TRUMP AS THE ANTI-CHRIST

A friend (yes, I still have a few) and I were jawing about the sociopolitical landscape and the striking 180-degree variance in views and values that defines the current political cycle and divides the country. I’ve maintained that while many events are interpreted through the lens of our political beliefs, the gulf cannot be explained by this alone. A great deal can be attributed to ignorance, in the true sense of the word, where information is lacking. In its more typical, pejorative use, it implies a moral judgment that the person so tagged is willfully not seeking knowledge. However, in our current sociopolitical climate, it’s become evident to me that there has been a grave inequity in the distribution of knowledge in my favor, the disparity exacerbated by an induced unwillingness by many to receive even the crumbs of knowledge that manage to fall through the increasingly dense Leftist filter. The following, I contend, well characterizes a significant subset of the vehemently anti-Trump Left. Some pundits have said that Leftists, devoid of God and religion, have adopted the modern progressivism as their religion. The often volatile behavior and inability of those on the far Left (as distinct from true liberals) to rationally discuss and debate issues and events may support this notion. What’s most striking is the disproportionate hatred directed toward the current President. I remember how the Right hated Obama and the Left hated Bush junior with intensity, but those were like spring showers to today’s emotional hurricane. With Trump, the move to oust him began during his campaign, and has continued unabated throughout his administration, employing extraordinary and often ludicrous means. I’m hard pressed to find a single accomplishment of his, and there have been many, extolled in the mainstream media. Conversely, his every word and action has been criticized and/or twisted, even to the point of silliness (I used to say that if Trump declared cancer was bad, the opposition would try to explain its virtue). It’s so bad that friends have unfriended friends, and families have disowned family. Even allowing for policy differences, and I was not a fan of Obama, it’s hard to fathom this degree of acrimony. During my conversation, it hit me: To many disciples of the ideology of progressivism, Trump is literally the anti-Christ.

The Bible, a perennial best-seller now in disrepute in many quarters that I’m finally close to completing as a bucket list item, underscores something that most of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, have known: the claim by believers that Christ “died for our sins.” To paraphrase the ideas of the New Testament, accepting Christ as the son of God and following the rules of behavior as laid out in the Gospel absolves you of sin and paves the way for eternal life. With this as a template, viewing Trump as a mirror image explains a lot. Just about everything the Left perceives as bad, be it COVID, climate change, “systemic” racism and misogyny, whatever, is attributed to Trump (and, by extension, the “deplorable” followers). If you believe this, he is surely evil incarnate. To the progressive Left, he’s become the center, or secular sponge, for most of our current societal ills, just as Christ is defined by Christians as the repository of the cure for all human sin. And thus, removing Trump is seen as a giant step toward resolving those ills. It’s safer, and simpler that digging deep into the real root causes, many of which would reflect negatively on well-intentioned, deeply held beliefs.

The danger of the gulf between belief and reality is that when he’s gone, and the problems remain, as they inevitably must, the havoc will already be done. Because those that constructed the straw man anti-Christ so widely accepted as the new, progressive Gospel will have already moved one giant step closer to the goal—fundamental socialist change—and the road back is a hard one.

NEXT: TRUMP AS HITLER

THE THEFT OF YOUR WORDS TO CONTROL YOUR THOUGHTS

It’s sometimes the little background events that go unnoticed by most of us that signal the gravest tectonic shifts in our society. A couple of these were pointed out by Ben Shapiro this week that are worthy of wider dissemination. They pertain to the lifeblood of rational thought: our language.

Many of us have read George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 published in 1949 that described how language through double-speak was used to control people’s thoughts and minds. We’ve seen real-world examples of this throughout history, but it’s always been, for us, a “foreign” matter, in no small measure a consequence of the abundant safeguards our founders had the prescience to include in our Constitution. At this time, I’m sorry to say, we may be harboring a false sense of security.

The first recent example is the redefinition of “packing the Court.” This has always meant increasing the number of justices for political gain. It was last attempted by Franklin Roosevelt and defeated, with opposition even by his own party members. Earlier this week the Left redefined “packing” to represent a political imbalance in the Court, even if achieved by constitutionally filling empty seats. Some legislators maintained that truly packing the Court with increased numbers would serve to “depoliticize” it. This “left is right” and “up is down” pontificating, if accepted at large, is the beginning of the end for logical thinking.

