Silence Dogood Wire

Perhaps nothing has been scorned more in modern times than faith. It has been derided by Enlightenment philosophers from Rousseau to Voltaire and intellectuals have sympathized with Marx’s claim that it is the opium of the masses. To them faith is nothing more than the superstitious consumption of bread and adherence to pointless cultural taboos. This is no doubt a supreme caricature that could only be created by intellectuals who can’t help but revel in the powers of their considerable, though limited, intelligence. What they fail to recognize is that man cannot live without faith.

So what is faith? As much as it is derided by modern philosophers, the ancient Greeks thought it was essential. In the words of New York Post editor Sohrab Ahmari, they believed that “there must be some unchangeable being in whose absolute being all others participate (Plato), or some unchanged cause that is the ultimate cause of all other change (Aristotle).” Aristotle and Plato believed that in this “system of the supreme being” individuals would work to achieve virtue. They would do this by achieving their purpose (telos) in the world.

Christianity provided the necessary framework in which people could work to achieve their purpose through the use of their reason. It supplied the Greek philosophers with an answer to their question of who was the supreme being in the universe. The Jews and Christians believed that it was a benevolent and loving God who made man in his divine image.

 Of course it required faith to accept it. The Bible was the product of revelation, not reason and was thereby able to supply the deficiencies of human reason. This is the pure view of faith; submitting to a universal moral code that allows you to use your reason in order to fulfill your purpose in the world.

However, as I said before, man cannot live without faith. Therefore, the attempts of philosophers to get rid of faith has led to the spread of a new and perverse form of faith with no resemblance to Judeo-Christian morals. This faith relies on the idea that there is no objective truth in the universe. Rather it is nothing but a social construct. 

Those who make such a claim have one problem. If there is no objective truth, how can your statement that there is no objective truth be objectively true? Therefore proponents of nihilism must have faith. They must have the faith that nothing is certain except uncertainty.

The new generation is the byproduct of the perverse faith encroaching on the true faith. Men of science attempt to stave off nihilism by positing that scientific fact is the ultimate truth. Science popularizers such as Neil Degrasse Tyson love to repeat the poetic line that “we are stardust.” This merely masks the fact that science has no inherent morality. It cannot tell us how to act. Only knowledge within a moral framework can guide our actions.

In addition to this, young people shun church service and engage in pseudo-holy rituals such as yoga and meditation. None of these new personal paths to spirituality can fulfill the void which Christianity was meant to fulfill. They impose no moral code or guiding light. They merely stave off the inevitable realization that you believe in nothing. In the end one must choose. Either you have faith in an objective moral code which allows you to fulfill your telos or you have faith in meaninglessness and succumb to the pit of despair and death.

As with so much of our modern thinking, we are influenced by what Karl Marx called “The tradition of all the dead generations [which] weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.” Marx bemoaned the fact that so much of our thinking was influenced by past actors, which prevented radical change. Fortunately, the influence that weighs upon us provides us with more help than hindrance. It is a rich Greco-Roman tradition which has graced us with literature, philosophy, and governmental institutions. Therefore, in order to determine what justice is, it is important to look upon this tradition for wisdom and guidance.

In his sixth-century Institutes, the famous Emperor Justinian codified into Roman law our modern conception of justice. He defined it as “the constant and perpetual will to render each his due.” He believed that it was justice to give a man what he was owed. This definition was also consistent with Plato who defined justice in The Republic as, “doing one’s own work and not meddling with what isn’t one’s own.” Plato believed that in order for a man to be just he had to fulfill his station in life. 

According to these two definitions it is just for a man to fulfill his station in life while giving each man what he is due. In this view, justice does not seem to require any material equality. After all, each man or woman has their own destiny to fulfill. Additionally, each person is due a different amount. It would be absurd to say that Titan of Industry J.D. Rockefeller was owed the same as a man who worked on the assembly line of a Ford factory. If this was distorted, it would actually be contrary to principles of justice. Each is given what he is owed based on his specific skill set, which is consistent with a Justinian conception of justice.

