Week 37: Constitutionalism

On Tuesday night, an action of historical insignificance took place. It was, however, a tremendously significant action in terms of the philosophy it represented. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up President Trump’s State of the Union speech, she made a spectacle of herself that will be forgotten within a few news cycles. Nevertheless, she spoke volumes about a matter of existential import: the role that the Constitution of the United States of America should play in our nation’s life.

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to provide a State of the Union to Congress, stating that the President, “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Consequently, the document that Speaker Pelosi methodically formed into four piles and tore up was a document that creators of our Republic recognized as important.

Notwithstanding documentation associated with bills and laws, the Constitution requires only four other forms of documentation for the business of our nation. Article I, Section 2 requires a census every 10 years. Article I, Section 5 requires the House of Representatives and the Senate to keep a Journal of Proceedings. Article II, Section 3 has been discussed above. Article III, Section 3 requires the testimony of two first-hand witnesses when trying someone for treason. That’s it. Those are the things that the Framers deemed important enough to memorialize through formal documentation by requiring them in our fundamental governing law.

Speaker Pelosi’s behavior was not a bold statement, as some have said. It was childish and petty. She said it was a speech that was full of lies. While I have not gone back and fact-checked every claim in the speech, I did spot check it and found evidence to support his claims. Regarding the employment and unemployment information the President related to Congress – a significant focus of the speech – I found ample proof supporting his claims by conducting a quick and simple review of data on the Web site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This search also revealed the highest levels of education among African Americans, which is germane to his discussion of education generally and to the funding of Historically Black Colleges and Universities specifically.

As I think most people would acknowledge, the President is oft given to hyperbole. Achievements are regularly described as being the “biggest” or the “best” in the history of our nation. I would tend to argue with this, considering the historical context of the achievements made by our elected and appointed officials, particularly those in the first century of our nation. It is, however, President Trump’s penchant for hyperbole that some citizens find endearing and that other citizens find offensive. That is why it is so important to seek out data for ourselves, because at the end of the day, pretty much every politician, the Speaker of the House most certainly included, is given to hyperbole and even outright lies. With the so-called fact checkers being equally partisan and corrupt, the responsibility for finding the truth rests with us, the citizens.

As I mentioned above, the political importance of the tearing of the speech shall pass, as shall Trump’s tweets, Schumer’s bloviating, Bolton’s book leaks and Paul’s revelation of the identity of the so-called whistleblower. Their moment in the spotlight will be short-lived, perhaps with the exception of the President, as we tend to remember presidents and what they accomplish in our collective memory.

What does Speaker Pelosi’s action reveal about the political philosophies at play in our nation, and what does it mean for our future and for the generations to come?

To me, the tearing of the speech is an apropos metaphor for how the left and right conceptualize the Constitution. Generally, the left views the Constitution as a “living” document, subject to broad interpretation that is responsive to the changes in cultural norms of the time. In other words, it should be informed and modified by the day and age in which it is being applied. Generally, the right views the Constitution with a sense of permanence, subject to interpretation that endeavors to effect an understanding of the intent of the Framers. In other words, it should inform our culture, not be changed by it, unless such change is so momentous that it calls for an amendment to the Constitution. For example, the end of slavery, the process for selecting those who represent us, and the greater recognition of suffrage rights were important enough to amend the Constitution. Interestingly, these and other amendments all advance the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

What makes a nation? Generally speaking, in the Old World and in the nations of the indigenous peoples of America, the unifying force in nationhood was an allegiance to a monarch, chief, sultan or some other supreme individual or family, as well as things like a common language, forms of dress, religious beliefs, and other customs.

As a nation of immigrants, mindful of the unique role that Native Americans play in our nation’s history, Americans have not had those common things described above. People came to our shores, voluntarily and involuntarily, with differences as numerous at the nations and times from whence they came. But for our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, we would be little more than a random collection of random peoples. It is the Declaration that sets forth our shared principles, regardless of any individual principles we hold as members of some group, such as those of faith, culture, etc. It is the Constitution that codifies our agreement for how we, as citizens, interact with our government and one another.

Many people came to our shores to escape the whimsical rule of despots. In earlier times, people were subjects who were at the will of sovereigns, individuals prone to the same faults and foibles as the rest of us. (And because of inbreeding among the royal houses of the world, some were prone to additional conditions that affected their sanity and judgment. But that’s a topic for another day.) In socialist regimes, such as the former USSR, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Cuba and Venezuela, to name a few, the same lack of fidelity to the law that was true for medieval despots has proven true for the politburos and dictators of these regimes.

Our system of government, as designed by the Framers, was intended to protect the citizens from abuses by the government, principally in Articles I, II and IV. It was also designed to assure equality under the law, to protect one citizen from abuse at the hands of another, principally in Article III.

One of the many alluring draws of America is the Constitution and the predictable and consistent government it assures its citizens. A “living” Constitution, as conceived by the left, opens the door, as cultural norms happen to change with changing times, to removing predictability and consistency in terms of how we interact with our government and with one another. The promise of America becomes a sort of bait-and-switch.

As conceived by the right, the Constitution also “lives.” It does so through the Amendment process, which was designed to be somewhat laborious, because changing the underlying manner in which we govern ourselves is a matter of import and gravity. It harkens back to the Declaration, which admonishes us to avoid changing forms of government for light and transient causes.

In 1776, just prior to signing the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin said, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” This statement conveyed two important points. First, it conveyed the grave nature associated with signing the Declaration. They were committing treason against Great Britain. They were in a real sense committing their very lives to the propositions contained therein. Second, it recognized the fact that, to be a nation, the Declaration was shared set of beliefs that made all people of the American continent one. The Declaration, and later the Constitution, would form the unifying framework for what it means to be American.

Are these beliefs not sacred? If they are not, short of one’s faith in God, I do not know what might be sacred. If they are not, it seems the sacrifices that the signers made – and indeed they made serious sacrifices – were thus made in vain.

That is why Pelosi’s act was so repugnant and so revealing. Not only did it dishonor the heroic Americans called out in the speech, it served as a clear metaphor for the political left’s view and opinion of the Constitution and what it mandates. The inspired and ingenious system of government that the Framers devised is, to the political left, a relic of the Enlightenment, a vestige of a corrupt Western civilization, filled with bias – conscious and unconscious. The requirements contained in the Constitution are not – as Pelosi demonstrated – worth the paper on which they are printed.