The second, and more significant event was the redefining of the word “preference,”specifically as in “sexual preference.” During the Senate confirmation hearing for Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Senator Mazie Hirono (D) of Hawaii berated Judge Barrett for having used the term, claiming that since sexual orientation is neither chosen nor mutable, the word in this context is pejorative. The fact that this is patently absurd isn’t what gives the interaction import. Within hours Merriam Webster had changed their online fifth definition from “orientation, as in sexual preference” to “offensive, see usage paragraph below: sexual orientation,” which it now describes as “widely considered offensive.” This is bone-chilling frightening. It has become common for a Leftist proclamation to be adopted immediately by corporations attempting to placate the Twitterati and the mob in general. I’ve seen the same thing occur across renowned scientific organizations. Now we’re seeing these views adopted real-time and given validity by arbiters of our language.

No matter from what side of the political aisle you hail, if you are anything other than lost in the treacherous ideological quicksand of the rabid Left, this should serve as a wake-up call. Reexamine what you’re being told, and who’s doing the telling.

WHY THE SCHOOLS REMAIN CLOSED

It is well established that the risk of serious infection and complications in school-aged children is less than the seasonal flu. It has also been established that child-to-adult transmission of disease is much less common than adult-to-adult transmission. Europe, taking into account the data, has reopened schools without a reported uptick in child mortality to date. It’s been shown that school closures have resulted in a 30% decline in reading capacity, that in some areas only 50% of children are participating in remote learning, and the incidence of child abuse has significantly increased due to school closures. Some have expressed concerns that the nutritional health of the poorest children may be impacted by the loss of school meals. Older teachers might have to have special social distancing measures instituted or teach remotely, but for the rest, the risk is no greater than the seasonal flu. Parents without resources are struggling to return to work without daytime assistance with the kids. With all this, reopening for the children is a no-brainer, right? But politicians have no brains.

In fairness, it’s not that our political leaders lack brains (although one could make a valid argument for some exceptions), it’s just that they have political brains that overwhelm all other higher functions. Overarching policy since COVID-19 has considered mostly medical mortality risk over all other variables. While sensible policy would dictate a simultaneous and sober assessment of COVID deaths versus deaths and years of life lost due to lock-downs, the latter has been viewed largely through the lens of a solution, even though a very good argument could be made for the cure, namely lock-downs, being worse than the disease. For a politician, the political argument for school lock-downs is even more compelling than the for the population at large because, well, they’re kids.

The media gain eyeballs and clicks through hyperbole, and in this case it’s taking a threat and fanning the flames of fear. It’s a form of low-grade terrorism with real cost. The larger price for keeping schools closed is not apparent, except via actuarial table and postmortem (in the larger sense of the term) analysis that likely won’t happen for years. Imagine the heyday the media will have with each schoolchild death, inevitable in any wide-scale infection. An example of this is already out there with respect to the rare complication of Kawasaki-like disease, a serious inflammatory illness that can affect the blood vessels of children. No politician is willing to weather this assault in the name of science or for any other reason.

As long as we continue to have politicians without backbones and an ill-informed and agitated electorate, I don’t see the situation changing any time soon.

COVID: WHAT TRUMP’S TRYING TO DO AND WHY IT’S FAILING

If the polls are to be believed, even allowing for the 2016 poll fiasco, Trump has lost ground over the last couple of weeks and is the underdog. Two events seem to have arrested his resurgence: His debate performance (mostly a referendum on his demeanor) and his infection with COVID-19. The debate probably hurt him less than the latter, as Trump is Trump and it’s baked into the cake. So why does he double down on his behavior with respect to the pandemic? With the Left versus Trump, this can be explained by the simple laws of political physics: Every overreaction has an equal and opposite overreaction.

