Silence Dogood Wire

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.

International tensions are an unavoidable aspect of an imperfect world. Every age has suffered from its own specific problems but conflict has been the norm rather than the exception. Given that we have a historical record replete with international confrontation and a substantial body of literature on foreign policy, one would think that our political leaders would start crafting reasonable strategies for combating foreign adversaries.

Unfortunately, such a wish is nothing more than a pipe dream as was demonstrated by President Joe Biden’s dismal State of the Union Address

The speech began reasonably well, with President Biden paying homage to the fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people. He characteristically gaffed at one point saying that “Putin may circle Kyiv with tanks, but he will never gain the hearts and souls of the Iranian people.” The sentiment was nice, but it is unlikely that it would give those encircled by tanks much optimism.

To be fair to President Biden, the situation is very difficult. Russia is a nuclear power and any overly aggressive actions could trigger a massive escalation. However, much of the blame for a conflict begins in the months and years preceding it. The greatest politicians seek to avert bloodshed rather than waiting to act after it has already occurred. 

It is for this reason that we view Winston Churchill as a paragon of the 20th century while the pro-appeasement Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain is seen as a failed leader. President Biden’s weak administration and unwillingness to stand up to enemies gave Putin the perfect opportunity to attack. After all, President Biden left hundreds of Americans in Afghanistan. If this is how he cares for fellow citizens, then why would he ever take effective measures to defend other countries?

One would think that in the face of these dismal foreing policy results, the Biden Administration would change its tone. After all, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Weakness, it turns out, is not a recipe for success.

Thus, if we wish to know whether or not President Biden has learned from his mistakes, we should look at how he addressed our greatest foreing rival; China.

Far from warning the authoritarian Chinese about America’s resolve and strength, President Biden only mentioned Xi Jinping briefly in his speech claiming that he told the President of China that “it is never a good bet to bet against the American people.” He then triumphantly stated that America will take steps to fight climate change, promote climate justice, build electric vehicle charging stations, and take lead out of pipes.

As China eyes Taiwan, it is unlikely that Xi and the CCP will care whether or not America is taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint.

Unfortunately, President Biden and his Administration are so ideologically blinded that they are unable to craft rational policy. They keep showing weakness and expecting that their enemies will magically evolve into enlightened world leaders. They are, by definition, insane.

When President Trump was in office, one of the favorite pastimes of news anchors was to host psychologists to give their diagnoses on the former president. I would suggest diagnosing the entire Biden Administration with a learning disorder.

Photo Copyright Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

In previous eras, something that Americans have been able to rely on is their political leaders adhering to reality to at least some degree. After all, a failure to do so will likely show in the next election. However, the Democrats have taken up an odd strategy by completely shielded themselves from economic realities.

Tonight President Biden perfectly illustrated this fact when he delivered his State of the Union Address to the American People. Far from acknowledging basic economic facts, he gave a meandering speech about the evils of corporations who need to “pay their fair share.” In his long address, President Biden demonstrated that he and his party are unable to comprehend inflation, tax cuts, or monetary incentives.

In regard tp inflation, President Biden demonstrated an extreme amount of ignorance at how to combat this growing problem in American life. First and foremost, he urged lawmakers to pass his Build Back Better Bill which will cost over $2 trillion. According to the Tax Foundation, this could contribute to short run inflation. Apparently, dumping trillions of dollars into the economy is not a recipe for monetary stability.

Secondly, Biden claimed that he would combat rising gas prices by freeing up 60 billion reserve barrels of oil. What he failed to mention is that this amounts to about a three days supply for the United States economy. Rather than reinvigorate U.S. production, he is happy to rely on foreign oil exports because it fits his climate agenda. Supposedly, the smoldering ruins of Kiev are the price we have to pay so that the earth doesn’t warm another 1 degree celsius.

Another area of the economy that President Biden completely failed to comprehend is tax policy. He self-righteously accused President Trump of giving $2 trillion in tax breaks to the greedy top 1 percent. He then proceeded to claim that these cuts did not have any effect on American families, which could not be further from the truth. According to Karl Smith, former Vice President of the Tax Foundation, the economy saw enormous gains due to the Trump tax cuts. He writes that “In 2016, real median household income was $62,898, just $257 above its level in 1999. Over the next three years it grew almost $6,000, to $68,703. That’s perhaps why, despite the pandemic, 56% of U.S. voters polled last month said their families were better off today than they were four years ago.” It turns out that allowing wealthy individuals to invest their money in the economy is beneficial for job growth. 

Despite this proven fact, Democrats would like to shun economic literacy in favor of ideology. In 2008, for example, President Obama responded to a question on the efficacy of high tax rates by saying “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” The tax policies of the Democrats are not based on sound economic arguments but on their theoretical conception of fairness. However, it is hard to imagine what is fair about a government official weakening the economy for everyone in the name of fairness.

