Silence Dogood Wire

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.

The events that took place at the Capitol on January 6th are unparalleled in the twenty-first century. The last time that our seat of government was overrun occurred in 1812 when the British seized our Capitol and burned it to the ground. The riots will have consequences that go far beyond the mere destruction of property.

Naturally this awful event will have lasting influence on our public discussions and American politics, specifically for conservatives. Although the rioters certainly weren’t acting in a conservative manner, they were Trump supporters, and it will be Republicans who must pay the price and regroup. This begs the question; where do conservatives go from here?

Currently, the two major strands of conservatism within the Repulican party and the conservative media are rights based conservatism and populist conservatism. 

Rights based conservatives today militate in favor of limited government and hail from the tradition of their modern champion, Ronald Reagan.

On the other hand, populists are not strong believers in limited government. Whereas rights based conservatives would argue in favor of free-markets, populists would argue that markets should be bent towards more conservative ideals such as protecting small town manufacturing jobs.

Influential populist commentator and Fox News host Tucker Carlson stated of free market capitalism that “Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.” 

Populism also stems from a belief that the political establishment is not listening to the needs of everyday Americans. Carlson and other populist conservatives often scornfully refer to those in D.C. as our “ruling class.”

Although the political establishment could certainly be cleared out from time to time, radical right wing populism can erode people’s faith in the democratic institutions that elect our leaders. This was illustrated by the emergence of the QAnon theory. This conspiracy promoted a version of radical populism that claimed that our ruling class were also satanic pedophiles who were running sex rings.

Those who stormed the Capitol last week were radical populists who believed that our “ruling class” had forgotten about them and were seeking to steal an election.

I am definitely not accusing Carlson or other mainstream populist conservatives of promoting a radical version of populism. They are no more responsible for the radicalization of fools than Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro. In fact, many of them disavowed and were horrified by the violence on the Capitol. Those on the left who say that they are promoting this type of violence are divisive political hacks who want to shut down free speech.

However, after Wednesday’s events, their association with the populist rhetoric of Trump will likely reflect poorly on them and lead to the resurgence of rights based conservatism across the country and within the Republican party. In the 2024 election look out for Reaganesque conservatives like Nikki Haley to rise above the candidates rather than populists such as Tucker Carlson.

Photo Credit: Daniel X. O’Neil from USA, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

One of the most important traits in any person is humility. Humility allows people to realize the important inheritance which they have been given and build upon it. Without humility, it is easy to become caught up in your own intellect and have false delusions of grandeur which lead you to destroy previously credible institutions to promote your own narrative.

One institution in American life which has become completely devoid of humility is America’s mainstream media. All one needs to do is turn on CNN and listen to Don Lemon tell you about how Trump supporters are like “drug addicts.” Lemon and many others in the media believe that those who disagree with them are idiots who need to be persuaded with biased journalism.

Members of the media are so obsessed with their own intelligence that they are unable to cover things objectively or understand that their job is to provide the American public with objective information. The Washington Post published a column titled The media never fully learned how to cover Trump. But they still might have saved democracy. This self-flattery is characteristic of those in power and illustrates why the media can’t be objective; they are obsessed with their own self-righteousness which makes them demonize anyone who disagrees with their ideological preferences.

What was once objective journalism has become a partisan charade that slobbers over the prevailing Democratic candidate. 

It seems that the media is almost incapable of asking Joe Biden a difficult question or running an overtly critical piece on his presidency. The Daily Beast gave a sample of what the next four years will look like with their article titled Joe Biden’s Dogs Have Told This Pet Psychic a Lot About Their Beloved Master, and His Future. The article goes on to interview a pet psychic who claimed that Joe Biden’s dog’s said he would be a great president.

Additionally, there has been little to no coverage about one of Biden’s prospective picks for Ambassador to China. The man who we were told would restore our status abroad is said to have former Disney CEO Bob Iger at the top of his ambassador wish list. It is important to note that Iger is still the Executive Chairman of Disney which has repeatedly cozied up to the Chinese Communist Party. Disney’s recent Mulan film thanked CCP entities that are tied to the imprisonment of Uighur Muslims.

Most shockingly, the bombshell story that was published by the New York Post about Hunter Biden’s corrupt business dealings was only recently covered by CNN. When it was first released, CNN president Jeff Zucker told his media talking heads to downplay the story. CNN’s political director, David Chalian, was recorded saying, “Obviously, we’re not going with the New York Post story right now on Hunter Biden.”

It is virtually unheard of that a major media outlet would ignore a scandal involving a candidate for the United States Presidency. As always, though, they were blinded by their own self importance. They believed that they couldn’t cover the story until after the election, so that they could help “save democracy” by aiding the downfall of President Trump.

I would propose a different slogan to the Washington Post’s “democracy dies in darkness.” I believe that democracy dies when people no longer think for themselves and are controlled by the narratives of those in power. For the next four years we should recognize that whether or not President-elect Joe Biden does a good job, the media will incessantly praise him. They are devoid of humility and believe that their ultimate objective is to influence the American mind so that more left-leaning politicians can be elected.