No one can deny that COVID is the worst pandemic of our lives, the worst since the Spanish flu of 1918 (although about 1 million have died worldwide to date versus an estimated 50 million in 1918, likely due to our medical advances). The disease is highly transmissable but a mixed bag with respect to mortality, depending on age and risk factors. And, because of the times we live in, it has been politicized. Trump perceives his opponents are supporting lock-downs for purely political reasons, namely to suppress the economic recovery prior to the election. I believe he was being honest when he stated his early, ill-advised overly optimistic views of the virus were for the purpose of preventing “panic.” Later, however, I believe he used his inconsistent masking and social isolation practices and over-the-top optimism to counter the opposing political narrative supporting a second economic lock-down. It is reasonable to assume the Left’s use of alarmist tactics that accentuate the dangers of the pandemic and minimize the evidence refuting the need for a second lock-down is not simply for altruistic reasons. Remarks about maintaining school closures until “after the election” also give credence to this view. While many might criticize this conclusion as horribly cynical, good people (that is, most liberals) can be influenced to accept a more dire prognosis than the facts would otherwise support if it fits their belief system and is repeated often and loudly enough. It is clear from the rhetoric that at least some of the anti-Trump crowd feel that he is a greater risk than the pandemic or economic malaise. With the conflicting messages, you see some people wearing masks outside with no one in sight, while others ignore reasonable masking and social distancing precautions, usually but not exclusively along political lines. The middle ground of minimizing lock-downs to save the economy along with sensible masking and social isolation often gets lost in the kerfuffle. Sadly, Trump’s policies with regard to the pandemic have been mostly laudable but overshadowed by his personal remarks and antics, culminating in his contraction of the disease. It is worth remembering he closed the borders to infection earlier than the progressive contingent would have (and was criticized by Biden for it as xenophobic), and provided assistance and ventilators to the states that needed them and was praised for it by both blue and red state governors. He also supported the medical community in the unprecedented development of vaccines in record time. Still, Leftist politicians like NY Governor Cuomo, who encouraged riding the subways and sent infected old people back to the nursing homes, were given a pass, or even lionized. A reasonable counter-argument could be made that had Trump set a good example more people would have masked and isolated and the curve further flattened. But, especially early on, the evidence for masking was mixed (and, in fact not recommended), and later on half the country would be unlikely to view him as a role model, regardless. Furthermore, the politicians and media on the Left demonstrated a pattern of willingness to ignore or minimize the contribution of large, poorly-isolated gatherings if for the purpose of social protest. So Trump, in typical fashion, overshadows his own poorly reported successes with a politically disastrous campaign by trying to counter the alarmist Left with an unrealistic optimism that doesn’t resonate with the voters.

Despite ample evidence (suppressed in the mainstream media) of a problematic Biden past as least as bad, and probably worse than Trump’s*, it seems the majority of Americans may be willing to allow the Democrats to consolidate power by changing the rules (the failure to admit they wouldn’t pack the Supreme Court or “pack the country” with additional liberal states is telling). Kind of like adding innings to baseball or allowing 4 strikes if you’re not winning as much as you’d like.

Trump’s political malpractice and an electorate infused with ideologically-driven ignorance may be the downfall of an America that has changed the world for the better, and will leave future generations much poorer spiritually and economically.

*Biden has plagiarized, lied about his educational standing, been accused of sexual molestation (not investigated), been implicated in corruption via son Hunter (not investigated), made overtly racist remarks at least as incendiary as Trump’s, supports the untenable Green New Deal while simultaneously denying it, refuses to comment on packing the Supreme Court, and has publicly lauded criminals over law enforcement. Harris likely rose in the ranks on the “casting couch,” prosecuted marijuana users while laughing about it, and also publicly supports criminals over law enforcement. There’s a lot more if you look for it.

POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE—YEA OR NAY?

An article was forwarded to me by a friend predicting the low likelihood of major violence post election based on his research. Putting aside the evident but low-key political bias of the piece, it makes an attempt to inject some objectivity into something that is inherently speculative. I also think it’s wrong.

Predicting the future is a hazardous enterprise for anyone at any time (just look at the 2016 presidential election). That being said, it’s important to dig down below the superficial political animus to the values of the citizens if you want to get close to the mark. Analogies have been made to the unrest of the 1960s and the 1860s in attempting to extrapolate. Admittedly I’m influenced by the work of William Strauss and Neil Howe in The Fouth Turning and I view the 1960s as a period of Awakening and the 1860s as a more serious period similar to the present, a Crisis. Neither resulted in the dissolution of the Union. Neither accurately represents the present state of affairs, however.