I reject such views and opinions. But for the Constitution and its Amendment process, it is quite possible that slavery and repression of women may have persisted much longer than they did. Of course, it would have been so much better had those sinful conditions been remedied in 1789. The Framers knew these conditions were a blight on the people of this nation. That is why they included an end to the importation of slaves in the Constitution, and that is why they put in place the Amendment process – to enable future generations to cure the ills they could not cure in their time. Through the lens of history, one can readily understand that, if the Constitution were to be successfully ratified, some tragic concessions had to be made, but they were – at the time – necessary to establish a path that would lead to a more perfect union, and the Amendment process enabled future generations to walk that path.

Again, I call special attention to those words, “a more perfect union.” The Framers knew that they and we are imperfect creatures. Perfection is unattainable. That is why utopian promises of any politician are nothing more than dangerous lies. The Constitution, however, provides a process for righting wrongs and curing ills. It does, indeed, live and thrive as designed.

As debates take place and ads are run, let us ask ourselves which candidates will preserve the guarantees of the Declaration and the Constitution. If any among us are inclined to be one-issue voters, let the preservation of the Constitution be that issue. Actually, every other issue is encompassed in this one all-important issue. Will we vote based on a reverence for and protection of the Declaration and Constitution or will we vote based on the ever-changing, numerous and distinct, and sometimes divisive social norms of the times? It appears clear to me which choice leads to the promotion of happiness, which is, according to the Framers, a key function of government, and is, according to Aristotle, the preeminent purpose of life.

Week 38: Identity Politics

In today’s America, members of both major political parties spend like drunken sailors, not to disparage drunken sailors; members of both parties seem to find little sense of apprehension in legislating moral codes, despite being among the more amoral creatures of the earth; and members of both parties seem to have an unquenchable thirst for power, sacrificing the sovereignty of each individual at the altar of political tenure. While there are, of course, members of both parties who prove to be the exceptions, it seems that Republicans and Democrats have come to be essentially the same.

A few differences do exist. Under Democrat administrations and Congresses, the regulatory burden on individuals and businesses, as well as the attendant financial burdens, increases. Under Republic administrations and Congresses, both decrease. I will entreat you, kind reader, to consider the effect that greater or lesser regulation has on individual liberty.

There is a more fundamental difference, though, between the two parties – a difference that, in my estimation, renders all other differences and similarities relatively insignificant. This fundamental difference is how members of each party see you and me, the good people of the United States of America, the citizens.

What do I mean by this?

One party tends to see citizens truly as individuals, who have unique perspectives, desires, beliefs and goals. One party tends to see citizens as monolithic groups, based on some outward characteristic, that function in ways that are based on collective perspectives, desires, beliefs and goals. The former, of course, is the Republican party, the latter is Democrat party. For the moment, let us ascribe to the individual members of each party good intentions in terms of the perspectives they espouse.

With good intentions assumed, let us explore the effects of their perspectives in terms of policies and outcomes for We the People. In doing so, I believe we will discover that, despite good intentions, one philosophy creates a path to happiness and liberty and the other to misery and servitude.

The Roman poet Lucretius (c. 99 – c. 55 B.C.) wrote about the nature of things in his aptly entitled, De Rerum Natura or The Nature of Things. An Epicurean, Lucretius was an atomic materialist, which means that he believed that all things in the world around us and in us are composed of atoms, even our consciousness. Two millennia later, we know this to be true. The atomic elements that form the oceans, a tree or that air we breathe are some of the same atomic elements that form you and me. The atomic interactions that power the stars or power our homes are similar to the interactions that power our minds. Lucretius and his fellow atomic materialists were the ultimate purveyors of the idea of connectedness. This idea has played out in innumerable ways throughout the ages. Kant’s Enlightenment notion of absolute moral worth – a favorite of mine as anyone who knows me would tell you, is an incredibly important perspective on connectedness. In short, each person is the same in terms of their individual worth and the respect they deserve.

It is critical to emphasize that absolute moral worth is inherent in the individual and recognition of that worth as a natural right guaranteed because of his or her personhood, not because of his or her inclusion in some group or groups of people. Absolute moral worth has absolutely nothing to do with gender, color, race, creed, orientation, age, socio-economics or any other arbitrary characteristic one may choose to apply.

It is a deep and abiding belief in and devotion to this most fundamental precept that should render the politics of identity repugnant to any enlightened individual.

If you will permit me, kind reader, a momentary digression. I would like to address what I believe to be an important distinction between the condition of enlightened and the condition of “woke,” to use the parlance of our times. To be enlightened, according to Merriam-Webster, is to be “freed from ignorance and misinformation – based on full comprehension of the problems involved.” To be “woke” is, according to Merriam-Webster, a slang term in the United States that means to be “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” Note how enlightenment is, by definition, a broad and holistic approach to understanding. Note how “woke” is, by definition narrowed by the descriptor “important” and further narrowed by “racial” and “social.” In the former, one is free and unfettered to explore, learn and create understanding. In the latter, there is some third party endeavoring to control one’s exploration, learning and understanding. In today’s world, one cannot be “woke” without conforming to someone else’s notion of what being “woke” means. Enlightenment is a threat to those who would desire to control others, such as those who would dictate to you or me what our biases are or must be. I reject the concept of being “woke,” as it is something that fosters tyranny. It reduces us to intellectual slaves to someone else’s belief system, based on information someone else deems important. I embrace the concept of enlightenment, as it is something that promotes liberty. It frees each person to form her or his own conclusions, based on the totality of information available.

With that digression aside, reflect on the rhetoric you hear from the candidates of the two major political parties. One party is the purveyor of doom and gloom, stating over and over and in a multitude of ways that our nation is among the worst nations in the history of civilization. In addition to such claims, they also tell us who is to blame. If you are a woman, man is to blame. If you are a minority, Caucasians are to blame. If you are gay, straight people are to blame, and so on. Even within the various groups of people they target, they find even more ways to create and assign blame. If you are a woman who supports abortion, pro-life women may be to blame. If you are a progressive black man, the conservative black man may be to blame. If you are transgender, the gay man or woman may be to blame. This is the rhetoric and philosophy of today’s Democrat party.

