Silence Dogood Wire

With the passage of the massive 1.7 billion dollar Omnibus Bill in a lame-duck session of Congress, our politicians have demonstrated their continued desire to spend taxpayers to the poorhouse. Although it is ostensibly designed to keep our government running, the bill is stuffed with pork-barrel legislation including 100 billion dollars for Ukraine and millions for LGBT museums among other things.

Much like the absurdly titled Inflation Reduction Act, Omnibus is born out of a desire to promote a political agenda rather than fulfill necessary spending requirements. Bureaucratic bloat, ideological maneuvering, and a broken welfare system are continuing to burden American society. Many politicians mistakenly believe that massive government spending is better than a free-market system.

The attempt to infuse more cash into the American economy demonstrates the Democrat’s (and some Republican’s) commitment to Keynesian economics. Named for the economist John Maynard Keynes, this economic regime is characterized by high spending designed to stimulate the economy. Since the 1940s his ideas have become an integral part of left-wing policymaking, despite Keynsianism’s dismal results. 

The Keynesian revolution occurred with the presidency of FDR when a free-market approach was abandoned in favor of massive government spending. Although Roosevelt is credited with saving America from the Great Depression the opposite was true. According to the economist Thomas Sowell, in the 12 months following the stock market crash of 1929 the unemployment rate peaked at 9.6% and began to decrease. However, after the first government intervention, unemployment spiked and continued to increase despite a massive expansion of federal spending. Most economists now believe that it was FDR’s policies that extended the Great Depression, making it into the crisis that we remember today.

Critics of this view often argue that free-market approaches were also inadequate, while pointing to the supposedly laissez-faire policies of President Herbert Hoover. Like Roosevelt’s supposed economic successes, this too is a myth. Hoover was already in the process of enacting massive reforms before Rossevelt came to power. In fact, one of FDR’s senior advisors said that despite the criticism they leveled at Hoover, his ideas informed their policy enactments.

A Keynesian approach was also adopted after the revolutionary Johnson presidency when the welfare state saw a massive expansion. Government spending continued apace until the Carter presidency when stagflation inevitably took hold. 

It took 8 years of Ronald Reagan’s policies to correct the economy and create sustained growth. Predictably, the first two years of Reagan’s term were economically painful as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker tightened interest rates in an attempt to squeeze inflation out of the economy. After correcting these issues, the next 6 years were characterized by rapid and sustainable growth.

Although Keynesian economics is highly popular among left-wing intellectuals for its emphasis on government authority, its empirical record is far from exemplary. Governments that have enacted Keynes’s policies have either suffered from recessions or chronic slow-growth. The passage of the Omnibus Bill and the Biden Administration’s continued interventions in the economy demonstrates the Democrats desire to avoid economic reality in the name of ideological maneuvering. The result will be less production, less consumption, and a lower standard of living. 

“Only two things are certain in life; death and taxes.”

This gloomy phrase is often uttered as a semi-comedic trope, but as our age has seen a decline in religion, it has become something of a new faith. In an era of constant fluctuation and change, it seems as if the only certainty is death and taxes. Alternatively, one could say that there is only a meaningless life and a totalizing government that seeks to fill the void.

This nihilistic mindset is antithetical to both virtue and republican government. Political philosopher Harry V. Jaffa argued that virtue was synonymous with republican government (Jaffa). Neither can be had without the other. If people are not virtuous, a republic will degenerate into a tyranny, and if a government is degenerate, then its people are unlikely to be virtuous.

But in order for citizens of a republic to exhibit virtue, they must have more than this “death and taxes” outlook. This principle was widely recognized by the greatest pre-Christian philosophers. At the end of Plato’s Republic, for example, Socrates recounts a vision detailing the rewards of a good citizen in the afterlife. Additionally Cicero, one of the greatest defenders of the Roman republic, constantly refers to the theme of glory and reputation within his speeches. In his Cicero’s Republic, he ends by recounting a fictional dream in which the Roman general Scipio Africanus the younger has a dream of his adopted grandfather Scipio Africanus living among the stars. The purpose of Cicero’s writings was to exhort his fellow countrymen to act bravely in the face of danger and tyranny.

