By Chris Talgo

According to a recent Econ Journal Watch study, liberal professors outnumber conservatives nearly 12 to one. This should come as no great surprise. Since the 1960s, college campuses have increasingly become bastions of liberal ideology. For decades, professors have indoctrinated students with anti-American values. The political climate has become almost completely one-sided on most campuses.

Should the national government address the problem of campus bias by leveling the playing field? Specifically, should the government create “conservative enclaves” to counter liberal proclivity?  According to Rob Koons, professor of philosophy, the answer is a resounding “yes.” In a recent Newsmax article, Creating Conservative Enclaves at Colleges Possible With Trump, Koons states

Conservatives must seize the opportunity provided by undivided GOP control of the federal government.

In 2008, in the closing days of the Bush 43 administration, Congress approved the American History for Freedom program, providing for the use of federal funds to create special centers in colleges and universities dedicated to promoting traditional American history, the nature of and threats to free institutions, and the history and achievements of Western Civilization.

The program lay unfunded through the two terms of the Obama administration, but now is the time for Congress to fund it fully, authorizing the Trump Department of Education to help with the creation of enclaves of traditional scholarship.

On its face, many conservatives would agree with Koons’ position. He presents a laudable plan to rebuff the overwhelming liberal bias that exists on most college campuses. In classrooms across America, conservative views are ostracized. American history is denigrated. The achievements of Western Civilization are misconstrued and overlooked. In a nutshell, most college professors disagree with the idea of American exceptionalism. Professor Koons has experienced this anti-conservative bias throughout his career. According to Koons

In my forty years of experience in higher education, I have seen conservatives excluded, expelled, and harassed by both administrators and professors. But the time has come for us to stop merely complaining: the time has come for action. Congress has the opportunity to fund the American History for Freedom program, creating dozens of enclaves of conservative thought in universities across the land.

Will the American History for Freedom program solve the problem of liberal indoctrination? Professor Koons believes funding this program will vastly increase conservative voices on college campuses. Creating “conservative enclaves” would be a strong rebuke to the standard liberal narrative on campuses. Koons argues

This is a great public good, very worthy of the modest investment of taxpayer money involved. Taxpayers are already on the hook for literally trillions of dollars, used by universities to subsidize left-wing indoctrination and political activism. It is past time for a few million to be invested in scholarship and teaching devoted to the American founding, to the philosophical and political foundations of freedom, and to understanding and appreciating the great legacy that we have inherited from the Greeks, the Romans, the Hebrews, medieval Christianity, and British constitutional and legal history.

Even if some of money ends up in left-wing hands, the dollars that reach more conservative-friendly programs will greatly multiply the resources available for studying the roots of American freedom and equal justice under the law. Now is the time to strike, when many colleges and universities are struggling to make ends meet. The potentiality to make inroads in ending the leftist monopoly of thought on campus may never again be as great as it is right now.

Despite Koons’ adamant support, upon closer inspection, this program is wrought with negative possibilities. According to Koons, now is the perfect time to enact this program because the GOP controls Congress and the White House. Professor Koons is comfortable with Republicans in charge of this program. This is a shortsighted view. It’s doubtful he would be nearly as enthusiastic with liberal progressives implementing this program or coming up with an alternative, sinister version.

While Koons presents a noble goal, a more wise and measured approach would be eliminating the national government’s funding of higher education. Federal funding of higher education has inherently corrupted the system. Eliminating the Department of Education would be a boon for freedom. Unleashing the principles of market capitalism would revolutionize higher education. Increasing government intervention has created the leftist monopoly on college campuses. The solution is not another new program, but rather to reduce the government’s role in education as much as possible.

By Chris Talgo

It probably comes as no surprise that conservatives and liberals disagree on many issues, but a recent survey reveals a stark divide now exists among conservatives and liberals on the topic of patriotism. The study, conducted by the American Culture and Faith Institute, demonstrates that Americans are increasingly polarized on issues that have historically united the country. According to Anne Sorock, Executive Director of Ear to the Ground,

“The findings revealed a fissure in our culture, opportunities to rally around patriotism as a shared value, and also concerns about fluid definitions. They suggest that we are more divided than ever – and neither the left nor the right is content to cede patriotism to the other.”

When it comes to attitudes about American exceptionalism, conservatives and liberals could not be farther apart. Only 47 percent of liberals endorse an “America first” attitude, whereas 82 percent of conservatives do so. When asked if they are “proud to be American,” 65 percent of conservatives responded “yes,” whereas only 37 percent of liberals say they are “proud to be American.” As Sorock points out, conservatives are more concerned about attacks on freedom, whereas liberals and moderates are intent on forging a national consensus:

“With regards to perceptions about the experience of “being American,” … conservatives were more likely than liberals and moderates to believe that basic freedoms are under attack in America today.