In addition to doom and blame, this party also believes that such groups of people think, feel and believe alike, as homogenous collections of gonads and skin cells, and they seem to have the omniscience to know what each of these collections thinks. They have the temerity to claim to speak for all such groups.

As a result, they pass laws and regulations, supposedly designed to protect various groups from one another, ironically enshrining difference and inequality in our system of laws, a system which is supposed to guarantee equality as a fundamental and essential premise in our social contract.

Think about the Republican message. It rarely, if ever, segments the population based on superficial characteristics, let alone pits one group against another in an effort to assign blame from one group to another. The message relates to all of us as individual citizens, who have the capability and capacity to interact with one another in good and meaningful ways for each person’s benefit. Their policies tend to reflect that, policies that promote individual responsibility and choice.

Democrats will tell us that their interventionist social policies are necessary, given the long history of discrimination in the United States. They bet on the fact that many Americans will not know the history of American discrimination and the fact that it has been, in large part, the result of Democrat policies. If you revisit the post on Education, you’ll see how it is possible that many Americans do not know our own history. It’s because the educational system is striving to create “woke” followers as opposed to enlightened citizens. To reinforce their control and power, they choose what they believe is the “important” information to teach, in a de facto manner deciding “what” students think. This is in stark contrast to teaching people “how” to think: how to seek out information, creating a holistic approach to learning.

To be sure, the execution of our social contract has a flawed history. Many of the white Founders knew slavery to be evil, yet they owned black slaves. Many of the male Founders knew women’s suffrage was right and good, yet they excluded females from the political process for many years.

Pitting of one group against another was a bad thing then. What makes it a good thing now?

Find me any social contract that has ever been flawlessly implemented. I have yet to find one. Consequently, we cannot say that because a person or persons may do bad things, then all of their ideas are bad. I would venture to say that each person has, at some time or another, fallen short of the person they hope to be. Does that make them a fundamentally flawed and irredeemable person, as well as their most deeply held ideals and beliefs? I hope not.

With that, let us ground ourselves anew in a couple key concepts.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” and “We the People of the United States…” are inclusive statements(with deference to the language in use at the time, such as “men” being a reference to humankind), despite what the left would have us believe today. They do not call out specific, monolithic groups as equal or unequal.

Because they knew their own flaws, and because they knew that each person to follow for all time would be flawed, they set forth the ideal of equality and a vision for a “more perfect union.” Note that they did not say a perfect union. They knew full well that such a vision would be a fool’s errand.

The vision of a “more perfect union” is one that is worthy of pursuit. It is one, however, that we cannot achieve without the equal and full participation of every citizen. That requires that we recognize and memorialize the absolute morale worth of each and every American. This cannot and will not be accomplished until identity politics is reduced to one thing – not gender, faith, race, or any other characteristic. That one thing is the identification of being American. This does not mean we abandon those qualities that make us unique. Rather, in the context of our social contract, it focuses us on the one quality we share.

The Founders gave us the Declaration of Independence, a document unique among the nations of the world, and the Constitution. Contemporaries like de Tocqueville left for us firsthand accounts of what it was to be an American and what it could be in that pursuit of a more perfect union. It’s our social contract, set forth in these two documents, that we find shared purpose and a shared national soul. This soul is and can be in any person that claims the moniker, “American,” without any regard to their appearance or personal practices.

As we listen to debates and stump speeches from political road, let us be enlightened, not “woke,” when we evaluate the policies of the candidates. Consider which party’s policies have brought about the uncivil nature of today’s America? Consider which party wants to enact policies to decide for you and me what is “important,” so that we may be “woke” or shunned and vilified. I would argue they are the policies of the left. Will we vote for more of those policies, or will we seek something better – something that sets each of us free? Will these candidates’ policies further drive us apart, or will they unite us in the effort to create a more perfect union?

Week 39: Projection

Long before Sigmund Freud conceptualized the psychological defense mechanism of projection, in which an individual denies qualities (and these qualities may be good or bad) in himself or herself and ascribes those qualities to others, Gloucester said to King Henry VI, in Shakespeare’s play accordingly named, “Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.” A millennium earlier, it was written in the Talmud, “Do not taunt your neighbor with the blemish you yourself have.”

One of the more troubling conditions in the practice of politics today, and I suspect since time immemorial, is the penchant politicians have for projection. It is not necessarily projection of their beliefs on another individual but on groups of individuals and on wide swaths of society. Social projection, if you will, is at the heart of what people call “fake news,” and it is at the very heights of the hypocrisy that plagues our political discourse.

As a lover of history, one may look deep into the past to find examples of projection. Take Nero and the great fire of Rome. He blamed the region’s Christians for the burning of Rome, which coincidentally cleared the land for his sprawling palace, the Domus Aurea. He almost certainly did not fiddle whilst Rome burned. However, most accounts, although they vary in their details, lay responsibility for the fire at the feet of Nero. We need not harken back to antiquity, though, to find examples of projection. Take two simple examples: racial discrimination and fiscal irresponsibility, and let us examine these as sort of societal projections, the left projecting on the right and vice versa.

The left of the political spectrum, the so-called progressives, accuse conservatives of being racist and discriminatory. If one examines the record of history, one readily discovers that it has been the political left that has espoused the worldview that people are different because of their race. The history of slavery in the United States is one distinguished by the Democrat party fighting in the halls of Congress to maintain that evil institution, denying equality and dignity to a major segment of the inhabitants of America, while the soldiers of the Confederacy fought for the same on the battlefields of the Civil War. The Jim Crow laws that followed the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment were promulgated by the progressive left. Opposition to the Civil Rights movement came from the same quarters. Since that time, the policies implemented by the left have resulted in systemic poverty, illiteracy, isolation and even death. The welfare system, which we will discuss in a future posting, has created multigenerational dependency upon the government for sustenance. The educational system, as we discussed in Week 49, fails the very people who need quality education the most. Through these two areas of involvement by government, namely progressive government, in the lives of the people, those groups who were victimized in those days by Democrat policies continue to be marginalized today through the policies of the same. Equal Opportunity legislation is based on a philosophy that differences exist, institutionalizing the separation of one group of Americans from another. The healthcare system produces similar, disparate results – because of racist doctors and nurses? No. Because of the dependence created through a monopolistic government system.