Therefore, material equality is not justice. Our Founding Fathers realized this. That is why they never tried to enforce material equality. Instead, they attempted to establish a respect for equal rights. In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with Certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” In the eyes of our Founders, the whole purpose of government was to protect these natural rights. 

Because the Founders believed that these natural rights were a gift from God, they must have also thought that it was unjust to discriminate against people based upon arbitrary characteristics. This fundamental proposition established the principle of equality under the law, also known as the rule of law, which is the fundamental tenet of American equality. Thus, courts were set up to ensure that justice would be done. In the Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton claimed, “the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits of its assigned authority.” Therefore, the judiciary was designed to respect the natural equality of mankind by preserving the natural rights that each individual is due.

Unfortunately, America would fall far short of this goal with such evils as slavery and Jim Crow segregation. However, famous abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass would call upon America to recognize its creed of equality and justice. In his fight for equality under the law, Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’” King and other great civil rights leaders harked back to our original notions of justice and equality. They believed that it is just for the government to treat people equally, because God has given everyone natural rights and natural value.

In the end, justice and equality are not bound to be at odds with one another. They are innately intertwined. Justice does not lie in material equality. It lies in giving each man what he is due. Given that each man is endowed by his Creator with innate value, it is just for the government to treat us equally before the law. It is also just that the government should constantly seek to honor our natural rights. This is our Founding creed and it has inspired countless heroes in their relentless pursuit of freedom, justice, and equality before the law.

Around three weeks ago, the only democratic country in the Middle East was bombarded with rockets by terrorist thugs in Gaza. The radical Palestinian group, Hamas, targeted innocent civilians for extermination in a fierce rocket barrage. Meanwhile Iranian leader Ayatollah Khameini cheered and urged all Muslim nations to support the terrorists, “with military development, with financial developments.” The Israeli Defense Force responded with airstrikes targeting Hamas’ military operations. 

In this situation it should not be difficult to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. After all, Israel is a multiethnic state whose citizens live under the rule of law. In Israel you can be a minority, a member of the LGBT community, or a Palestinian and have the right to fully participate in society. This is certainly not the case in any other Middle Eastern country.

However, politicians and pundits in the United States have had a very difficult time taking a morally sound position on the conflict. The Washington Post ran an emotional headline titled, “Israel killed 14 of his family members in Gaza. Now he fears he will lose his wife too.” There was no mention of Israeli casualties. Members of our media seem to think that it is more immoral to unintentionally kill civilians in an attack on terrorists than it is for terrorists to place civilian-targeting weapons in civilian areas.

The moral equivalency that is drawn between Israel and supporters of Palestine is ill-informed and ideological. Those who call attention to the supposed evils of Israel fail to mention that the state has one of the most moral militaries in the entire world. The IDF often forces its soldiers to use non lethal rounds or shoot at the enemy’s legs in potentially deadly situations in order to avoid civilian casualties. Additionally, known terrorist outposts are often shot with non-explosive tank rounds in case civilians are also occupying the building. All of this is extraordinarily generous given the danger in which IDF soldiers are in and the fact that the Palestinian population has consistently supported terrorism against Israeli civilians. Over 50 percent of the population of Gaza where the recent strikes occurred support a return to armed struggle.

Additionally, support for violence is not just reserved to terrorist scum. The Palestinian Authority has enacted a Pay-For-Slay program that rewards the families of terrorist “martyrs” with generous financial compensation. The program has currently paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to the families of convicted terrorists. In 2017 a bipartisan bill was passed to financially cut off the PA until payments to this vile program were suspended. However, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to reopen aid to Palestinians even though terrorism has continued. The administration is also urging moderation on the part of Israel at a time when violence against Israeli citizens has been increasing. It doesn’t take a degree in foreign policy to realize that rewarding terrorism by chastising the vitctim only encourages more terrorism.

The history of Israel and Palestine can be boiled down to Israel extending the olive branch and Palestine slapping it away with rockets and gunfire. At the 2000-2001 Camp David-Taba peace negotiations Israel offered Palestinians virtually everything they had been demanding, including a free state with control over Jerusalem. The democratically elected Yasser Arafat rejected the deal and chose to resume terrorism. Violence has continued ever since illustrating that a Palestinian state would be nothing but a terrorist enclave.

