans, particularly those in cities where homelessness is highly visible, began to criticize what they saw as a “homeless industrial complex”—a network of nonprofits, social services, and government programs that hand out tarps, needles, and temporary shelter without providing sustainable solutions. For these critics, the system seems designed to perpetuate itself rather than to truly help people exit homelessness.

• Diminishing Empathy: Polls leading up to the election showed a steep decline in public empathy, with more Americans favoring “hardline” solutions to homelessness. While advocates pushed for affordable housing and mental health support, these systemic solutions appeared ineffective to a public that felt resources were being wasted on temporary, surface-level interventions.

Section 2: Policy Positions of Major Candidates

• Republican Platform: Republicans seized on this frustration by proposing strict policies aimed at clearing encampments and reducing the visible presence of homelessness. Their platform emphasized law enforcement, stricter anti-camping laws, and public order measures that aligned with the public’s desire for quick fixes. Republican candidates often framed homelessness as a public safety issue, and they criticized existing services for being complicit in a system that maintains, rather than reduces, homelessness.

• Democratic Platform: Democrats struggled to find a balance between their traditional focus on social support and the public’s growing demand for immediate solutions. Although they proposed long-term measures like expanded affordable housing and mental health services, these policies felt too gradual to many voters. Democrats’ reluctance to address homelessness through enforcement was viewed by some as an unwillingness to take decisive action, reinforcing perceptions of a party that was “soft” on the issue.

• Public Perception of “Band-Aid Solutions”: Both parties faced criticism for relying on short-term solutions that failed to address root causes. However, Democrats bore the brunt of public frustration with the perceived inefficiency of the “homeless industrial complex,” as their proposed solutions often involved existing programs that had lost credibility with many voters.

Section 3: The Punitive Appeal – Out of Sight, Out of Mind

• Demand for Enforcement: As empathy declined, voters increasingly favored enforcement-based solutions to homelessness. Polls showed rising support for policies that prioritized removing encampments from public view, even if that meant criminalizing certain aspects of homelessness. For a frustrated public, the visibility of homelessness was a daily reminder of perceived government inaction, and enforcement was seen as a way to restore public order.

• Frustration with “Handouts” vs. Solutions: Many voters felt that handing out supplies, like tarps and needles, only enabled homeless populations to remain on the streets rather than addressing the underlying issues of addiction, mental health, and housing instability. This approach was viewed as wasteful and complicit in perpetuating homelessness, with some voters calling for these programs to be overhauled or defunded entirely.

• Momentum for Quick-Fix Solutions: In the absence of trusted, effective long-term strategies, the public gravitated toward “out of sight, out of mind” approaches. Support grew for candidates who promised to “clean up” cities, either by enforcing stricter laws or relocating homeless populations to designated areas, regardless of concerns over potential human rights implications. This punitive approach, while controversial, was seen as practical by voters who had lost faith in long-term solutions.

Section 4: Homelessness, Voter Behavior, and Distrust of Systems

• Growing Disillusionment with the Democratic Party: Many voters, particularly in urban areas, viewed Democrats as unable to address the crisis effectively, especially as homelessness worsened in states and cities with Democratic leadership. Voters who traditionally leaned Democratic felt that the party offered insufficient action, leading to support for candidates with stricter, enforcement-oriented approaches.

• Rural vs. Urban Voter Polarization: While homelessness is less visible in rural areas, rural voters shared urban frustrations with the inefficiencies of government spending on homelessness. As rural homelessness rose, traditionally conservative voters doubled down on their support for enforcement-based solutions, while urban voters became more divided between seeking humanitarian approaches and supporting “tough on homelessness” policies.

• Distrust of Nonprofits and Government Programs: Nonprofits and government agencies faced increasing skepticism, with many voters feeling that these organizations prioritized maintaining their own funding streams over solving homelessness. The perception that these agencies were part of a “homeless industrial complex” fueled distrust and dissatisfaction, with voters advocating for either greater accountability or alternative solutions that bypassed established systems.

Section 5: The Long-Term Impact of the Election on Homelessness Policy

• Normalization of Enforcement-Based Approaches: The 2024 election’s emphasis on punitive solutions may set a precedent for future policy. As enforcement-based approaches become more mainstream, it’s possible that future homelessness policies will prioritize visibility and public order over compassion and comprehensive support.

• Increased Skepticism Toward the “Homeless Industrial Complex”: As public frustration with nonprofits and government programs grows, there may be calls to overhaul or defund these systems. Advocates for more compassionate solutions face an uphill battle in restoring public trust, especially as more voters question the efficacy of traditional homelessness services.

• Potential for Greater Polarization: The election revealed a stark divide in American attitudes toward homelessness, between those who favor humanitarian solutions and those who support punitive measures. This polarization may persist, shaping not only homelessness policy but also broader debates on public safety, social services, and government accountability.

Conclusion: Homelessness as a Political Battleground

The 2024 election revealed a fundamental shift in American attitudes toward homelessness. Frustration with the perceived inefficacy of the “homeless industrial complex” and the growing appeal of enforcement-based solutions suggest that homelessness is no longer just a humanitarian issue—it’s a political battleground. As public empathy fades and punitive solutions become more popular, the question of how to address homelessness is likely to remain divisive. With policymakers, nonprofits, and advocates facing increased pressure, the future of homelessness policy may hinge on whether compassion or expedience prevails. For now, it seems that “out of sight, out of mind” may be America’s preferred approach.