Despite improving economic conditions of minorities in this nation under this administration, the left continues to brand the President and his followers as racists and their policies as discriminatory. Examine the record of history, and you will find that economic freedom, while not a singularly sufficient criterion, is indeed a necessary criterion for Liberty. Liberty, by definition, is “the quality or state of being free: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control” (Merriam-Webster). Look at the policies of the left and the results of those policies. They limit individual Liberty in lieu of the nanny state of government intervention into individuals’ lives. You will find that conservativism promotes liberty, directly and indirectly, in very real terms, which the progressive left does not. Nevertheless, the progressives of the left, with all their breath, claim to fight for the rights of the oppressed, and they accuse the conservatives of the right as hating people on account of their color, gender, age and so on. Despite Saul Alinsky’s belief, repeating a claim over and over again, does not make it true.

It is so important, at this point, that I make something perfectly clear. I do not believe citizens, who align themselves with the Democrat party, are bad people. I do not believe they, as a political group, have racism and bigotry in their hearts. Nor do I believe that those, who align with the Republican party, as a political group, have racism and bigotry in their hearts. To be sure, there are bad apples in every bunch – people with evil intent in their hearts, regardless of political or any other type of affiliation. I do believe, though, that those in power see hatred and fear of one group for another as a means for maintaining their power. As we will see, it is not just the political class of the left whose lust for power damns the American people to despotism and servitude. The political class of the right is guilty, too.

Those on the right of the political spectrum, the so-called conservatives, accuse those on the left of creating a tax and spend regime, characteristic of a socialist state; socialism being utterly antithetical to the principles upon which our nation was established. While massive expansion of the government and government spending became vogue under the New Deal and the Great Society, conservatives of the past 30 years or so have demonstrated no interest to reign in spending, which is an essential side of the balance sheet. Tax cuts are wonderful, as they permit citizens to keep the money they earned, be it money earned through the work of their own hands or through the risk assumed by investing capital in the work of others. As mentioned above, there are two sides to a balance sheet, and both must work harmoniously together to produce good results. Low tax rates and the revenues they generate are for naught, if the government’s spending is completely and totally out of control. There is little difference today between the left and right in terms of government spending; yet, the conservatives of the right decry the spending of the left and the peril in which our deficits and our debt place this and future generations. The peril is real indeed, yet under what was legislative and executive control of our government in the first two years of the present administration, our deficits and debt grew at a sickening pace. They continue to grow, and We the People, continue to be nauseated, or at least we should be!

As discussed above, a lack of economic freedom makes Liberty an impossibility. It creates a form of economic servitude, subjugating citizens to those in power, which ultimately leads to a loss of Liberty. Without Liberty, we are, all of us not in the political class, slaves to a despotic government. The right – the so-called conservatives – would have us believe that economic tyranny is a thing of the left. No more! They are equally laden with blame for the economic shackles that bind each citizen and diminish their Liberty.

In the months ahead, please do not take any slander, be it from the left or from the right, at face value. Take the time to explore the history and the philosophy that have formed each perception or misperception, each claim or false claim, each truth or each lie. Remember your Shakespeare and guard your mind from the suspicion and guilt of others, particularly those who desire to rule you and your fellow citizens.

Week 40: Immigration

Mindful of the fact that Native Americans preceded Europeans on the North American continent in terms of permanent settlement, the United States of America is a nation of immigrants. It is in this context that I present to you, kind reader, this week’s blog.

Unlike other posts, I will plainly state my position on this week’s topic, immigration, prior to an examination of it. In principle, I am for open borders and unfettered immigration. You may rightly infer that, because I specified this to be a principle-based position, there is a pragmatic caveat. Sadly, it is a caveat that deals with a political reality in which open borders and unfettered immigration are rendered impossible, unjust and immoral.

A high-level review of U.S. immigration history reveals that immigration restrictions were largely designed and administered at the colony or state level from the mid-17^th century until midway through the 19^th century. During this time, voluntary and involuntary servitude (i.e., indentured servitude and slavery, respectively) were defining characteristics of American immigration. For the purpose of this week’s blog, I will write more broadly, leaving these specific topics for another week.

The first major federal restriction on immigration in the United States was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which essentially expanded the Page Act of 1875. The Page Act outlawed the immigration of Chinese women to the U.S., and the exclusion act expanded it to outlaw the immigration of all Chinese people. California pushed for the law, because Chinese immigrants were voluntarily willing to work for a lower wage than Californians in the hopes of building a better life than was possible in China.

In 1917, Congress passed legislation requiring literacy tests for immigrants aged 16 and older. Quotas began to be established in the 1920s, such as through the Quota Act of 1921, also known as the Emergency Quota Act, which was designed to mitigate impacts of the post-Great War recession and the influenza pandemic.

The Immigration Act of 1924, set specific percentages for quotas related to certain nationalities, while still maintaining prohibitions against immigrants from Asia, essentially taking the Quota Act to a new level.

From 1939-41, the State Department began implementing immigration restrictions outside the legislative process, clearing the path for future overreach of the Executive branch into activities that should be Legislative prerogatives.

Following World War II, immigration restrictions were eased in order to enable refugees from Europe, the Soviet Union and Cuba to come to the United States. The Truman Directive of 1945 gave Displaced Persons (i.e., refugees of the ravages of Nazism) priority in terms of immigration to the U.S. To a limited degree, the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 codified into law the Truman Directive. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 eliminated nationality-based quotas and enabled U.S. citizens to sponsor the immigration of family members from abroad. In 1980, Congress passed the Refugee Act as a way to fulfill its obligations under the United Nations Refugee Protocol.

Here endeth the history lesson. Let us commence with the analysis.

In the early days of immigration enforcement, restrictions were focused primarily on economic protectionism. State governments disallowed immigration in order to protect their citizens from competition for jobs. Even with the Chinese Exclusion Act, it wasn’t so much legislation fundamentally based on immigrant race or ethnicity as it was their competitive industriousness and their willingness to work for lower wages. Whether such restrictions were successful is debatable. I would content that such exclusionary policies hurt everyone, save, of course, the less industrious worker. Companies were denied less expensive labor. Hard working immigrants were denied the prospect of a better life. Because expensive labor was protected, the consumer was denied less expensive goods and services.