Conservatives were less likely than both liberals and moderates to believe that our most visible political leaders are doing little to bring the country together; that the US does not have a widely-shared vision of our future for people to rally around; and that things are so divided these days that it is no longer possible to bring the nation together.”

There are many causes of this hyper-partisanship and precipitous drop in patriotism. For decades, the United States has been engaged in a culture war. The counterculture revolution of the 1960s mocked and derided traditional American values, yet it subsumed the nation’s cultural center. The U.S. education system and mainstream media have been corrupted by liberal bias. The ongoing culture war has created a society that is fraying at the seams.

Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” The results of this survey affirm Reagan’s point.

Since its inception, the United States has fought tyranny, provided aid after natural disasters, and welcomed refugees from around the globe. The United States is not perfect, but it was designed to be a virtuous nation founded on freedom. The nation’s hordes of domestic detractors ought to contemplate what the world would be like without the United States. One suspects that an honest assessment would induce a greater appreciation for their country.

By Chris Talgo

The Liberal arts, once the cornerstone of a well-rounded education, are being undermined by progressive socialists. Historically, American students studying liberal arts were trained in critical reasoning skills. Students were encouraged to think for themselves. Liberal arts programs stressed the achievements of Western Civilization. Unfortunately, progressive elites have declared war on liberal arts in an attempt to push their big-government agenda.

Heartland Institute research fellow Teresa Mull explains the forces behind the decline of liberal arts programs in a new op-ed titled Let’s Put an End to the Left’s Myths about the Liberal Arts. Mull argues the reduction in students matriculating in liberal arts programs is due to a concerted campaign by progressives.

My theory is that the “liberal arts is a waste of time” rumor was started by a bunch of progressive elites afraid of what might happen when people, especially young ones, started to develop their own conclusions instead of drinking the Kool-Aid served to them at government schools controlled by liberal, big-government types.

You may think such a claim is right-wing nonsense, or even silly, but before completely dismissing the idea, consider the following: First, liberals control the overwhelming majority of higher-education institutions in America, and yet many of them are the ones dismissing liberal arts and suggesting it’s useless. Second, liberals’ philosophy hinges on everyone working together like little cogs in a giant machine, an idea that fits well with advancing STEM, but doesn’t make much sense with the liberal arts. Third, liberal arts hinges on studying the classic thinkers of Western Civilization, most of whom the left has dismissed as racist, misogynistic, greedy, or homophobic.

In short, the liberal arts is a giant roadblock on the path to socialism, so why wouldn’t the left want to undermine it?

Mull presents a convincing case. Classical liberal arts programs are antithetical to the progressive agenda of more government and less freedom. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that most progressives would advocate for less liberal arts and more science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses.

The anti-liberal arts mindset is not isolated to college campuses. It exists in high schools and middle schools as well. According to Mull,

“Broad-based learning” is being dismissed because of an ever-deepening infiltration of left-wing radicals, who, like the public K–12 teachers unions folks, see academia as the perfect place to sink their teeth and finagle the future to their evil wills. Liberal professors outnumber conservative ones 12 to one. Even the straightforward, fact-based realm of engineering is not safe from these rabid manipulators.

The bottom line is this: The liberal arts are valuable. They’re beautiful and necessary. They have, however, at many colleges and universities, been perverted by people looking to advance their own ideological agenda — one that is nihilist at best and fascist at worst. But students drawn to the examination of truth, beauty, and goodness ought not to fear. You’ll enjoy college. You’ll find a job. You’ll make good money. You won’t be liberal. And you’ll be just fine.

The decline of liberal arts programs threatens liberty. Liberal arts programs provide more than a well-rounded education. Students studying liberal arts learn how to think for themselves. No wonder progressive socialists are fervently working to undermine them.

By Chris Talgo

In 2016, droves of Millennials supported a socialist candidate for the Democratic Party’s nominee in the presidential election. In a poll taken one year later, 58 percent of Millennials stated they would rather live in a communist, fascist, or socialist nation than under capitalism.

It should come as no great surprise that Millennials tend to favor the left end of the political spectrum. Millennials have grown-up in a liberal bubble. The public schools Millennials attend are overwhelmingly staffed by liberals. According to a recent poll conducted by Econ Journal, liberal professors outnumber conservatives 12 to one.  Outside of the classroom, Millennials are bombarded with liberal ideology on social media. This onslaught continues in the entertainment industry and across the mainstream media.

Yet upon further examination, it’s ironic that Millennials naively support socialism. In 3 Reasons Millennials Should Ditch Karl Marx for Ayn Rand, Leisa Miller of the Foundation for Economic Education explains how the values of most Millennials actually align more with Ayn Rand than with Karl Marx. Miller begins her piece by encouraging her fellow Millennials to

drop Karl Marx like we dropped cable TV.