Photo Credit: Tasnim News Agency, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

One of the main goals of American foreign policy since the inception of the nuclear bomb has been to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of murderous regimes who have a disregard for human life. At his famous Reykyavic summit with Soviet premier Mikhael Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan insisted on the need for a Strategic Defense Initiative in order to prevent a Hitlerian organization from destroying millions of innocents with a nuclear weapon.

Unfortunately, their is no such defense that is capable of stopping all nuclear attacks. Therefore, the United States must focus on keeping atom bombs out of the hands of terrorists. This should be something that all Americans, regardless of party lines are on board with, even if it requires drastic measures to be taken.

The assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakrhizadeh last Friday is one of those provocative but necessary measures that must be taken to ensure a safe and secure world. Fakrhizadeh was instrumental in developing the Iranian nuclear program. The New York Times reported that even after the program was formally disbanded, Fakhrizadeh covertly kept it alive.

Additionally, Fakhrizadeh was a senior official in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which is a designated terrorist organization.

His death is a gift to international security and should not be condemned by those who want a peaceful world. Unfortunately, the mainstream left in this country seems to be so blinded by their desire for peace that they fail to recognize that it is a two way street. When the enemy will not give into your demands, you must break them in order to get what you want. Especially, if that enemy is a terror loving regime such as Iran.

Apparently Democrats would like to conduct a policy akin to the one Britain pursued before the outbreak of WWII. Their insistence on the Iran Nuclear Deal is telling of their failure to conduct a rational foreign policy. 

Despite their claim that the Deal was beneficial for peace, the JCPOA wasn’t even meant to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It was merely meant to expand the time needed for Iran to build a nuclear weapon from 2-3 months to one year. Additionally, the deal did not even prevent Iran from developing its ballistic missile capabilities. Missiles which could be used to carry a nuclear warhead. 

By the time the deal would have ended Iran would have had everything it needed to make a nuclear weapon. This, in addition to Fakhrizadeh’s covert operations, illustrates that the Iran Deal was merely an attempt by the Obama administration to kick the can down the road with the naive hope that by the deal’s expiration, Iran would no longer be in bed with terrorist organizations around the world. 

I know that people are pro-or anti-the Iran accord regardless of facts, but it is a bit much when Rafael Grossi head of the International Atomic Energy Agency reports enriched uranium in an undeclared site at Turquzabad, declares it as a major violation & signatories say nothing.

— Edward N Luttwak (@ELuttwak) November 27, 2020

The left in this country have also gone soft on specific terrorists who support the killing of U.S. soldiers. Back in January President Trump ordered the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Soleimani was second in command in Iran and was the leader of Iran’s Quds force which conducted proxy wars by supporting terrorists in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq. Additionally, the National Council of Resistance of Iran reported that,

Soleimani ordered a systematic shoot-to-kill policy that has seen masked snipers on the roofs of government buildings, indiscriminately shooting unarmed, young protesters in the head and chest. IRGC goons and security agents then scoured the country’s hospitals, dragging the wounded from their beds.

NCRI

Suffice it to say, by all standards, this man deserved to die for his continuing support of violence and oppression. Despite this, presumptive President elect Joe Biden said that President Trump had “just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.” He and his allies in Congress then decried the possibility of escalation. It doesn’t take a scholar of history to draw lines between the rhetoric of the Democrats to the appeasement of Hitler by the British.

The assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was reckless, provocative, and illegal. As a new administration takes power, it was clearly intended to undermine U.S.-Iran diplomacy. We must not allow that to happen.

Diplomacy, not murder, is the best path forward. https://t.co/BzOhNmwSGv

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 28, 2020

The left’s worries about the killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh is a mere continuation of their  inability to craft a hard-handed foreign policy in the Middle East. They vainly hope that an uncooperative and violent regime founded upon theocratic oppression will magically become virtuous and respectful. The approach of the Republicans may not be ideal, but it beats the alternative of allowing Iran to continue their destruction of the Middle East.

Even though President Donald Trump lost this election, one thing is for certain: the President proved that America is not divided along the racialized lines that have been created by intellectual elites. After four years of being derided as a racist, President Trump proved that the ideals of the Republican party have broad support among individuals of all races. In fact, Trump performed better with minority voters than any Republican candidate since 1960. 

Despite this stellar performance, progressives are still in denial and they continue to believe that anyone who supported Trump is supporting “racial castes.” Writing for The Lily, Annelise M. Bruner decried the slim margins by which Joe Biden won stating that, “White people have had to convince themselves of their innate superiority, of the goodness of their race, to justify their disenfranchisement of people of other races.” According to her logic, the millions of minorities who voted for President Trump are idiots who are supporting racism and the tens of millions of  white people who voted for President Trump are attempting to entrench racism in the American system.