Interestingly, what appear to be purely xenophobic restrictions on immigration present themselves when the federal government inserts itself into policy development. Reading this, one may be inclined to accuse me of oversimplification. If so, please comment. While certainly a high-level analysis, I believe it is fundamentally accurate.

Over the years, a significant change has occurred in our nation that fundamentally impacts the nature of our society and immigration. America’s response to the Great Depression gave rise to a massive welfare state. President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, followed up later by President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society policies, let people at home and abroad know that the United States government was prepared and willing to step in and support people who could not or would not support themselves, an appropriate objective for a good and decent society but one previously (and in my opinion more appropriately) fulfilled by charitable individuals and organizations.

Prior to pseudo-socialist (I do not use the term “socialist” in the pejorative but rather as a neutral, accurate descriptor of political and economic organization.) programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, immigrants came to America to build a better life, reliant primarily on their own industriousness – the same reliance employed by people who were already American citizens. Immigration, based on this type of purpose-driven behavior, is what contributed to the wonderful, brilliant and inspirational renaissance of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. A descriptor associated with this time is the American Dream. In 1931, historian James Truslow Adams described the American Dream thusly, “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement.”

In a post-individualism society, the expectation for personal responsibility and industry is watered down by the rationalization and even promotion of class victimhood and institutionalized sloth. These accepted, and in some circles, desired characteristics contribute to the bloating of the welfare state, a state designed to perpetuate the power of the ruling class. Let me be clear, in the vast majority of cases of people on welfare, I believe the primary factor that leads them to their present situation is government policy, policy that results in both intended and unintended perverse consequences, be it ineffective public education, discriminatory minimum wage laws or dysfunctional public health programs, to name a few. More on this in a future post. The bottom line is that the government is actively enticing good people to lives of dependence and unproductivity – good people at home and abroad.

Why are open borders and unfettered immigration impossible today? Economically, such an immigration policy is an unsustainable proposition. In the past, people came to American knowing full well that their success was based on their hard work. To be sure, most immigrants today come to this nation with the same expectation for themselves. They are a benefit to the economic health of the nation and the society. Today, the massive, permissive welfare state eliminates the need for intelligent risk, assuring those who cannot or choose not to work hard for a better life come to our shores through legal and illegal ports of entry. If we, as a society, entice people here, not by the opportunity that exists to pursue individual freedom and success but by the prospect of handouts, we are assured that programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (all projected to be insolvent in the not too distant future) will be overrun with more and more people. Again, I do not lay the blame at the feet of the people coming to our country for such benefits; they are acting in their own economic self-interest. I lay the blame at the feet of those in Congress, who have enacted legislation that has at its heart the most perverse of incentives. Without curtailing the massive welfare state, open borders and unfettered immigration would serve only to hasten the collapse of the programs of the welfare state (editorial comment: which may not be a bad thing), hurting millions upon millions who now rely on such programs for their very existence.

Why are open borders and unfettered immigration unjust today? Such immigration policy, which manifests itself today in illegal immigration, is unjust, because it essentially gives a free pass – or at least a shortcut – to people who choose to ignore our immigration laws and processes, consequently bypassing and punishing people who choose to immigrate through legal channels. For some who immigrate to the United States, they do so to escape the whims of dictators. They have lived in societies (societies heralded as great by some presidential candidates) that have no regard for the law and the protection it should provide. A hallmark of our culture in the United States has been an adherence to the law and a respect for the equal protection is theoretically should provide. When our immigration policy rewards people for violating the law, we erode a fundamental underpinning of our culture.

Why are open borders and unfettered immigration immoral today? Let us reflect on the words of Emma Lazarus in her sonnet, The New Colossus, which we may know as the poem at the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. She wrote, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” In today’s discourse, people tend to focus on the “tired” and “poor.” They miss the important concept in this line, which is, “yearning to breathe free.” She did not write, yearning for dependence on the government, essentially trading one master for another. To breathe free…to be at liberty to pursue one’s own interests: to practice one’s faith, to speak one’s mind, to be secure in one’s home without restrictions or repercussions from the government. For many, the U.S. welfare state has replaced the notion of breathing free with the notion of dependency. Granted, we are all interdependent, but when dependency shifts from voluntary interaction among individuals to an involuntary relationship among people through the machinery of government, freedom is lost. Any system that erodes individual freedom and liberty is one that subjugates one person to another, creating a system of servitude and slavery. Is there anything more immoral than this? For this reason, open borders and unfettered immigration, which unfortunately does promote dependence and does expand the rolls of the welfare state, diminishes freedom and liberty. Therefore, in my opinion, such an immigration policy is immoral.

Regrettably, it is unlikely, if not impossible, to return to a time when our shores were open wide to the tired, the poor and the huddled masses, to the wretched refuse, the homeless and the tempest-tossed. Those, who the rest of the world persecuted and purged, are the very souls who made this nation the greatest in history of nations. To return to such a time, we would have to enact policies that promote individual freedom and industry. We would need to enact policies that return the provision of the essential safety net to the hands of charitable individuals and organizations – returning us to a culture of personal responsibility in which I am my brother’s keeper. Through government control and intervention, we now have a culture of being our brother’s master, promoted by what I believe are essentially involuntary arrangements.

As we listen to candidates, let us study their immigration proposals and determine which might best foster a culture of individual liberty and lead to a happy, self-reliant life. Let us evaluate their proposals and look for the ones that reinforce the notion that we are, indeed, a nation of laws – a nation of laws that respects those who respect the law.

Finally, I would suggest that we disregard the calls for open borders from other world leaders. It’s interesting to note that such leaders’ nations often have border policies much more restrictive than ours. One example is the Holy See. I am Catholic, and I really like our current Pope; however, he calls on the United States to open wide its borders to the poor and persecuted. This call is made from behind the walls of a city-state with some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world. I would only suggest we determine our policies toward immigration based on our history, our government and our economy. I hope this post helps frame that analysis.

Week 41: Healthcare

In this election cycle, at least in the Democrat primaries, the topic of healthcare is alive and well. Despite the mandates that were part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” politicians – including those who passed the act – continue to bemoan the number of uninsured. Despite the very name of the act, the cost of health insurance continues to spike making coverage less affordable, with many people only able to afford catastrophic coverage. Despite their pledges that people could keep their doctors, many found this to be just one more lie coming out of the halls of Congress.