We’re a generation that’s sick of wars (and threats of wars), mass shootings, and media sensationalism. As the ambassadors of the sharing economy and investors in cryptocurrency, we hold innovation and entrepreneurship in high esteem.

Karl Marx is not who we think he is. His philosophy doesn’t align with our values at all. We need to look to somebody more in touch with what’s important to us — someone like Ayn Rand.

Miller provides three compelling arguments that should spur any reasonable Millennial to kick Marxism to the curb. She begins with the issue of violence.

Karl Marx advocates using violence to get what you want.

We hate the constant stream of wars the US gets involved in. Whether it’s Iraq or Afghanistan, or the threat of the Islamic State or North Korea, we’re just tired of it all. Why can’t everyone get along? Why do we have to topple regime after regime and flex our muscles on Twitter? Don’t even get us started on the mass shootings. It’s 2017, for crying out loud! This violence needs to stop.

If only Karl Marx felt the same way. But unfortunately, he says that the only way to bring about the ideal political state is through violent revolution… Oh, brother… Please: No. More. Wars.

Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is not a proponent of violence. She says violence should only be a means of self-defense. If someone invades your country, you can retaliate. If someone punches you in the face, you can retaliate. If someone tries to steal your stuff, you can retaliate. But there’s no reason you should employ violence other than if you or your stuff are attacked.

Since practically all Millennials abhor violence, why in the world do they support Marxism, an ideology predicated on violent revolution? Perhaps their teachers are glossing over that unseemly aspect. On the other hand, almost all Millennials would agree that self-defense is necessary. It sure seems that most Millennials fall in line with Rand. Next, Miller contrasts the use of emotion by Marx and Rand.

Karl Marx appeals to your emotional indignation.

I groan every time a Boomer rants about “entitled Millennials these days.” We are not entitled. We are not lazy. And when they try to guilt us into going to church more or playing video games less or buying a house or getting married “while we’re still young?” Puh-lease. Emotional appeals are the worst.

And don’t even get us started on media sensationalism. We’ve had enough of the red, shouting faces, the blatant lying and fear-mongering, the “Wars on Christmas.” The media is constantly trying to pit us against each other.

It turns out that Karl Marx uses the same “Us vs. Them” hysteria as CNN and Fox News. He appeals to pathos and emotional outrage to – like we discussed above – try to get us to start a war.

We’re not having any of that though, are we? We’re done being manipulated by outrage and hysteria. It’s time to change the channel to something a little calmer, more grounded, and personally empowering.

Ayn Rand, fortunately, has the peaceful empowerment we’re so desperately missing. While Karl Marx wants you to blame others (the bourgeoisie) for your plights, Ayn Rand wants you to introspect and perhaps reassess your values. Rather than encouraging you to camouflage yourself into a “union of workers,” she wants to empower you as an individual to create a meaningful life for yourself. Mass hysteria, be gone!

Miller highlights how Marx uses emotion to manipulate the downtrodden. Marx sought to breed resentment, envy, and class warfare. Millennials are optimistic and ought to wholly reject this depressing notion. Rand’s rejection of mass mania should be embraced by Millennials who value independence and privacy.

The third and final myth Miller debunks is the topic of work ethic among Millennials. According to Miller

Karl Marx wants mankind to rest on its laurels.

Welp, we’ve got pretty good iPhones, Space X can salvage and relaunch rockets, and thanks to services like HelloFresh and Blue Apron, we no longer have to go to the grocery store. Time to pack up! Call it a day! Everyone, go home! There’s no more need for innovation.

At least, according to Karl Marx.

If Marx had his way, all incentives to improve and create cooler things would be stripped out of our lives along with our private property. Following the logical progression of his communal philosophy, when we’re all slaving away for “the greater good,” and the highest achieving members of society are having the fruits of their labors redistributed to the lowest achievers (insert flashback to the freeloaders of group projects at school), that’s what will happen. Innovation would cease to occur under Marxism.

But with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, our stuff will always remain ours. We don’t have to share our Nintendo Switch with our little sister (who drops her phone 10 times a day) unless we want to. We can rest easy knowing that if we take a big risk (and invest in cryptocurrencies while our parents mutter “Ponzi scheme” under their breath), we have the opportunity for a big reward. And best of all, with Ayn Rand’s philosophy reaffirming our desire to be great and create great things, maybe someday we will have JARVIS, jetpacks, and flying hammocks.

The fact of the matter is that Karl Marx doesn’t align with what’s important to us Millennials. If it were up to him, we’d be starting more violent wars, we’d be widening the gap of distrust between one another, and we’d strip ourselves of all incentives to make the world cooler than it already is. So it’s time we adopt a new philosopher. Let’s look up to people like Ayn Rand.