This refusal on the part of arrogant intellectuals to acknowledge the fact that those who voted for President Trump are mainly logical and good-hearted human beings is the result of their attachment to the ideology of identity politics. Identity politics is the belief that people will make political alliances based on race, sexual orientation, or some other distinct factor of their identity.

Proponents of identity politics believe that if a political party creates a perfectly tailored agenda for a certain racial group, that party will be able to gain all of the votes from said group. The absurdity of this was demonstrated by the Presidential election, but identity politics, like many other ideologies, blinds people to the truth. In the eyes of the writer mentioned above, and many of those who agree with her, the minorities who voted for Trump are not actual minorities. In response to the tremendous Cuban support that was garnered by President Trump, Nikole Hannah-Jones, author of the New York Times’ 1619 Project, tweeted that “Latino is a contrived ethnic category that artificially lumps white Cubans with Black Puerto Ricans and Indigenous Guatemalans and helps explains why Latinos support Trump at the second highest rate.” 

One day after this election is over I am going to write a piece about how Latino is a contrived ethnic category that artificially lumps white Cubans with Black Puerto Ricans and Indigenous Guatemalans and helps explains why Latinos support Trump at the second highest rate.

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) November 4, 2020

Apparently, if you are a minority who voted for President Trump, you are no longer a “real” minority. Instead, you are attempting to be accepted by the white majority. After reading the views of many of these Democratic party supporters it becomes clear that Joe Biden’s “then you ain’t black” comment, wasn’t just the ramblings of an old man. It was the manifestation of a new type of racism that asserts the belief that a person’s thinking is determined by their race. 

In the eyes of many progressives, people are no longer defined by their unique individuality. Instead, they are defined by some arbitrary category which our intellectual elites think is so important that it overrides all other factors in a person’s life. Not only is this racist, it also promotes the idea that the supposed “black” viewpoint must override the “white” viewpoint in political struggles. It divides us along racial lines and promotes the false narrative that one must vote a certain way or be accused of racism.

The Democratic party should realize that it cannot be the party of blacks, whites, latinos, or any other group. It can only be the party of Americans. That is because every black person, white person, and latino person, is different. No one has the same set of values or concerns. Simplifying our society down into racialized groups whereby minorities are stereotyped into specific boxes is divisive, unintelligent, and racist.

Throughout history, philosophers have developed a number of political concepts to ensure the proper functioning of a free and prosperous society. One of the most important ideas that has been expounded upon by the great thinkers of the past and the present is the concept of the rule of law. The idea of the law being the ruler has promoted freedom throughout the world and reduced the amount of arbitrary power wielded by the government over its citizens. The idea also prevents the distortion of justice for political ends and establishes the supremacy of the rights of the people.

The concept of the rule of law has been fundamental in establishing traditional American ideals and freedoms. Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense, wrote, “Let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth so the world may know, that so far we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” This idea helped set a precedent for the Revolutionary War and caused the colonists to fight for the ideals of freedom which have characterized America ever since.

The Founding Fathers were also extremely keen on establishing the rule of law in American society. This is one of the reasons why they were so concerned with the separation of powers. They wanted to ensure that no single branch of government could wield arbitrary power over the people and become a tyrannical entity. This desire to promote the rule of law birthed two of the most significant creations in American history; the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Constitution enshrined the rights of the people in American society. Additionally, the Supreme Court was given the important task of judicial review. They determine whether or not the actions of the legislature or the executive branch are Constitutional, thereby protecting the rights of the citizens to be free from tyrannical government.

However, both of these institutions have come under attack from the Democratic party. Democrats are actively lobbying in favor of packing the Supreme Court. Additionally, they advocate for a non-originalist interpretation of the Constitution which allows activist judges to cater to the popular whims of society and disregard the rights of the people, that are enumerated in the Constitution.

This should be concerning, whether or not you consider yourself to be a conservative or a liberal. The rule of law ensures that both of these groups are unable to infringe upon the rights of the other. It sets a limit on government power so that if tyrannical forces take over, they will be unable to wield their influence for malicious gain. 

The Democratic party takes for granted that they will always be the ones who control the government, otherwise they would not advocate for giving it more power. They also take for granted that their schemes to infringe upon individual liberty will always yield beneficial results. A destruction of the rule of law would allow individuals who presuppose their intellectual superiority to impose their views upon society without any restraints. 

Those who contend that the government won’t abuse its power forget the lessons learned in the French Revolution of 1789. The National Assembly in that country was elected through democratic institutions. However, because there was no check on its power, the Assembly was able to create the Committee on Public Safety which usurped tyrannical powers and executed thousands of political opponents. I would urge those who feel that progress has moved us beyond this point to recall the recent riots in the streets and the destruction of cities, resulting from popular discontent. The checks upon the powers of government will always be necessary. Those who seek to obtain more power are a danger to ourselves and to posterity.