And despite a key component of the act, the individual mandate, being declared unconstitutional, members of Congress want us – We the People – to give them another chance to overhaul the healthcare system. It reminds me of something Ronald Reagan said at the 1964 Republican convention. He said, “The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” It seems that is what we are being asked to do – to give our assent to the planners so that they can come up with some new scheme to regulate our healthcare.

Look at Medicare and Medicaid. Poor patient experiences and waste, fraud and abuse in these programs are legendary. Look at “Obamacare.” A key part of the program, the individual mandate (and perhaps the whole program), has been declared unconstitutional, which is to say illegal.

What other programs have seen poor service and high costs under government regulation? Stated another way, are there any government-regulated programs that have improved cost, service and outcomes to those they are supposedly intended to help? I challenge you, kind reader, to offer any example.

What do we know about cost, service and outcomes under components of the economy that have been heavily regulated? Take two famous examples: airlines and trucking. Prior to deregulation, the industry powers colluded with Congress to keep out new entrants into the markets, to all but eliminate competition, to control price mechanisms, and to ensure that the consumer was kept at the will of the industry and their benefactors in Congress. What do we know about deregulation in these industries? The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 both reduced rate-setting, route-setting and market entry requirements and restrictions imposed by the federal government, and it eliminated the authoritarian boards overseeing these industries. The results of both acts were increased service options, lower costs, greater efficiency and quality. In short, they provided greater choice and affordability for the consumer.

There is every reason to expect and no reason to doubt that deregulation of the healthcare and health insurance sectors of the economy would result in similar types of benefits to consumers. Greater regulation always results in the realization of the exact opposite expectations and doubts.

As the Affordable Care Act was being crafted, House Democrats were busy soliciting input from the very industries (i.e., insurance and corporate health systems) they blamed for causing suffering and death. Now that we have been living under this regulation for a while, who is benefitting? Insurance companies’ profits have surged billions of dollars since the passage of “Obamacare.” Legislators’ power and control over their constituents have grown, because, despite the passage of their legislation, the condition in which most citizens find themselves has not improved.

Another critical flaw in the Affordable Care Act is that it exempts the lawmakers from the law itself. If it’s so great, why are they not subject to it, too? It’s because they know that it is a scam to line the pockets of the insurance industry and to reinforce legislators’ power at the expense of you and me, the people that politicians call “average Americans.” I, for one, resent that moniker. There is nothing “average” about any American. We are an exceptional people, despite what members of Congress are trying to do to us, and have been doing to us since the days of the New Deal and the Great Society.

As we hurtle toward November, let us consider who benefits from regulation and control of the healthcare industry – the people or those in power? I was going to include the insurance industry with those in power, but I really cannot blame them. It’s Congress who sets up the rules and perverse incentives in which industry operates. They would be foolish not to avail themselves of the perks that members of Congress offer.

For nearly a century, we’ve been trying government intervention – to what end? Has the political class made things better? Any objective assessment leads us to the realization that they are no better (if not worse). Maybe it’s time for something different, something our founders envisioned for this exceptional nation and its citizens. Consider freedom and liberty.

Week 42: Impeachment, revisited

In Week 48, we explored the Founders’ intent related to impeachment. With the passage of time, we now have before us the Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump. He now stands as the third president in the history of our Republic to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Recall that President Richard Nixon resigned from office prior to being impeached. Also recall that no impeached president has been removed from office by trial in the Senate.

To provide perspective, let us examine these three impeachments, so that you, kind reader, may judge for yourself the nature of each and the fidelity of each to the Constitutional standards for impeachment.

The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson took place from 1867-1868. He came to office upon the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, and because of his approach to Reconstruction (i.e., restoration of Confederate states to the Union) did not meet with approval of the Radical Republican faction of Congress, Congress sought to protect those in the administration who favored their approach to Reconstruction. One such protection came in the form of the Tenure of Office Act, which restricted a president’s ability to remove administration officials approved by Congress prior to the end of their term. Specifically, this law was enacted with Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in mind. President Johnson vetoed the legislation, but a two-thirds majority of Congress overrode his veto, and the law was enacted.

In defiance of the Tenure of Office Act, President Johnson wrote to Secretary Stanton and to Lorenzo Thomas, brevet major general in the U.S. Army, to inform them that he was replacing Stanton with Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim. This act precipitated Johnson’s impeachment.

The House of Representatives drafted 11 Articles of Impeachment. All but three of the Articles clearly and directly related in some manner to violations of the Tenure of Office Act. One Article related to a violation of “An Act to Define and Punish Certain Conspiracies.” Another charged the president with working to damage the respect that the American people had for Congress. Lastly, they charged the president with declaring the 39^th Congress unconstitutional. Of the 11 Articles, nine are solidly founded in laws that were in effect at the time. As for a lack of respect for Congress, it is difficult to envision how this is a violation of office. It reminds me of a line from the movie “Clue.” Colonel Mustard asks the butler, “Are you trying to make me look stupid in front of the other guests?” To this the butler replies, “You don’t need any help from me, sir.” Similarly, Congress – then as now – needs little help from anyone in diminishing the respect and trust they garner from the American people.

It would not be until 131 years later that another president would be impeached. In 1998 and continuing into 1999, President Bill Clinton faced impeachment by the House of Representatives. Two Articles of Impeachment were drafted and send to the Senate for trial. The first Article claimed that President Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury, a violation of the U.S. Code, Title 18. The second Article claimed that President Clinton obstructed justice by engaging in seven instances of witness tampering, also a violation of U.S. Code, Title 18.

Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee, accused then-Governor Clinton of sexual harassment. Endeavoring to establish a pattern of behavior, Jones sought similar experiences from other women, who claimed to have been sexually harassed by Governor Clinton. As time progressed, Clinton was elected president. Linda Tripp, a federal employee, recorded White House intern Monica Lewinsky describing a sexual relationship with President Clinton. In the Paula Jones case, Clinton denied having a relationship with Lewinsky. In an independent counsel investigation, Ken Starr found that President Clinton had lied under oath in his deposition in the Jones case. The Starr Report precipitated action in the House and subsequently in the Senate. Throughout all of this, President Clinton was encouraging people involved in the investigation, including Lewinsky, to falsify testimony. The rest – including Clinton’s penchant for philandering and the infamous blue dress – is, as they say, history.