Ambition-to earn the esteem of one’s countrymen and make a name for oneself- is perhaps the greatest incentive to virtue known to mankind. Abraham Lincoln regularly cited his outsized ambition. In 1832, long before he saved the Union he told a crowd that “Every man is said to have his peculiar ambition. Whether it be true or not, I can say for one that I have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow men, by rendering myself worthy of their esteem.”

This ambition was much more common in our country’s past than it is now. In early America, young men could often be found reading The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin in order to learn the principles of success in business, politics, and life.

Of course, the desire for esteem and glory has not been completely lost. It is still the goal of many young people to become famous on Tik Tok, Instagram, or some other social media platform. But while this fame allows one to gain the attention- and perhaps affection- of millions of people, it serves no purpose for the state. Today it seems that many people would rather be a Harry Styles than a Winston Churchill. This phenomenon illustrates that while our awareness of the world has become greater, our views have drastically shrunk. The enduring glory of Cicero has been submerged under the fleeting glory of a viral video.

Our stunted visions of glory are largely owing to the fact that we have cut ourselves off from the past. Rather than showing gratitude for the people who have bequeathed us a free society, we prefer to tout our moral superiority over them. Instead of venerating the memory of men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, they are either merely tolerated or actively reviled.

When great men are looked down upon- men who strove to bring freedom to millions and establish a new country- why should young men and women search for enduring glory? If the greatest men of history can be written off as bigots who are unworthy of distinction, then the “death and taxes” mindset is truly correct. There is nothing more than a meaningless life and a totalizing government.

When people actively embrace this mindset, they should not be surprised when society begins to crumble. It will become more anarchic because individuals no longer seek to perpetuate their values and more totalitarian because they search for meaning within the apparatus of the state.

However, there is an alternative path; the path that involves telling men and women that their decisions matter and will be remembered by others. The quest to bring about this shift in perspectives lies in the resurrection of the study of history, philosophy, and religion. When reading about the stories of great men who shaped the course of their civilizations, it is impossible not to be inspired and motivated to contribute to their legacy, even in a small way.

Alternatively, we could listen to the nihilists and watch our society slowly crumble to the ground. Although the choice appears easy, it is difficult for many to make because in order for us to admire others, we must recognize our own inadequacies. It requires us to realize that we are not morally infallible and that we owe our beliefs and norms to fallible men, who allowed us to overcome their vices and perpetuate their virtues.

By placing ourselves within the great chain of history, we link ourselves to both the past and the future. In doing this we are driven to both gratitude and duty. We have gratitude for the previous links in the chain and a sense of duty towards the future links. The twin pillars of duty and gratitude will allow our society to flourish and encourage people to strive for a glory that is lasting.

If we do this, perhaps life will be sweeter because we know we have a purpose and death will be less terrifying because we know that there is something more than “death and taxes.”

Lorie Shaull, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

It is 2022 and the midterms are once again the central focus of American life. With the prevalence of Democratic incompetence in Washington, Republicans are poised to take control of the House and are in a tight race for the senate. 

With this usual cycle, we are again seeing increased calls to “get out the vote!” Although this common phrase is often tied to political messaging in order to increase voter turnout for a particular party, it is also repeated independently of any political messaging. The celebratory “I voted!” stickers are worn by people on both sides of the aisle in a show of faux political virtue. A recent opinion piece by The Hill, for example, suggested making voting fun and celebratory in order to increase voter turnout. 

This, of course, begs the question; why on earth would you want everyone to vote? I certainly don’t want everyone to vote. Why should we encourage emotional youth, indifferent adults, and irresponsible individuals to vote? The democratic process is vindicated by the leaders it elects, rather than the mere fact of people voting.