It’s important to note that dynasties (the empires of Alexander, Ottoman, Rome, to name a few), even very stable ones, do not last forever, although those living within them at the time all share the illusion of permanence. What generally ends them is mismanagement born of a change in, or non-adherence to, the values that led them to succeed, causing them to disintegrate from within. In our case, the Founders, with unprecedented historical astuteness, developed a Constitution, designed to anticipate and ameliorate the forces constantly in play aiming to destroy the values upon which the country was based. As outlined in the Declaration of Independence, they are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The country was founded on the principle of rights granted by God, not government; they incorporated proscriptions to limit federal power over the states (it was also essential to getting it passed). Hence, they constructed a democratic republic and not a democracy. They recognized that tyranny of the majority was no better than tyranny of a monarchy.

Over the past few decades, the Left, via masterful commandeering of the educational system and the heretofore monolithic media have pushed the worn siren call of socialism effectively. A sizable portion of the country (we’re about to learn if it’s more than half) has accepted the notion of equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, and the concept of institutionalized racism as the founding principle and white privilege as its result. They’ve also moved from E Pluribus Unum (from many, one) to the concepts of diversity and intersectionality. These are divisive, not unifying principles; no country can survive widescale acceptance of these destructive doctrines.

Given the above, I predict the following with a Trump win: The protests and violence will continue and likely intensify, becoming more multicentric, requiring more police, military and National Guard intervention. Barring a shift in values, over the next decade or two we will start hearing state calls for secession. If Biden wins, a doubling down on the Leftist policies whose effects over time can be gauged by looking at the present state of the big cities will move the government more toward a socialist paradigm, the Constitution will be progressively weakened, the economy slowed by increased regulations, and the growth of the federal government accelerated. Democracy will be increased at the expense of republicanism in the political sense, with attacks on representative mechanisms such as the electoral college intensifying. Federal agencies and corporations with assail liberties such as free speech with cancellation, “diversity” training, and racial quotas with more alacrity, heightening the influence of the “mob.” An over-extended, indebted economy weakened by the pandemic will accelerate the malaise. A delayed result will be armed backlash by right-wing groups, at first those that are more extreme (including some execrable white supremacist groups) and, if pushed far enough, ordinary conservative Americans (possibly abetted by effective annulment of the 2^nd Amendment by oppressive regulations). Alternatively, conservatives, who are less prone to demonstrate or initiate violence (remember the maligned Tea Party), will withdraw from Left-dominated tools and form their own schools, businesses, sports teams, and social media and we’ll be a divided country, ripe for secessions or outside attack. Disunity took decades to seed and grow; reunification. if it occurs, will likely take as long, barring assault from an external, mutual threat.

There is no Dumbledore or Hogwarts, and no magic wand that can be waved to unify us, no matter who inhabits the White House.

COVID AND TRUMP—THE MEDICAL AND THE POLITICAL

So now he’s got it. The public reaction is as expected, and a bit unexpected. Many anti-Trumpers have unsurprisingly wished him ill, if not death, and have made snarky remarks about hsi getting what he deserves, and “karma.” What is surprising is that some far Leftists (Rachel Maddow comes to mind as an example) have appropriately wished him and Melania well despite their disagreements with him and oft-professed outright hatred. And, in fairness, Trump did set himself up for criticism with his off-and-on support for masking and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do tepid support for social distancing. The argument on the Left, however, that the pandemic is on its face a Trumpian failure of management, like most Leftists arguments, loses validity when we actually inject facts. Despite Trump’s intermittent, and sometimes over-the-top proclamations of optimism with respect to the virus (motivated, per Trump, by a wish to prevent panic), he did restrict travel from China and then Europe (and was criticized for it) at a time both sides were uncertain of the virus’ eventual impact here. It is conveniently ignored by the Left-dominated media that Pelosi was sightseeing in Chinatown in a virtue-signaling show of her lack of Chinese xenophobia for the cameras, Biden was actively labeling Trump xenophobic, Cuomo was sending infected old folks back to the nursing homes, and Cuomo or de Blasio (or both) were telling people to ride the subways and have a good time. Trump gets zero credit from these same media sources for providing the support requested by the state governors of both political stripes (for which he was publicly thanked by them) and ramping up ventilator production, a resource that ended up never being overwhelmed. So his handling of the pandemic is a mixed bag with, as usual, his deeds outshining his words and personal example.