This brings us to the present day and the third impeachment in U.S. history. The House of Representatives drafted, although is currently delaying transmittal to the Senate, two Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. The first relates to abuse of power, suggesting that President Trump sought foreign interference in the upcoming 2020 election by requesting that the government of Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, who was on the board of directors of a Ukrainian energy company. The charge is based on communications that took place between the presidents of the two nations, establishing a quid pro quo for military aid being predicated on the announcement of an investigation into Biden and his son. Such an action would clearly be a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, yet no reference to this Act was made in the Articles of Impeachment.

The second relates to a charge of obstruction of Congress. As in the Clinton impeachment, this would be a violation of U.S. Code, Title 18. This charge rises from the fact that President Trump instructed the Executive branch to not comply with subpoenas from Congress. This instruction was rendered so that the Executive branch could have the Judicial branch rule on the constitutionality of the subpoenas. The House of Representatives chose not to await the decision of the courts and to go forth with the charge of obstruction, essentially making it an impeachable offense for the Executive branch to avail itself of the rights and protections of the courts and of due process. After all, if the courts were to rule against the Executive branch, they would have to satisfy the subpoenas. The bottom line is whether or not this rises to the level of corruptly influencing, obstructing or impeding the House’s inquiry, the definition of which has been set forth in a variety of court cases from 1984 to 2007.

In reviewing the three cases of impeachment, it is clear that the worst of politics are alive and well, and have been for more than a century. In Johnson’s case, he was impeached for violating a law that the Congress passed specifically to tie his hands as chief executive. The Tenure of Office Act was repealed in 1887 and declared likely to be invalid by the Supreme Court in 1926, when it ruled a similar law to be unconstitutional. In Clinton’s case, he famously, and perhaps correctly in a purely technical sense, pinned his side of the story on the definition of the word “is,” an argument that neither the House nor the American people bought. In Trump’s case, the House sought to impeach him from the first day of his presidency, long before any communication with the president of Ukraine occurred between the presidents or became known by the House of Representatives.

I doubt very much that the Clinton and Trump impeachments were what the Founders had in mind, as it is unclear what “injuries done immediately to society itself” (Federalist 65) occurred in either case. It stands to reason that if the evidence were solid, a clear and convincing charge could and would be made. This has not been the case in modern times (i.e., with the Clinton and Trump impeachments).

With Trump, both he and the president of Ukraine have stated that no quid pro quo took place (as contrasted with former Vice President Biden conditioning aid on the firing of a prosecutor investigating the company on the board of which his son served as a director). Additionally, the aid was delivered. Critics point out that the aid was released only after allegations of wrongdoing came forward. The timing cannot be denied; however, it remains unclear what injuries society incurred. With regard to the defiance of subpoenas, we must look to the same language in Federalist 65. The House could have waited until the Judicial branch made its conclusions, but it did not. This seems to fail the notion of immediacy in Federalist 65.

What might this mean for an election? I think it simply calls us to weigh the Articles of Impeachment and any ruling by the Senate for what they may be worth, which is to say partisan political attempts to delegitimize a sitting president. At least with Johnson’s impeachment, connections to violated laws were evident and clearly stated. With Clinton and Trump, the connections are much more tenuous, if existing at all. Because the impeachments of the modern age are little more than political theater, I suggest it is foolhardy to consider impeachment when casting a vote for president. All such a consideration accomplishes is the affirmation of the voter’s personal love or hatred of the candidate.

I would suggest, instead, looking at the records of the candidates. Since the time of the New Deal, Democrats and other so-called progressives have extolled the promise of more government to solve the problems of society – education, healthcare, infrastructure, retirement, and so on. One would think that after nearly 80 years, some progress would be made. Many of our public schools, especially in areas in the greatest need of the benefits of education, continue to struggle and underperform. Despite a universal health insurance coverage plan (i.e., the public/private mandates of the Affordable Care Act – aka “Obamacare”), costs continue to escalate out of control, and liberal legislators complain that our healthcare system is an embarrassment on the world stage. One wonders where the trillions of dollars for infrastructure has gone when driving over the decrepit roads and bridges of this land. Insolvency looms like the grim reaper for those whose golden years require support from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Contrast that with the current administration. Reduction in regulatory burdens have freed the economy to perform more efficiently and effectively. Employment and unemployment statistics for African Americans, Hispanics and Asians are performing at historically favorable levels. No new wars have been instigated. Retirement savings are growing.

Clearly, I am a proponent of the invisible hand and its effect on society in all areas of human interaction. What I do not understand is the argument for tying this hand and its effect on society. Throw in partisan political exercises, like impeachment, and it is little wonder that people feel lost, trapped, frustrated and angry. As Saul Alinsky describes in “Rules for Radicals,” these feelings are the very ones that the left counts on to sustain support for its perpetually failing policies.

We are the heirs of Liberty. It’s time we recognize this fact and act accordingly. Let us focus on the policies and outcomes that advance our own self-interests, so that these interests may intersect with and advance the self-interests of our fellow citizens, lest we be distracted by the unseemly struggles for power by those in the halls of government.