The idea that only virtuous individuals should vote seems like an elementary fact that would be grasped by any lover of self-government. The shift in our society towards virtue signaling over the simple fact of voting illustrates a profound shift in the philosophical and cultural landscape of our country.

The greatest men in our nation’s history have viewed the phenomenon of self-government as two-fold. Firstly, it means participation in the formation of our governments. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, it means governing one’s passions in order to live a virtuous life. According to the late American political scientist Harry V. Jaffa, defenders of liberty such as Abraham Lincoln believed that republican government was synonymous with virtue. The former was built upon the foundations of the latter.

In our modern day, we have lost the second meaning of the word self-government. Displays of personal gratification and “pride” are celebrated much more than acts of self-restraint and virtue. Thus, we are left with the first definition of self-government, which is merely participation in the creation of a government.

However, without the foundations of virtue that support free institutions, voting is meaningless. Hitler came to power in a democracy, as did the National Assembly of the French Revolution. Those who unceasingly praise the gifts of democracy and lament the evils of slavery often forget that there was a time when a majority of Americans wished to keep there fellow men in chains.

The obsession with voting for voting’s sake is the symptom of a rotten conception of republican government. The mere expression of a person’s preferences is now seen as something to be celebrated. 

I, for one, will hold off celebrating until I know what those preferences are. 

If there is one defining feature of the modern era, it is arrogance. The names of great men are being scrubbed from buildings in an attempt to sever ties with the past, systems of law and order are deemed racist, and the wealth-producing capitalist economy is seen as oppressive and unjust.

Nowhere else is this arrogance more apparent than in discussions surrounding climate change. It is common to see middle-aged and elderly community leaders crying “Mea culpa” while engaging in a pathetic self-flagellation of their generation. Meanwhile, unoriginal teenagers are made Time person of the year for smugly lecturing their elders. 

One common claim that undergirds this sense of superiority is that climate change is the biggest threat humans have ever faced. Last year famous naturalist David Attenborough, told the UN Security Council that climate change is the “Biggest threat modern humans have ever faced.” Headlines are rampant with similarly alarmist rhetoric, designed to cudgel and intimidate.

If we look back through the epochs of human existence, however, a rational person would see that climate change does not even rank in the top 100 most dire problems that humanity has ever faced. Slavery has been prevalent in every human society that has ever existed, widespread poverty has been the norm, and dictatorships have ruled most societies. 

In many instances, these problems were solved by the fossil fuels which are so greatly decried by the climate alarmists. Despite the increase in carbon emissions, the Foundation for Economic Education reports that climate-related deaths have decreased by 99 percent in the last century. This is because heating, stronger infrastructure, and better housing have allowed humans to adapt to their environment. The efforts of those that preceded us have allowed us to live in the most prosperous and wealthy era in the history of the world.

It is important to understand the rhetoric of the climate alarmists, because the natural end to their arguments is extremely dangerous. If climate change is truly the greatest threat that humans have ever faced, then any action is justified in combating this phenomenon. This could include reverting to a socialist economy, accepting a dictatorship, or cutting of the world’s food supply.

Political science professor and former Democratic candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates advocates just such solutions. In an article for the American Political Science Review, he referred to climate change as a crisis and proceeded to claim that “[I]n crisis moments, legitimacy may not only be compatible with authoritarian governance but actually require it.” In his view, climate change will necessarily force us to give up our desire for a free government in favor of a totalitarian regime. Such thinking is not marginal, given the hysterics that resound in the media echo chamber.

It is not within the scope of this article to engage in a lengthy and nuanced discussion of the actual effects of climate change. This is merely a reminder that even if one accepts some of the direst predictions, climate change is far from the greatest threat humanity has faced. History is a dark stream of war, hunger, and death that is occasionally pierced by the bright light of great men, women, and societies who chart a path upward.

Previous generations have handed down systems of government that safeguard individual liberties, foster the creation of wealth, and allow communities to flourish. To sacrifice any of these good things for the supposed climate crisis would be as ill-advised as it would be destructive.