Medically, the president falls in a “high risk” category for complications by dint of age and (over-) weight and has a roughly 1-5% chance of this depending on whom you ask. So, God-willing, he’ll have a mild infection and rapid recovery. I’ve found Ben Shapiro’s analyses to be sober and factually grounded, and I agree with him that Trump’s medical course, considering human nature, is likely to affect policy with respect to economic lock-downs going forward, even though it should not be dictated by anecdotal evidence but by the data.

Politically, there’s mostly downside. Most obviously, as mentioned, his lip service to masking and social isolation while serving as a less than stellar example has given fuel to those that have criticized him. It is true that the evidence for the value of masking came late and remains mixed, but it is reasonable to do both in situations where people are likely to be in close contact, especially indoors. The criticism of the Left rings hollow with hypocrisy, though, as we’d be hard pressed to find a single outcry from their ranks during the frequent mass protests. Additionally, Trump will be denied the opportunity for live rallies for at least 2 weeks and could miss out on the next debate opportunity. Overall, I don’t see the president’s illness as affecting those that have already made up their minds whom they are voting for. For the likely vanishingly small segment of the population that remains undecided (and that could determine the result in a close election), it seems unlikely to help him in the face of the constant Leftist anti-Trump drumbeat. That being said, a small portion may give a sympathy vote.

Barring a serious change in the president’s health, the election may have already been decided, and it’s just a matter of waiting for the results to roll in.

TRUMP LOSES DEBATE IN A DRAW

If you watched the presidential, and I use the term guardedly, debate last night, don’t try to read this until your double vision clears. If it seemed like it was a debate between a bully and a nasty child, that’s because it was. Trump’s strategy of pummeling to provoke instability backfired, and Biden’s ploy (doubt strategy made an appearance) of name-calling and lying did as well. For those of you that missed the fisticuffs, or can’t bear another moment without a recap, I’ll offer the following brief analysis of what I deem the most salient points.

Trump never heard the old adage, “If you give a man enough rope, he’ll hang himself.” Every time Biden tried to jump off the platform with the noose around his neck, Trump (or the moderator, Chris Wallace), reeled him in. Among the lies spouted by the former vice president were support for and denial of support for the Green New Deal in the same sentence (visit his website), overt support for the notion of America as a systemically racist nation, and the denial of Antifa as a group (basically it’s an “idea” roving about in black shirts and masks). He also claimed the provable links to his son Hunter’s pay-offs coming out of Russia and the documented risks (by multiple recent ballot incidents) of ballot tampering with universal mail-in voting were false. Probably the most perspicacious thing he said to Trump all night was, “Shut up!” Had the president taken that advice, he might have fared better.

Trump, on the other hand spent little or no time lying, just bumbling with poorly-worded answers and retorts that have and will provide the media the space they need to distort his meaning (and, believe me, for this they’ve always needed very little to no space). For instance, when Wallace asked him to denounce white supremacists, he immediately agreed (which Wallace ignored), then when badgered further Trump meandered off into a true but mangled diatribe against the Left, even responding to a mistaken reference by Biden on the Proud Boys, a controversial but not “white supremacist” group.

Wallace, probably irritated by Trump’s aggressive interruptions of Biden, apparently decided to side with his opposition. Besides the above-mentioned loaded question implying that white supremacists have played a major role in the recent violence, he presented Trump with a question about his executive order banning the teaching of critical race theory in federal agencies, but disguised the hateful program with the term “racial sensitivity training.” Another example of moderator bias occurred when Biden refused to answer Wallace’s question on whether he’d pack the Supreme Court, claiming it would make it “the issue,” (and Lord knows, we shouldn’t waste the brief time we have for name-calling on issues). Wallace docilely moved one.

My assessment of the outcome: A draw. Those that were going to vote Trump will vote Trump, and those for Biden will cast their vote for Harris…I mean Biden. A friend of mine thinks the undecideds will shift to Biden, but I’m not as sure. For Trump, whom the polls (if correct) show as trailing, I’d count this failed opportunity to increase his support as a debate loss.

In November, if the nation votes on his deeds, he’ll win another 4 years. If it votes on his words, well, say hello to a Harris/Biden administration.