Unfortunately the economic fallacies continued. At one point President Biden praised Intel for pledging to invest in a semiconductor manufacturing plant. He claimed that all they were waiting for was for Congress to pass one of his economic bills, thereby admitting that he is paying companies who have good relationships with the government. 

Apparently, President Biden believes that his powers of observation are greater than the powers of the market. Whereas he balks at tax breaks, he seems to love subsidies. This is due to the fact that he can choose who the winners and losers are. No more need to deal with the impartial hand of the market. Instead, he can impose his will on everybody while making the market less efficient. 

Overall, President Biden’s speech was a hodgepodge of economic fallacies covered with the veneer of self-righteousness. It certainly doesn’t take an economics degree to understand that dumping trillions of dollars into the economy is bad for inflation, radically increasing taxes is bad for the stock market, and giving subsidies is the equivalent of a less efficient tax break. Unfortunately, the Democrats have completely shielded themselves from reality. Let’s hope they pay for it in the next election.

In 324 AD the Emperor Constantine the Great transferred the Roman Capital to the city of Constantinople. Situated over 800 miles from Rome, the move was a decisive moment in the history of the empire and a humiliating blow to the ancient republic.

By this time, the Empire was in full decline as barbarians closed in on all sides. The legions of the empire were being worn down by hordes of Goths and Germanic tribes who sacked cities and usurped territory. 

But more important than the barbarians was the lack of national spirit. In the 18th century the famous historian Edward Gibbon wrote that “If all the barbarian conquerors had been annihilated in the same hour, their total destruction would not have restored the empire of the West: and if Rome still survived, she survived the loss of freedom, of virtue, and of honor.” The Romans had become content with their victories. Rather than assert their independence, they were happy to enjoy their wealth, they were happy to cede their authority to a succession of emperors and foreign mercenaries.

In such a state of dependence, the national pride of the Romans inevitably evaporated. They no longer provided for the defense of their country or made serious efforts to check the authority of the emperors. To be a Roman citizen no longer carried any real distinction, other than the ability to live in luxury.

In such a state of society, when national pride has evaporated, some other form of unity must take its place. In the Roman Empire, the lack of national cohesiveness was supplied by an increase in class distinctions. Constantine the Great, for example, created three new ranks of nobles, in order to gratify the vanity of his most wealthy citizens. Additionally, historians, living in this era contrasted the extreme indulgence of the Roman senators with their former frugality.

In this time period, as opposed to the earlier days of the republic, it was now considered more important to be wealthy than to be a Roman citizen. Thus, class solidarity took the place of national solidarity. Again Gibbon writes that the “principal officers of the empire were saluted, even by the sovereign himself, with the deceitful titles of your Sincerity, your Gravity, your Excellency, your Eminence, (etc).” These distinctions became so great that citizens were forced to salute the eunuchs of the palace as they walked through the city.

The replacement of national unity with other forms of distinction often signals the end of republics, because it illustrates that people no longer adhere to their country above other more trivial distinctions. Rather than be viewed as good citizens who defend their liberty people would rather vie for wealth, power, and honors.

In American society, this is certainly the case. Wealthy intellectuals in the United States believe that their distinction grants them the authority to trample on the rights of their fellow citizens. Reading over the appellations that were handed out by Constantine, one would be hard pressed not to think of Anthony Fauci.

Everything that Fauci said was treated as the epitome of truth by the mainstream media. In fact, he arrogantly claimed that his critics were “really criticizing science because I represent science.” Apparently, his superior intelligence and medical degrees raise him above the level of criticism. Such arrogance was repeated during the fall of the Roman Empire when wealthy officials raised themselves above the level of criticism.

Another more trivial example of the increase in class distinctions was illustrated when the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed claiming that Jill Biden wasn’t an actual doctor. Jill Biden, who has a doctorate in education from the University of Delaware took major offense to this reasonable call-out. Biden’s director of communications Elizabeth Alexander lambasted the piece as “sexist and shameful.” Additionally, Jill Biden took up the cause of young women stating that “Together, we will build a world where the accomplishments of our daughters will be celebrated, rather than diminished.”

The fulminations of Dr. Fauci and Mrs. Biden illustrate that the Ruling Class is a very real phenomena. Rather than be seen as citizens of a republic who are dedicated to freedom, bureaucrats would like to expand their authority, wealthy individuals would like to expand their influence, and vain intellectuals would like to expand the usage of meaningless titles. 

America has certainly always had class distinction as all free societies do. However, these distinctions were tempered by social mobility, individual freedom, and patriotism. Unfortunately, as the bureaucracy has increased, more outlets for powerful individuals to exercise legal authority have emerged. Additionally, the reduction in patriotism has been a major source of discord and division.

At this critical juncture we have a choice to make; whether we will take pride in being citizens of a free nation or succumb to the more vainglorious and tyrannical distinctions of class.

