Ideologically Possessed Intelligentsia

It is always amusing to see leftist elites go wild over the consideration of a religious person for public office. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney-Barrett was recently accused of being a religious fanatic as well as a handmaiden to the patriarchy by major news organizations. Fortunately, however, we had our left-wing politicians to make sure that she would leave her faith at the door of the courthouse.

Stunts like this are amusing (and disturbing) because there is no similar test for secular people, despite the fact that secular ideologies can carry just as much weight as religious beliefs. The 20th century illustrated this fact with the rise of Nazism and Communism.

Why is there no uproar over secular judicial philosophies that differ from originalism? After all, if someone is not an originalist, they are merely using their personal feelings to remake the law. And this, unlike religion cannot be left at the courthouse door.

The encroachment of radical secular ideologies on our government has been one of the most detrimental developments in modern governance and has led to the vast expansion of bureaucracies that are mandated to fulfill open-ended goals. One such goal that has wreaked havoc on limited government is the desire for a “just distribution of income.”

Unlike providing some people with a baseline standard, this is a goal that can be manipulated and distorted to fit the needs of those in power. In fact, the creation of Social Security was based on just this goal. It was not meant to help the needy. If it was, then we wouldn’t all get a check. Consequently, it has grown enormous, underfunded, and extremely expensive. All because bureaucrats decided to let their unregulated whims define policy.

This same, open-ended, subjective, and unjust goal was used as a justification for expansive and unnecessary COVID-19 relief that stole from the rich to give to the not-as-rich. People making well over $200,000 a year were provided with $13,000 in “relief.” 

This could not be motivated by compassion. It could only be motivated by two principles. The first is a hatred for the rich. Left-wing pundits constantly cited the evils of those who made massive fortunes during the pandemic such as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. What they failed to mention is that these entrepreneurs did not steal their wealth from the poor. They made it by providing people with valuable goods and services that people voluntarily purchased. Regardless, it is not surprising that so much relief was provided based on this perceived injustice.

The second principle which this obscene “relief” was motivated by was much more sinister; a desire for power. There is no better way to get someone to vote for your party than by bribing your constituency. This seems to be exactly what Democrats would like to do. Increase dependence to the point of necessity and you will never lose power. Social Security also offers important lessons on this point. Not even Ronald Reagan could assail this dysfunctional and broken system, because too many people had come to rely on it. Ultimately, the bureaucracy endured.

Just because the checks are supposedly temporary does not mean that we should not be worried. In the words of Milton Friedman, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Left-wing thought leaders such as Andrew Yang have been openly promoting universal basic income. It is not very hard to see how this idea could be expanded to make the rich fearful, the masses slaves, and the government ever more powerful. 

In a democracy, the functioning of government depends on the people taking responsibility. Everyone who received an unneeded check should be angered at those in power who believed that they would prostitute their vote for money. The importance of limiting government has become ever more acute as those in power have used past precedents to gradually expand their powers beyond anything our Founding Fathers could have imagined. It is time to say no to the ideologically possessed intelligentsia.