BIZARRO AMERICA

When I was a kid, I use to read Superman comics. Some of the issues featured a story line where the antagonist was an inverse copy of our red-caped hero-in-tights: bizarro world Superman. It was all childish fun. Now we’re in bizarro America, and it’s not fun at all.

A conservative friend of mine recently discussed politics with her daughter, only to be dishonored with the younger adult’s dismissal of her as a cult member. It made me think of how often Leftists employ the psychological defense of projection, and of how widespread it has become. They’ve adopted fascism by deciding what is “hate speech” and are attempting to stifle free speech by cancellation and intimidation and defining non-believers as fascists. They’ve adopted and disseminated the concept of intersectionality which is attempting to foist policies designed to force outcomes to match the prevalence of skin color while calling non-participants racist. And they’ve resurrected the ghost of racism past to redefine the present to accomplish their ends.

Racism is so abhorrent to the vast majority of modern Americans, that it can be weaponized. In a country overcome with remorse for its problematic past, an avowedly Marxist group saw an opportunity to replace social class with race and use it to forward its agenda of fundamental change. Black Lives Matter, Inc was born. With Leftist incantations, it conjured the demonic apparition of systemic racism from the grave of US history to terrorize anew, to create the illusion of a United States still standing on the necks of its black citizens (to which Biden has publicly attested). Biden and Harris have also publicly sided with violent criminals resisting arrest and against our heroes doing a dangerous job. Even clear, factual evidence fails, again and again, to discredit the cries of “systemic racism.” The nose ring of “racism” and “white privilege” has now led too many unsuspecting Americans further down the dusty, well-worn path toward increasing government control and fundamental socialist change.

While ostentatiously pointing out every stupid or crass remark the president makes and ignoring his minority-elevating accomplishments, previously sane people on the Left are making increasingly outrageous comments. Senate minority leader Schumer calls filling Justice Ginsburg’s seat an act that will “defile” and potentially “destroy” the Senate while some of his party members threaten to add blue states and “pack” the Supreme Court. House majority leader Pelosi advises Biden to skip the debates because this would “legitimize” them and because Trump “stalked” Hillary during the 2016 debates (ignoring the elaborate 2 year Russian collusion hoax on Clinton’s behalf that will likely prove to be a greater scandal than Watergate). The hysterical Left sees the Right as a cult. But they don’t debate with facts, ignoring or burying them, instead resorting to ad hominem attacks. And many of the smart people I know and love are swept along with them. For me, it’s like looking into a mirror at a bizarro world. Some of these bizarro converts, I’m convinced, could be cured, perhaps simply by listening to a single conservative source backed by real facts (someone like Ben Shapiro comes to mind). The others, I fear, are lost in a phantom world of past racism and a threatened reality of future socialism.

If you think the specter of America’s past can’t devour the present, and the future, keep watching. It’s occurring right before your eyes … or behind your back.

THE CURSE OF LIBERTY

In science, we’re always talking about sensitivity and specificity. As an example, consider the COVID-19 test: the more sensitive it is for detecting the disease, the more likely it will over-call it in some individuals; it’s a yin and yang thing. Now, as the tests improve, both sensitivity and specificity can too, but there’s always a trade-off. Liberty is something like that.

Everyone, including politicians, plays lip service to fealty to freedom. It seems a no-brainer. Then why, time after time, do people vote away their freedom? We’ve seen the Palestinians do it for Hamas, and the Venezuelans for socialism. These are just two of the dozens of examples that could be cited. It’s because the ying to freedom’s yang is law and order, or more broadly, security. It’s not that freedom is incompatible with law and order; we’ve admirably demonstrated this for over a couple of hundred years and have had remarkably peaceful transitions of power. It’s just that it takes constant effort and sacrifice. And the people have to decide if it’s worth the price.

The sacrifice is obvious in obtaining liberty; it’s usually a war with casualties and death and a tremendous outlay of resources. Maintaining it is another matter. Liberty naturally fades, even in (one might say especially in) a democracy. Over time, in a successful society, people become acclimated to security. A free society, with equal access to opportunity, naturally favors those with greater talent who exhibit greater effort; those who have high levels of competence and conscientiousness, in the words of Jordan Peterson. This results in disparity of outcome. It does not mean that a rising tide doesn’t raise all boats, just that some boats are much larger and more opulent than others. Every good society with a conscience strives to help the small boats in danger of capsizing; this charity, or welfare, is a good thing. The problems begin when the people in the small boats begin to think those in the large boats are bad, and that the government needs to fix it. Then the charity moves to sanctioned theft. The argument about the point at which this occurs is the basis for politics and ideology. The bottom line is that democracy inevitably deteriorates into socialism which more quickly devolves into poverty and fascism. History proves this. Unequivocally. So the founders tried to create a democratic republic with checks and balances to slow the deterioration, recognizing that it could serve only a moral people.