Anyone who claims that Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, or the PLO are engaging in righteous action is either morally bankrupt, ignorant of history, a parrot, or all three. Israel has one of the most disciplined fighting forces in the world and has continually sought to diffuse regional conflict. Faced with individuals who want to murder their family members, IDF soldiers show a remarkable amount of restraint and dignity. A virtually imposed UN ceasefire would merely divert blame away from where it belongs; the terrorists who reject Israeli statehood and want to murder the Jews.

Voluntary association of individuals has been the hallmark of our country since its inception. The government has recognized the rights of people to form businesses, attend religious services, start political organizations, and even create utopian communities. This system has allowed individuals to flourish in voluntary cooperatives that are still individualistic in nature, meaning that people are allowed to live their lives in a manner they see fit, while also partaking in a moral, economic, or political community that lies outside of state coercion.

One fundamental assumption of this system, however, has been the idea that people are rational beings who are able to gauge the risks they face in society. This is true of businesses when people put their money on the line and in charities where the charitable work is often dangerous. At a basic level it is true of religious institutions, which pose the greatest risk of all; if you choose the wrong religion, you could spend eternity in Hell.

The kings of the Middle Ages used this argument in order to burn heretics and force people to participate in state run churches. However, during the Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke challenged the notion that individuals should have religion forced upon them by governmental authority. Locke believed that religion was a voluntary choice that did not infringe upon the civil rights of any other person. The capitalist Adam Smith, another important Enlightenment thinker, extended this idea to his theory of the economy. He believed that individuals should be allowed to accept risk in order to form voluntary corporations with others. 

The idea that individuals are able to accept risk and engage in voluntary action with others is at the bedrock of Western civilization. This philosophy has been used to justify the separation of church and state, the destruction of slavery, and the ability of individual to choose the professions they enter, rather than having family heritage dictate their job.

Despite its utility, this ideal has come under attack by leftist intellectuals who believe that they possess enough knowledge and intelligence to effectively gauge the risk of all others and dictate the actions which they take.

This urge has always been strong among politicians but never has it been more pronounced than during the COVID-19 pandemic. To justify their coercive policies, left-wing politicians and propagandizers often repeated the phrase, “you just want to kill grandma.” What many of them forgot is that “grandma” has free will. If grandma wants to attend mass and even die, then that is her right to do so. The same is true of all others. If people want to party without masks, then why should they not be allowed to? Everyday we gauge risks when we make investments, drive our cars, or get married. It is not the job of others to perform this task for us.

 Third party onlookers have no business hindering mutually voluntary interaction because they think the risk is too great. There is absolutely no justification for this kind of tyranny in everyday life. It evokes images of Dark Ages tyrants who forced people into religious practices, because their mortal souls were at risk. It also evokes images of Soviet Gulags, where individuals were forced to work because the risk that free market enterprise would create inequality was too great. When someone says that the risk is too great, they forget that this is a personal decision, that does not justify governmental coercion. Life would be much better if people focused on personal improvement in voluntary collectives rather than having the government control others every time they think that something is wrong with the world.

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.

In the middle of the 19th century, the insightful defender of liberty, Johns Stuart Mill commented on how laws were not always necessary to systematically control people. In his famous tract, On Liberty (in an insightful critique of the cancel culture of his day), he claimed that the ostracization of people from society was enough to force any man to hold his tongue and fall in with the orthodoxy. In other words, fear of consequences if a powerful force that can have just as much power as actual laws.

The tactful Franklin D. Roosevelt must have known this in the 1930s when he proposed court packing. He sought to add justices to the Supreme Court in order to pass his radical New Deal legislation. Although he failed miserably, the Supreme Court was startled enough at his actions to allow much of his legislation to be rendered legally valid. FDR didn’t need to pack the court because the threat of it was enough for him to accomplish its goals.

As with many things, history has repeated itself and today we find ourselves in exactly the same predicament. Democrats are using the threat of court packing in order to put fear into the hearts of our most powerful judges. Speaker Pelosi recently said that she would not bring forth legislation to pack the Supreme Court, but would also not rule out the possibility.