At the outset of the American Republic, our Founding Fathers were not idealists. They certainly believed in noble ideals, but they understood that those ideals would amount to nothing if the sovereignty of the people was merely written on paper documents. High-falutin language could be used with good intention, but if society was not constructed in a way that cast aside tyranny and put forth republicanism, all of their philosophizing would amount to nothing.

Thus, they attempted to set up a government that would protect the natural rights of the citizenry, fulfill its necessary functions, and be kept within its proper limits. The philosopher Montesquieu, a great influence on the American founding wrote that 

To form a moderate government, it is necessary to combine the several powers; to regulate, temper, and set them in motion; to give, as it were, a balance to one, in order to enable it to counterpoise the other. This is a masterpiece of legislation, rarely attained by hazard, and seldom attained by prudence. On the contrary, a despotic government offers itself, as it were, at first sight; it is uniform throughout; and as passions only are requisite to establish it, this is what every capacity may reach (Montesquieu 62).

Taking his advice the Founders established the separation of powers, federalism, and eschewed pure majoritarianism in favor of limited government.

Another, less discussed limitation on government power was the ratification of the Second Amendment. Today it is mainly justified in terms of individual self-defense, but when it was ratified, it was meant to be a means for citizens to secure their rights through violence if necessary. The modern mind is often repulsed by this sentiment because our civilized time has seen a reduction in violence.

However, millions of people living under tyranny throughout the world would probably prefer to be armed. The Nazis were brought to power in a democratic state and vigorously suppressed private gun ownership after they had attained power. It is arrogant for us to think that our Western country will inevitably bend towards progress. In 2020, sometimes working with the blessing of radical figures in government, roaming mobs burned down entire cities, attacked senators, and broke into gated communities.

Today many people on the left enjoy claiming that the Second Amendment is antiquated, and the Founders could not have foreseen the creation of assault style weapons. In short, they argue that the Founders could not have known the risks of gun ownership.

This contention is verifiably false. The “harmless” muskets that are compared to modern rifles were actually used in rebellions that could have overthrown the state. Shays’ Rebellion which was initiated before the adoption of the American Constitution had to be personally put down by George Washington himself. In Federalist No. 6 Alexander Hamilton describes Massachusetts as having been “plunged into civil war.” Yet even after this event, the Founders still found it necessary to put the Second Amendment in the Constitution.

Hamilton believed that the government needed to be strong enough to quell insurrection and violence, while also protecting the rights of the people. In a republic, the right to be armed is a recognition that individuals have a right to secure their liberty from oppressors.

Keeping guns out of the hands of bad people is obviously something to focus on. However, infringing on a just principle because its application is imperfect is foolish and shortsighted. After the BLM riots that shook the nation last year people should be more jealous of their rights than ever. Can we truly expect the people in power who excuse these violent events to protect us?

The right to defend oneself extends beyond individual circumstances. It is an important principle that recognizes a person’s right to protect themselves from all threats, great or small. 

There can be no doubt that we live in a world of uncertainty and contradiction. What were once widely regarded as self-evident truths are now called into question by ideologues who wish to reshape society. Can men give birth? Do gender roles matter? Does biology determine gender?

Any sane society would quickly dismiss such absurd questions. However, the lunacy has infected those who are supposed to be the brightest among us. Despite being the first black woman confirmed to the Supreme Court, Kentaji Brown Jackson was unable to provide a definition of a woman during her confirmation hearings. It appears that my eight year old brother is smarter than at least one Supreme Court Justice.

Additionally, the intellectual deficiency of our leaders is coupled with a tyrannical desire to enforce confusion ideologies on others. This can take the form of cultural or governmental interference in the lives of individual citizens. For example, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill requiring retailers to have gender neutral toy sections in their stores. This particular abuse of government power to cram down preferences upon consumers demonstrates the prevalence of the ideology that men and women are the same.

Despite the proclamations of our intellectual and cultural elites, any discerning eye will discover that women and men are not the same. Temperament and physical attributes are both noticeable differences between the genders. However, none of this precludes the idea that men and women are equal.