One of the most fundamental aspects of our legal system is the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty.” Rather than brazenly accuse people of crimes, legal authorities must offer up convincing evidence to a jury in order to eliminate any “reasonable doubt” that a person is innocent. This humane system assists with a smooth operation of the laws and protects the rights of the defendant.

However, in addition to being an important legal doctrine, “innocent until proven guilty” must also be seen as a way of life. By assuming the best of others, until proven otherwise, we are able to flourish as a cooperative and healthy society. Instead of being suspicious and resentful of one another, “innocent until proven guilty”y provides the necessary framework by which we can come together and form communities with one another.

Social critic Os Guiness has written about this phenomenon in his book The Magna Carta of Humanity. The central idea of the book is that the wisdom for our free society comes from the revolution that freed the Israelites from bondage.

Out of this momentous event emerged a nation that was based upon a covenant rather than a hierarchy. By incurring mutual religious obligations to one another, loyalty, patriotism, and charity were created, which allowed the state to flourish.

Guinness recounts how the Jewish scholar Daniel J. Elazar has created a new framework for viewing governments through the lens of community relations. The three types that he examined were organic, hierarchical, and covenantal. Organic societies consisted of African tribes or Scottish clansmen while hierarchical societies consisted of authoritarians.

By contrast, covental societies are unique because they have been founded on an agreement between people to found a republic or commonwealth. This idea is what birthed the Constitution of the American Republic and the Declaration of Independence. Each set limits on the authority of the powerful and laid out the rights of the people.

This form of government has always required a significant amount of trust. In order to grant your fellow citizens liberty one must trust that the freedom of individuals is better than the authority of a supreme magistrate. 

This was certainly a great leap for many people. In his famous Meditations, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote that he wished to have a republic of free men. This seems contradictory, given that he was an emperor. However, he believed that men could only be free through moral submission. In his mind a politically free society was too utopian. An untrustworthy and unstable goal. After all, he was surrounded by savage barbarians and a population that generally didn’t subscribe to his moral code

Today we are seeing the resurgence of distrust with claims such as “all white people are racist,” “believe all women,” or “all cops are bad.”  If our fellow citizens are so evil as to merit universal condemnation, then how will we remain free together?

The answer is that we will not. Instead, we will become suspicious, resentful, and angry. Demagogues will be able to capitalize on this anger and usurp the authority to “make things right.” Only through trust can we build a free society together.

“Some Socialists see private enterprise as a tiger—a predatory animal to be shot. Others see it as an old cow to be milked. But we Conservatives see it as a sturdy horse that pulls along our economy.”- Winston Churchill

Unfortunately, in our modern age, many people have chosen to scorn the institutions which have brought prosperity and freedom. One of these institutions is free market capitalism. Although it is often caricatured as being a system for the greedy and ignorant, many who offer the loudest criticisms have never actually read about capitalism. 

Far from blindly endorsing profiteers and business owners, Adam Smith, capitalism’s intellectual founder, was highly skeptical of businessmen. The famed economist Thomas Sowell notes that Smith’s views of capitalists were almost as bleak as those of Karl Marx. In the first book of his classic The Wealth of Nations Smith warns his readers that “The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [profiteers], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.”

Modern day leftists would do well to remember this sound advice. Although they constantly lambast the corporate sector, many are happy to support companies that offer woke messaging. For instance, they cheer as the NBA plasters the court with progressive slogans while turning a blind eye to oppression in China. 

Similarly, bourgeois individuals purchasing hundreds of dollars worth of clothing from Nike marvel at ads featuring Colin Kaepernick while ignoring the fact that Nike lobbied against a bill to put increased tariffs on products made with slave labor.

Everyone would do well to keep the danger of profiteers in mind when judging big tech, which is perhaps the most powerful sector on the planet. These companies have the ability to propagandize, silence information they disagree with, and create an artificial environment. 

Meta (formerly Facebook) which is on the cutting edge of the social media sector recently released an ad campaign asking for regulators to take action against them. Such an odd request was met with applause by many who naively viewed this company as acting in a selfless manner for the general public.

Unfortunately, we should keep in mind Adam Smith’s prescient warning about the danger of corporations. Far from acting out of selflessness, Facebook and their marketing executives are acting in a manner that is contrary to the public interest.

Due to public uproar, they are unable to ban people without incurring significant reputational damage and backlash. Twitter, for example, has seen a number of users, including Joe Rogan move over to the free speech platform Gettr.

By allowing a governmental agency to step in and regulate their company, social media moguls could have their cake and eat it too. They would be able to censor at will while avoiding the reputational damage that comes along with such actions. If a government agency ordered them to censor content, they could abdicate responsibility and continue to stop the spread of information they dislike.

Despite the fact that leftists often like to think of themselves as rebels, they are perhaps the most establishmentarian group in America. Far from being skeptical of power, they embrace the ability of power to influence and control others. Whereas “right-wingers” such as Adam Smith have viewed corporations as a necessary aspect of a healthy economy, leftists view corporations as another outlet to increase their political power.