Her underlying meaning; “do exactly as we say or we will destroy the function of your branch of government in order to make it our slave.” Another accurate way of saying this is; “ignore the Constitution. We are the Constitution.”

All of this begs the question; what are Democrats trying to force members of the Supreme Court to do (or rather not do)? The truth is that they do not care about the rule of law or a faithful interpretation of the Constitution of this country. If they did, they would have thrown their full support behind Amy Coney-Barrett. Calling her a conservative judge is an insult, she is an originalist. 

In fact, every single “conservative” justice on the court is an originalist and a textualist. This means that they interpret the Constitution and laws based on their original and textual meaning. Democrats however, would like justices to promote a “living” interpretation of the Constitution. What this really means, is that they would like justices to make decisions not based upon the law, but based upon their personal viewpoints about what they think the laws should mean. It is apparent that they think our fundamental rights are meant to be tinkered with by judicial professionals who use their personal whims to determine what the laws of this country are. 

In another use of fear mongering, President Joe Biden recently supported the exit of companies from Georgia in a boycott over their new voting law.  He stated that, “I think today’s professional athletes are acting incredibly responsibly — I would strongly support them doing that.” Once again, Democrats are using their preferred tactic; fear. The fear that any state or person who strays from liberal ideas will be crushed, cancelled, and ostracized. 

It is absurd that people on the left who love to reference the evils of McCarthyism during the 1950s could be so blind. They are the new McCarthys and they will do anything in their power to bully those who disagree with them into submission, whether it be an individual, state, or even the Supreme Court of the United States.

During the pandemic there has been a virtual consensus on the left that Dr. Anthony Fauci was a great leader. The media constantly gave him a platform as if he were more important than the president and practically drooled over everything he said.

However, as the pandemic continued, Fauci’s biases and expansion of authority began to come under fire by many conservatives. In an early interview  Fauci stated that churches should “limit the number of people, so that you don’t have people in the pews right next to each other.” However, when he was asked by Congressman Jim Jordan about whether or not the government should attempt to limit protests Fauci said, “I think I would leave that to people who have more of a position to do that.”

The contradictory statements made by Fauci on different issues and his willingness to act as if he were a politician illustrates that he is an expert who has attempted to overstep the limits of his profession.

In society, the purpose of a politician is to take into account the different and sometimes conflicting advicea of his experts and constituents and then implement a feasible program. However, because Fauci is an unelected bureaucrat, he doesn’t have to do any of these things. 

He can make recommendations whether or not they are feasible or democratic. Additionally, the limits imposed upon him by his particular field of knowledge prevented him from truly understanding the psychological impact of his lockdown recommendations. A politician would need to take into account all of these things.

The authority that Fauci was given by the media and Democratic politicians illustrates the direction in which the liberal order is moving in this country. Many on the left would like to see individual freedom and intelligent statesmanship replaced by an administrative bureaucracy that is staffed by “experts.”

 Leftists are often baffled by the right’s apparent distrust of intellectuals. However, it is not a distrust of the intellectual that drives the right. It is a distrust of institutions that seek to place unelected intellectuals in positions of power, where they make decisions concerning individual conduct.

Despite the fact that he is an unelected bureaucrat, many treated Fauci’s recommendations as if they were the final word without concerning themselves with the suggestions of any other members of society. By definition however, an expert is someone who is extremely specialized in a certain field. It is the job of politicians to sort out the recommendations of different experts and their constituency. This is why Fauci failed as a coronavirus leader. He attempted to usurp the authority of a politician while fulfilling none of their functions. He should have been kept behind the scenes to give advice to the real leaders and recognized the deficiencies of his own knowledge.

Something that has become increasingly popular in our modern culture is the desire to destroy the memories of those who have built up our societies. Those who came before us now have the worst aspects of them brought to the forefront as society indulges in a cleansing pseudo-holy ritual. 

In their eyes, the only way to wash our hands of the sins of our society is to destroy those who have created the very society in which we live. This starts by destroying those who have come before us. In the words of Karl Marx “The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.” In order to make way for revolutionary change, those dead generations must be forgotten and scorned.