Contrary to the beliefs of many America-bashers, despite a general adherence to gender roles, the United States has always been supportive of the idea that there is an inherent equality between the sexes. In 1840, the French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville believed that America was the country in which the equality between man and woman had been extended the most.

However, this development did not lead to the confusion that has occurred in our day. Despite their equality men and women were still seen as distinct members of the human species. De Tocqueville writes that, “There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike…It is not thus that the Americans understand that species of democratic equality which may be established between the sexes.” Overall, he concludes that when one attempts to make men and women the same “nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”

The idea that men and women are different but equal is essential to a healthy society. When men are told that they can become women, they do not become paragons of womanly virtue. Instead, they become weak men who pervert the idea of femininity while retaining the vices of masculinity.

In addition to allowing individuals to live their most productive lives, the recognition of the difference between men and women serves as the fundamental basis for marriage. Masculinity and femininity are rightly viewed as incomplete without one another. Therefore, when (real)  men and (real) women are joined in a union, stability and fulfillment are its byproducts.

Anyone who claims that men and women are unequal and should be denied equal treatment under the law is sexist. However, those who believe that men and women are different have grasped a fundamental truth that was self-evident until very recently. A recognition of this truth produces virtue, stability, and guidance. A denial of this truth leads to the opposite.

The Fourth of July is a time to reflect on what has made America great. As we watch fireworks and listen to Tom Petty, many of us feel an instinctive patriotism when we look at the flag. But this instinct was not created in a vacuum. It is the byproduct of a unique culture and society. 

Today, there are those among us who now feel an instinctive revulsion at the flag. Various celebrities have called for canceling Independence Day in the wake of the Dobbs decision. Others lament the fact that LGBT propaganda is not pushed in schools and still others complain about the independent spirit that reigns in the hearts of many Americans.

There can be no doubt that we are in an unparalleled time in our history as a nation. Political rifts continue to grow and violence is increasingly seen as an acceptable means of resolving political conflict. 

Now, there were certainly other times in American history when there was great division; most notably during the Civil War. However, as we have lost touch with our cultural roots it has become increasingly difficult to understand what we are fighting against.

Any rational person would be confused and disturbed at something as perverse as drag queen story hour. And even traditional liberals are having misgivings about such topics as critical race theory. But when a society fails to give honor to the values that birthed it, one cannot be surprised when people act irrationally.

Independence Day is all about freedom, but despite the words of the Declaration of Independence, there is nothing self evident about freedom. The freedom that we have inherited from our forefathers is a distinct Judeo-Christian tradition that is grounded in history and philosophy.

Some of the first settlers to land in America were the Puritans of 1620. Seeking religious freedom, these Colonists landed at Plymouth and founded a new society. Their unique ability to govern themselves in a religious context, gave them a profound understanding of liberty that influenced the course of American history. Over 200 years later, the French traveler, Alexis de Tocquville stated that,

In the bosom of that obscure democracy, which still had not sired generals, or philosophers or great writers, a man could rise in the presence of a free people and give, to the acclamation of all, this beautiful definition of freedom: “Nor would I have you mistake in the point of of your own liberty. There is a liberty of a corrupt nature, which is affected both by men and beasts, to do what they list; and this liberty is inconsistent with authority, impatient of all restraining; by this liberty, Sumus Omnes Deteriores [we are all inferior]; ‘tis the grand enemy of truth and peace, and all the ordinances of God are bent against it. But there is a civil, a moral, a federal liberty, which is the proper end and object of authority; it is a liberty for that only which is just and good for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very lives.

In the minds of these colonists, liberty was not an abstract concept that could be manipulated by intellectuals or perverted by vice. It was believed to be an enduring principle that was handed down by God. A submission to truth and justice were characteristic of this liberty, not the ability to do anything that one wished.