Week 43: Socialism
As an individual, who was raised during the waning years of the Cold War – a war between the philosophies of individualism and collectivism, between capitalism and socialism, I am regularly astonished by the growing embrace of the latter over the former. My astonishment was renewed the other evening while reading Of Plimoth Plantation, written from 1630 to 1651 by William Bradford. The Plymouth colony was founded, in part, on the principles of socialism, and more than 350 years later, one only need observe our current political and electoral processes to see that socialist tendencies are unabashedly alive and well.
But before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s briefly define socialism. Simply put, socialism includes an economic system in which the means of production are owned collectively, such as by the state and/or by the workers. It includes political and social structures that plan the distribution of the ends of production in a centralized manner. Again, this is a basic definition. In the economic, political and social spheres of socialism, there are many different forms and combinations.
With regard to the means of production, there are numerous proposals out there discussing the need to break up monopolies, to require worker representation on boards of directors, to mandate greater government intervention into how businesses are run through the application of more and more federal regulations.
With regard to the benefits of production, there are numerous proposals out there, often funded through increases in direct and indirect taxes on all Americans, that would eliminate private health insurance and require all Americans to be on some form of government insurance – or a mix of public insurance supplemented by private insurance; proposals that would outlaw private education, requiring all students to attend public schools; proposals that would provide a basic income to all citizens. The list goes on and on.
What these proposals have in common is the sacrifice of individual objectives and initiative at the altar of the collective good. A problem with such proposals is that the collective good is not defined by the people but by the ruling class in Washington, D.C. These proposals require that one individual works for the good of another, as opposed to himself or herself. No animal, including the human animal, is wired this way. Self-preservation is the most basic of instincts. After that is the family unit as the most basic of social contracts. After that are local communities, and so on until you get to the level of the global community.
This is not to say that there is no value or import in the global community. Indeed, there is. Take, for example, Leonard Read’s essay “I, Pencil.” (https://youtu.be/U3W2v7LN-88) Read describes the global cooperation necessary to make something as simple as a pencil. He describes the benefits to people around the world that derive from their collaboration to make the pencil – their voluntary collaboration. It is Adam Smith’s invisible hand at work in a very real way. Take, as another example, the sharing of knowledge and information among the peoples of the world, from the scholarly work of the ancient Greeks and Persians that still influence our thinking today to the instantaneous transmittal of data across the internet.
To be sure, global relationships have important roles in our lives. Those examples and myriad others demonstrate success when they begin with individuals pursuing their own self-interest, not as a directive from some central authority. When centralized power is exerted to focus humanity on the global social contract, working backwards – against the nature of the individual, unfavorable results occur.
Returning to the 17^th century, Plymouth was founded on the premise that private ownership would not be allowed, that each individual colonist would work for the good of all other colonists, and that goods and services of each individual’s labor would be planned and distributed centrally. This approach failed, resulting in sloth, starvation and crime. The colonists did not want to labor for the benefit of others at their own expense. There was no personal investment in success. Animosity grew as the industrious were required to pick up the slack for the lazy and received no benefit for the extra initiative.
The colony did not flourish until the means of production were placed in the private control of the individual colonists. Once this occurred, production increased to the point that all in the colony were satisfied and they actually became exporters of goods.
In the nearly four centuries that have passed since the time of William Bradford and the Plymouth colonists, think about the times in which socialism has been employed as a mechanism for economic, political and/or social organization. One is hard-pressed to find a single example in which the system has been sustained without repression of the individual. Look at the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, the gulags of the Soviet Union, the forced labor camps of North Korea and China, and the political prisons of Cuba. People often point to the Scandinavian countries as examples where socialism works. However, as Nima Sanandaji points out in her book, Scandinavian Unexceptionalism, the success of Nordic economies, which is touted by the proponents of socialism, was realized prior to the great expansion of the welfare state in those nations. Since that time, key economic indicators, such as economic growth rates and national wealth, have been on the decline.
Despite the repeated failures of socialist policies, each new socialist believes that failure has been caused by errors in implementing socialism, that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with socialism itself. Yet, as Bradford points out, the fundamental flaw with socialism is that it is antithetical to the nature of humankind. Marcus Aurelius, the last of Rome’s Five Good Emperors and the last ruler of the period known as Pax Romana, reminds us over and over again in his Meditations of the importance of living life in accordance with nature. History demonstrates that the only periods of great advancement and success – for people at all levels of the socio-economic spectrum – have been during periods of limited intervention into the lives of individuals, which is to say during periods of the greatest individual freedom in terms of economic and social activity. This is true of the growth of the “middle class” in the United States, of the economic success of Nordic countries, which enabled them financially to embark on their socialist experiment, to name just a couple examples.
So, given the examples of history, which show that socialism stifles humanity and freedom advances humanity, why do politicians propose more of the former? It goes back to what we’ve discussed before: power! With freedom and liberty, the political class must relinquish control over the people, something that a corrupt mind is seldom wont to do. Recall the words of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. To this point, we may explore the notion of term limits in a future blog.
It cannot be denied that socialism, by definition, requires that individuals relinquish some level of control over their own lives, in terms of both their productivity and their consumption, to a third party. That is to say, in a free system, party A agrees to interact with party B. Their interaction is voluntary and each party presumes the interaction will be to his or her benefit. In socialist arrangements, party C sets parameters for the interaction between parties A and B. As party C’s power increases, the equation expands: party C decides what parties A and B must do for the benefit of party D. To illustrate this point more clearly, let us choose one candidate and one issue, so-called “free” education.
In a free market, I choose to pay a college to attend school and to get a degree. I received a federal student loan to go to graduate school, so the government entered that arrangement: the government paid the college so that I could go to school and get a degree, with the commitment on my part that I would pay the government back, with interest, for the loan. Under the “free” education policies of Warren and Sanders, higher education would be provided at no direct charge to students and students and graduates who have student loan debt would have that debt “forgiven.” This arrangement is one in which the government requires you and me to do something (i.e., pay taxes to cover the cost of education) for someone else. You and I will be required to pay, but we will have no input into the cost-benefit analysis of whether our money will be well spent.
Look at the government’s track record in terms of education (Week 49 posting), and it leaves one wondering (at least it leaves me wondering) why in the world would we entrust such important things – like education and healthcare – to those in government. With very few exceptions, they are little more than a collection of power-hungry fools, and their power depends on keeping us (or at least the right numbers of us) hungry, homeless, uneducated, ill and poor. Compare that to a free and capitalist system, in which the better off each individual is, the better off society is. Healthier, happier, educated individuals enrich the free exchange experience and the innovation necessary to continue the improvement of the human experience.
As you consider your vote this coming November, ask yourself which candidate seeks to control you or to free you. Ask yourself if the candidate you’re considering is a person to whom you would entrust your individual well-being. Is he or she better suited to direct your life than you are? And deeply explore if their policies enrich each individual’s life or if it sacrifices the freedom and liberty of one group for the benefit of another group. I contend that we cannot be equal and free if laws and the social contract treats one group differently from another, and that is fundamentally how socialist systems are designed, as opposed to how they are marketed.
Keeping in mind that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, let us not forget the repeated failures of socialism and the human misery it has created.