It is true that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and even Abraham Lincoln suffered from major vices. They were racists who often fell short of what it means to be a good person. However, they were also great men who occasionally transcended the evil of their day. That is more than what most people will do in their lives. 

While they committed evil, the virtue that they pursued led to the eventual eradication of that evil. The words of Thomas Jefferson were used by MLK to defeat the racism that he advocated for. The lives of the forefathers whom we honor were not spent promoting vice. They were spent promoting virtues which led to the eradication of the vice that they participated in. They moved us forward morally, socially, and politically. They are the reason why we can look back and criticize what they participated in.

In his new book, 12 More Rules for Life; Beyond Order, Jordan Peterson points out that when humans imitate others, we do not imitate their exact actions. Instead, we embody the “spirit” of those we are imitating. When we tell our children to imitate George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln, we are not telling them to imitate every action that they took. We are telling them to imitate their “spirit.” We want them to be great speakers, leaders, politicians, warriors, and men.

If we tear down the statues of the men who have bequeathed to us a free society built upon the rule of law, then who will our heroes be? If perfection is the prerequisite for being admired then no one short of Jesus or Mary is fit for a reward. However, the people who attempt to destroy the memory of those who they irrationally hate are not typically fond of Christianity.

In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke scolded the French with the quote “Spartam nactus es; hanc exorna.” (You have obtained Sparta adorn it). We admire people who have taken their heritage and improved upon it. Whether that heritage be a country, a philosophy, or a religion. Those who have sought to improve our society and produced results that we enjoy today are fit for admiration.

Those who seek to tear down statues are weak and arrogant individuals who think that if they existed at any other time period, they would be just as morally virtuous as they are now. They think that they are heroic when all they do is destroy what has been given to them.

The fruits of the labor of past heroes should not be cast aside because they had faults. We should continue to encourage people to emulate the spirit of their action. Only in this way can meaningful change, stability, and justice occur at the same time.

During the enlightenment a number of philosophical strands emerged that birthed our modern definition of freedom. Philosophers such as John Locke cast aside the vestiges of dark ages tyranny and ushered in a new era of freedom that would culminate in the birth of the American republic, founded upon natural rights. 

Despite the fact that this age caused man to revile from monarchy, oligarchy, and aristocracy, it did not completely erase man’s desire to keep himself in slavery. In many ways, the supposedly democratic state imagined by some of the enlightenment philosophers was actually more tyrannical than monarchy.

Although hailed by many as being a manifestation of the enlightenment principles of democracy and freedom, The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is actually where we find the intellectual roots of modern totalitarianism. Although a proponent of democracy Rousseau’s ideas perpetuated and popularized the idea of a totalitarian state that would dip its hand into every facet of an individual’s life. Rousseau believed that the relations between individuals “should be as limited, and relations with the entire body as extensive, as possible, in order that each citizen shall be at the same time perfectly independent of all his fellow citizens and excessively dependent upon the republic.” He wished to replace the interdependence of individuals upon each other with complete dependence upon the state, thereby establishing complete supremacy of the sovereign. 

Rousseau’s destruction of relations independent of the state and his totalitarian approach to government make his state even more tyrannical than a monarchy which only concerns itself with a limited sphere. During WWII famed sociologist Robert Nisbet wrote, 

“It is in Rousseau’s absorption of all forms of society into the unitary mould of the state that we may observe the first unmistakable appearance of the totalitarian theory of society. More perhaps than any other theorist, Rousseau, by the sheer brilliance of his style, has popularized that view of state and society which underlies totalitarianism and which has indeed made possible the acceptance of the total state in this century” (Jstor).

In Rousseau’s state, power lies not in the hands of individuals and voluntary associations. It lies in the hands of the collective to elect someone who will control them.

Indeed, Rousseau’s definition of freedom is completely warped and doesn’t rely on natural rights, but instead upon the dominance of what he calls the general will. In his view, the general will would be used in order to elect a type of philosopher king who would run the affairs of society. In his treatise on education, Emile, Rousseau illustrates his views about mankind. At the end of the book when Emile is grown, he asks his tutor, “Advise and control us… as long as I live I shall need you. I need you more than ever now that I am taking on the duties of manhood.” In the Social Contract, the lawgiver takes the place of the tutor and can even use trickery to convince the masses to submit to his will. 