Alexis de Tocqueville was keenly aware of the influence of these origins on the minds of American citizens. He believed that these foundational ideas “now exert their influence beyond its llimts, over the whole American world. The civilization of New England has been like those fires lit in the hills that, after having spread heat around them, still tinge the furthest reaches of the horizon with their light.” Through this foundation, American citizens developed a deep connection to liberty that was both political and spiritual. The vibrant culture of American life, undergirded the political institutions, ensuring that citizens possessed enough virtue to remain free. By submitting to a higher authority, they were able to preserve freedom through good morals and a belief in the inalienable rights of their fellow citizens. The heroes of the American Revolution rose to seize and elaborate upon the lofty ideals that had been handed down to them. What emerged was a free society, dedicated to the inherent liberty and equality of all men.

However, a similar spirit of liberty exists that also shook societies during the 18th century. The French Revolution, which occurred only 13 years after the American Revolution gave birth to a completely alternative concept of freedom that led to death, suffering, and dictatorship. 

The philosophers of this revolution preached a materialist creed that allowed men to become the creators of morality. One of the intellectual luminaries of the time period, Denis Diderot, wrote that “man will not be free until he has strangled the last king with the entrails of the last priest.” Such sentiments led the Revolutionaries in France to commit unspeakable acts of evil upon political opponents and anyone associated with the aristocracy.

Whereas the American Revolution led to the creation of a free republic. The French Revolution culminated in a bloody Reign of Terror and ended when Napoleon Bonaparte established himself as a dictator. To these Revolutionaries, freedom consisted of an absence of legal and moral restraints. The former aristocrat turned National Assembly member, Marquis de Sade summed their views up best when he said that “the most free people are those most friendly to murder.” 

In a twisted way, de Sade was correct. One could conceive of freedom as the ability to do whatever one wishes. The ability to become God and create morality while acting like an animal.

But there is a higher freedom that calls men’s souls to greatness. A freedom that revels in virtue and justice. A freedom that recognizes the natural rights of all men and thanks God for bequeathing these rights. This is the freedom that our forefathers sacrificed for and this is the freedom that we celebrate on the 4th of July.

Freedom has always been something that people desire. We revere those who stand up and fight for the rights of others. When Saint Joan of Arc rode into battle to free France from the English, she exhibited the indomitable spirit of independence that has subverted empires and freed slaves. Sometimes, however, the spirit of freedom can become warped and unrecognizable. In our modern society freedom has become inseparably intertwined with abortion.

This is a radical departure from the rich tradition of liberty that was handed down to us by the Founding Fathers. George Washington and his contemporaries wished to create a society that would respect the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” They believed that these self-evident truths could be guaranteed in a God-fearing populace that was capable of self government. To Americans, true freedom was always bound up in a society that respected laws and adhered to virtuous codes of conduct.

Modern appeals to freedom sound more like those of the French Revolutionaries in 1789. The rapist, sadomasochist, and National Assembly member Marquis de Sade expressed their view of freedom by stating that “the freest people are those most friendly to murder.” In the language of moral depravity, he was correct. Those who were most unbounded by conscience and law would be the most free from restraints on evil, up to and including murder.

Our society certainly seems to have become sympathetic, or even outright supportive, of de Sade’s vision. Many now view freedom as the ability to suffer from gender delusions (and force others to recognize them), kill children in the womb, and teach kindergarteners about the wonders of LGBT liberation. 

The most recent event to highlight this trend was the leakage of a draft opinion from the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which has the ability to overturn Roe v. Wade. Despite many strong feelings on the issue it seems that the only argument that can be mustered by pro-choicers is the shallow “my body my choice” one-liner. One conservative commentator wryly remarked that adherence to this argument would mean believing that it is possible for a woman to have two sets of DNA and/or genitalia. 

Perhaps the resurgence of this issue in public life will alert people to the legal and moral absurdities of abortion.

Beginning on the legal front, it is quite easy to see the lack of reasoning behind the Roe decision. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade, used the 14th Amendment as his justification for his decision, claiming that it gave women a right to privacy. 