As government and the welfare state has grown and crony capitalism inevitably along with it, the family has shrunk. Charity is slowly being replaced by government largess. One or two generations ago a check from the government was seen as failure and often shunned. Now it’s more common to see it as an entitlement and something to be sought after. Being taken care of is slowly becoming more important than liberty.

With liberty comes free speech with the downside of allowing “hate” speech. Law and order with the downside of more rogue agents misusing it with criminal intent. More reliance on self, family and friends, and the Church, and less on government. Clearly, some societies favor less freedom and more security.

The coming election is so important because it will demonstrate the net vector of America in terms of this preference. It will serve as a bellwether as to how much time remains in our current system of government, founded on the values of the Declaration of Independence and implemented in the Constitution. History tells us this. Unequivocally.

The curse of liberty is that it has in its seed the very essence of its own destruction.

AN OPEN LETTER TO RIGHT-WINGERS: RESTORING AMERICA

America can be healed. It won’t be easy or quick, but the disestablishment has not been quick, or disintegrationism, if you prefer Ben Shapiro’s term. And I suppose the latter term is easier off the tongue than antidisestablismentarianism. Easy in concept, difficult in implementation: Simply reverse the program of the far Left. If Trump loses, it’s questionable whether the values of the nation’s founding have sufficient prevalence to ever reconstruct. If he wins, we buy a little time. But if we haven’t learned the lessons that brought us to this point of existential instability, it won’t matter.

Other political minds have stated, correctly, that the Republican Party has focused almost solely on politics and policy to the exclusion of culture, falsely secure in the knowledge that the principles upon which the country was founded were so solid that their value was self-evident. The Left recognized the importance of winning minds and hearts. They invested their energy in commandeering the educational system and the mainstream media. The results are inarguable: The curriculum from grade school through college is dramatically Leftist, and almost all professors are on the far Left. It’s so bad, conservative professors routinely risk losing their jobs for expressing an alternative point of view. From the perch of a far-Left viewpoint, even moderately right-wing views are seen as far-right, or even alt-right. In the mainstream media, sources such as CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and NY Times and, to a large extent, any of the news networks other than Fox, the so-called journalists are 85-90% or more liberal and/or Leftist. Judging by the quality of the “journalism,” it seems most are Leftist. To varying extents, especially with CNN, MSNBC and the aforementioned newspapers, any attempt to preserve good journalistic ethics have succumbed to political/ideological activism (examples are legion, and include changing headlines and chyrons in real time). The Left will counter by citing bias on Fox News and other conservative sites such as OAN, and there is conservative bias, but this is like comparing a spring shower to a hurricane. I know this not only because I’m a convert, but because despite being a conservative it’s impossible to avoid left-wing sites. However, Leftists and, as I’m learning even many liberals, rarely if ever see unfiltered right-wing reporting and opinion in the left-dominated media.

So, it’s apparent that any hope for a return to a sane, color-blind and unified society governed by the high-minded principles that defined the birth of our nation and that, ironically, we’d come so close to fulfilling until five minutes ago, will require unpeeling the layers of toxic Leftist thought. We need to inject conservatives back into the educational system, expand the conservative influence in the online, social, and dwindling print media, and actively speak with minorities about issues for which we share a common goal, such as liberty, law and order. We cannot reach minds closed to facts and the truth that are clouded by a false narrative and ideology. As a fellow right-winger, or an open-minded liberal, you know that we are not, writ large, hateful or racist, and share a desire that everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual orientation have the same opportunities to succeed. Unfortunately, the Left has masterfully marketed the opposing viewpoint.

It’s a difficult but not an impossible task, and will require a sustained effort, assuming we can buy the time. Anything short of this cannot succeed.

Editor’s note: The original version erroneously attributed the term “deconstructionism” to Ben Shapiro.