The mental abilities of the lawgiver are so important that an immovable public must be convinced that he has been inspired by the divine. “Tis sublime reasoning, which soars above the heads of the common people, is used by the lawgiver when he puts his own decision into the mouth of the immortals, thus compelling the divine authority of persons who cannot be moved by human prudence” (Rousseau 87). The reason of man becomes God and God knows no limits or boundaries. Although cloaked in the enlightened language of democracy and freedom, the philosophy of Rousseau and other rationalists is a recipe for complete control which allows the masses to sell themselves and their fellow men into a form of slavery whereby the supremacy of natural rights, family, and church are usurped by state control.

Despite being highly propagandized as a statement on democratic principles, Rousseau’s Social Contract attempted to destroy natural rights and give a democratic government even more power than a monarchy, oligarchy, or aristocracy. The effects of his philosophy can be seen to this day with people who wish to make the state the supreme arbiter of individual affairs. Counteracting this tyrannical current requires an adherence to founding principles which put a precedence on an individual’s natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Since the election of Joe Biden there has been a lot of talk about unity. President Biden correctly stated in his inaugural address that, “without unity there is no peace, only bitterness and fury.” However, statements such as this reek of the demagogic hot air that is often emitted from the mouths of politicians.

After all, there is little hope that Republicans or Democrats will ever agree with each other. Additionally, with both Congressional houses under Democratic control, it is unlikely that President Biden will check any of his more progressive urges.

How then do we lower the temperature and promote unity? The answer lies not in finding a supposed middle ground but rather in finding basic points of commonality that people from both sides of the aisle can agree upon and fight to defend.

One of these major points of commonality is our dedication to preserving the Supreme Court of the United States. English philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was an admirer of the Court, wrote that “there is nothing which more vitally imports the American people, than to guard with the most watchful solicitude against anything which has the remotest tendency to produce deterioration in the quality of this great institution.”

The Supreme Court preserves our governmental institutions, protects individual rights, and prevents any unlawful usurpations of authority. We should all take a lesson from the Democrats of 1937 who controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. 

During this period the United States was dealing with a tragic depression and FDR was enacting numerous measures which he believed would save the economy. Frustrated that some of these were struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Roosevelt introduced legislation that would pack the court with six more pro-government justices.

Despite having complete party control and immense personal popularity, his legislation was struck down by a bipartisan tidal wave that struck a huge blow to his political prestige.

This example illustrates that the presence of unity does not require any middle ground. In fact, the Republicans and Democrats were extremely divided over the direction of economic policy. However, unity was promoted by the fact that they harked back to common principles of government in our country.

A second point of commonality which we should all be able to agree upon is that what half the country considers to be a great moral evil should not be funded by taxpayers. Whatever President Biden’s beliefs about abortion, his decision to allow taxpayer funding to be administered to non-governmental organizations that provide abortions is competely reprehensible.

The decision is akin to forcing every single American to donate money to the NRA, despite their personal beliefs. Promoting unity could easily be accomplished by Biden’s refusal to provide taxpayer money to abortion providers.

A third and final point of commonality which could easily unite us would be a refusal to discriminate against people based upon race. This should not need to be said in the 21st century but unfortunately, those who claim to be progressives are actually regressives who seek to prevent us from moving forward.

In a recent statement about COVID-19 relief Joe Biden stated that “Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses.” The decision to administer aid based on race is divisive and immoral. 

All people have suffered from the pandemic and it is important to move forward together. Additionally, if Biden is worried about the effects of supposed “systemic racism” then why doesn’t he administer relief based on need. If minorities are truly worse off than white people then it will naturally affect them more.

The three simple suggestions that I have laid out should be easy to accept for any rational person. They merely require us to recognize certain points of commonality that we should adhere to in order to respect our fellow citizens and preserve our systems of government. Anyone who disagrees with this is the cause of our division, not the cure.