His arguments were faulty on historical, legal, and logical grounds. As academic Robert P. George notes, “By 1858 a majority of states had statutes criminalizing abortion at all stages. By the end of 1868, the year the 14th Amendment was ratified, a good three-quarters of the states had them.” Thus, to claim that the 14th Amendment was designed to protect abortion is an outright lie. The Amendment reads that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” At the time the Amendment was passed “person” clearly included the unborn.

Ignoring the disregard of historical precedent, there is still no way that Justice Blackmun could have concluded that abortion was a Constitutional right. Blackmun relied on a previous case called Griswold v. Connecticut wherein Justice William Douglass argued that “the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees” which give citizens an extensive right to privacy. This was merely an eloquent way of saying that his opinion had no basis in the law. However, Blackmun used this gobbledygook in order to support his opinion in Roe v. Wade.

Even if we were to accept Blackmun’s faulty legal reasoning, the illogic of his decision is clear as day. Privacy does not extend to illegal actions. If you knowingly commit a crime and others aid and abet you, privacy is not an excuse. 

What Justice Blackmun really meant was that he did not think abortion should be a crime. It was never in his authority to decide this issue in a society with a representative government. Rather than acting as a judge, he took on the role of a legislator in order to subvert the will of the American people.

Aside from the legal reasoning against abortion, there are also moral arguments that have much more force. 

Although emotional appeals have obscured the arguments, the central question of abortion is whether or not huaman life has immutable value. After all, it is an undisputed fact that life begins at conception. Princeton University even has a page of references to reputable sources claiming that life begins at conception.

To argue in favor of abortion is to dispute the inherent value of human life. Complicating circumstances certainly arise, given the lack of viability of a fetus outside the womb. However, a baby isn’t more viable outside the womb in any meaningful sense. Someone must sacrifice both their resources and time to care for the child. If they refused to do so, they would be accused of infaticide.

Despite the preceived novelty of our society, the arguments in favor of abortion have been around for thousands of years. In the Roman Empire, famed historian Edward Gibbon commented on the prevalence of infaticide as a practice that people believed was both compassionate and economical. The early Christians made it their goal to stop this barbaric practice and give children a chance at life.

In the end, freedom requires accepting the legal and moral restraints that make freedom possible. The 60 plus million babies that have been aborted since 1973 have not been given a chance at freedom. Nor have the women who have been told that killing their child is an acceptable decision during difficult times. 

Overall, abortion is perhaps the most regressive demand of the progressives.

On Monday, eccentric billionaire Elon Musk offered to buy Twitter for $43 billion cash. This enormous offer came just days after Musk purchased a 9.2% stake in the company following his concerns that Twitter was not adhering to free speech principles. In a regulatory filing Musk claimed that “free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.” 

One would expect that such a generous and principled offer would be met with widespread applause. However, those who claim to be the most fervent defenders of democracy are also those who are the most opposed to Musk’s ability to buy Twitter. 

Ironically, columns from the Jeff Bezos owned Washington Post have been the most vocal in their antipathy towards Musk. In a piece by Tim O’Brien that was originally published on Bloomberg News (also owned by a billionaire), O’brien claimed that “If anything, Twitter’s moderation has been too permissive, but Musk claims the opposite, and says the company has somehow inhibited his free speech. No one should buy that line — and Musk shouldn’t buy Twitter. His goal is not free expression, but control.” 

The irony of O’Brien’s assertion is clear to anyone who isn’t blinded by ideology. His statement began by decrying Musk’s reduction of speech restrictions and then proceeded to accuse him of wanting to control people. 

Washington Post columnist Max Boot also spewed vitriolic anger by claiming that “Anyone who thinks the problem with social media is too much content moderation, rather than too little, should not own one of the most powerful platforms online.” In short, many in the establishment media believe that more censorship is the answer to a robust democracy.

What this represents is the hollowness of the term democracy. Democracy is not a comprehensive system but merely the act of being able to vote. If all channels of communication are controlled by biased individuals and schools are infiltrated by people wishing to indoctrinate children, democracy can still exist. As long as people are still able to vote, there has technically not been any breach of democracy.

However, America was not founded to be a democracy. It was created as a republic with democratic principles.  The term republic stems from the Latin words res publica meaning “the public thing.”

In a republic, citizens are subject to a legal system that secures their rights and defines their responsibilities. Democratic systems are inevitably a part of this, given the difficulty of having a “public thing” without the input of citizens.

However, in a republic democracy is not seen as absolute or infallible. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it was those who were most in favor of total democracy that were the defenders of slavery. In his first political speech, future Democratic president and fervent defender of slavery, James K. Polk called for the implementation of a national popular election for the presidency. 

By contrast Abraham Lincoln and his abolitionist allies took a more sanguine view of democracy. According to author Michael Gerhardt, Lincoln opposed the notion that popular sovereignty was a proper way to decide the issue of slavery, because he believed that some rights should be safe from the majority. It was not right that Southern black men should remain in bondage because the white majority voted to keep them enslaved. Rather, they possessed God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that could not be rightfully taken from them. 

The fetishization of democracy by the ruling class represents a shift away from traditional notions of American governance. Freedom and democracy are no longer synonymous because those who claim to be the most fervent defenders of democracy have become the antagonists of freedom. If Americans wish to preserve their freedom they cannot merely demand democracy. They must defend the Constitutional Republic that has been handed down to them.

There is no doubt that the United States is suffering from an unprecedented level of economic and international failure. While Afghanistan languishes under Jihadist tyranny and Ukraine is being ravaged by Russia, due to massive policy failures, the domestic order is in similar disarray.

After one of the longest bull market runs in U.S. history, inflationary pressures, record gas prices, and fiscal irresponsibility are taking a massive toll on American families. A report from Bloomberg News found that the average household will need to spend an additional $5200 this year due to inflation.

If Americans lived under a dictatorship, it is unlikely that the Biden Administration would be inclined to do anything. High gas prices help them achieve their goal of less emissions, spending gives them the ability to enact more social programs, and a withdrawal from the world stage allows them to focus on building a utopia at home.

However, because of our democratic system the Biden Administration has been forced to respond to these crises in various ways. For example, President Biden announced that for the next six months he will release 1 million barrels of oil a day from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In addition to this act of benevolence, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg responded to Americans’ concerns by suggesting that they buy a $40,000 EV to combat the high price of gas.

On the economic front, President Biden has also endorsed legislation that would tax billionaires on their unrealized stock gains. What this would amount to is a tax on assets that have not been liquidated. This “20% billionaire tax” would affect every household worth over $100 million. In response to growing fears of increased taxation, Biden also claimed that “No one making less than $400,00 will pay an additional penny in federal taxes.”

What we can see from the floundering of President Biden and his lackeys is that their solutions are almost as bad as the crises themselves. 

The release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve begs the question; what was this reserve for in the first place? Most likely, this petroleum was not reserved to lessen the impact of irresponsible policies that led to a reduction in energy output. Rather, they were being kept in reserve for an unavoidable global catastrophe. Now that this commodity is being utilized to combat growing political pressure, we are more exposed to other dangerous situations.

Additionally, perhaps it is true that Biden’s tax plan will not directly affect families making less than $400,000. But the plan will undoubtedly affect the entire economy by taking money away from private enterprises and putting it into the hands of the federal government. 

While this tax plan might reduce the deficit in the first year of its existence, it will undoubtedly do tremendous harm to the economy thereby reducing wages, overall employment, and tax revenue in the long run.

It seems that the Biden Administration’s response to the present crisis is to let us decay in decadence. In response to inflation they call for more spending, in response to foreign aggression they preach weakness, and in response to cultural concerns they gaslight the American public.

 By subsidizing specific areas of American life, they hope to make things just comfortable enough for us to forget about the bleak state of our affairs. Unfortunately, the solutions of the Biden Administration merely compound our problems and will make the resulting fallout much worse.