The innovative and forward-thinking mindset of Millennials is much more aligned with Rand’s vision of self-reliance and personal empowerment than with Marx’s communal philosophy. On all three of the issues identified by Miller, Millennials fall much closer to Rand’s philosophy than Marx.

Despite this apparent case of cognitive dissonance, Millennials seem wedded to liberal ideology. This is not a novel political phenomenon. Winston Churchill once said “If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain”. Only time will tell whether Millennials mature beyond their misguided romanticism of Marx and adopt the more realistic and sensible approach of Rand.

By Chris Talgo

The founding of the United States remains a unique experience in world history. America, unlike any other nation, was created upon a certain set of values. Many of the principles promoting freedom and justice were shrouded in religious undertones. The historical record is rife with references to Judeo Christian doctrine by the Founding Fathers.

For generations, Americans upheld these values and beliefs. A moral code based on the principles of the Founding Era manifested in the culture and societal institutions. During this period, the United States became the land of opportunity. Americans fought injustice and tyranny at home and abroad. The very origin of American exceptionalism can be traced back to this moral foundation.

According to Justin Haskins, executive editor and research fellow at The Heartland Institute, this moral foundation has begun to fracture.

Throughout the history of Western Civilization, many—perhaps even most—people may have privately chosen not to believe in God and/or the teachings of churches, but nearly everyone agreed in the importance of having a moral standard established by religion so that, at the very least, conduct could be judged fairly and somewhat consistently. The lack of such a standard today has effectively made the media, the only institution powerful enough to quickly engage with the whole populace, America’s new supreme moral law-giver, an incredibly dangerous development precisely because the media is incapable of applying its own shifting standards equally.

In contemporary America, religion has taken a backseat to the modern media machine. In this new environment, the media dictates the narratives it so chooses. On a massive scale, Americans are bombarded with information and entertainment in an unceasing manner.

The tone of this unfettered barrage is becoming more depraved and less virtuous. In 2017, the American culture is as coarse as sandpaper. America has entered into a state of moral decay. Traditional institutions are losing prominence in the culture. What does all of this bode for the future of America?

The Founding Fathers routinely explained that a free, peaceful society can only exist when that society’s population is deeply concerned with virtue, which they understood to be shaped by religious institutions.

George Washington wrote, “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.”

Patrick Henry said, “A vitiated [impious] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.”

Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”

Without a clear standard of morality, virtue is impossible, and without virtue, freedom will inevitably fade away, because rather than respect the rights of our neighbors, people will use the institutions of society—chief among them, the media—to destroy those with whom they don’t agree on one or more issues.

Without a revival of virtue and a new emphasis placed on attaining a clearly defined moral standard or set of standards, the American ideal of individual liberty will not survive another century, and perhaps the country won’t survive, either.

Only time will tell whether American exceptionalism endures or retreats.

By Chris Talgo

In the early 1960s, the United States was determined to conquer the last frontier: space travel. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy stated “We choose to go to the Moon! …We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

President Kennedy’s objective of landing a man on the Moon was just the latest in a litany of ambitious undertakings in American history. From the transcontinental railroad, Panama Canal, and interstate highway system, no project has been too difficult for America to tackle.

After achieving President Kennedy’s goal in 1969, the United States remained the unquestioned leader in space exploration for decades. Yet, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, the once-vaunted American space program has deteriorated. The space shuttle program was retired in 2011. Reduced funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for several years has left the United States unable to launch human spaceflight missions. In a case of bitter irony, the United States, the victors in the “Space Race,” now rely on Russia for flights to the International Space Station (ISS).

In the wake of these events comes welcome news. The Trump administration recently announced a plan to rebuild the American space program:

 The president Monday signed at the White House Space Policy Directive 1, a change in national space policy that provides for a U.S.-led, integrated program with private sector partners for a human return to the Moon, followed by missions to Mars and beyond.

The policy calls for the NASA administrator to “lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.” The effort will more effectively organize government, private industry, and international efforts toward returning humans on the Moon, and will lay the foundation that will eventually enable human exploration of Mars.

Since its founding, America has embraced exploration and ingenuity. European settlers ventured to the New World despite the hardships that awaited them. The pioneers who settled the western frontier braved the elements and many other threats. Due to the Trump administration’s refocus on space exploration, the United States will continue to push the boundaries of discovery.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, America will lead in space once again on all fronts,” said Vice President Pence. “As the President has said, space is the ‘next great American frontier’ – and it is our duty – and our destiny – to settle that frontier with American leadership, courage, and values. The signing of this new directive is yet another promise kept by President Trump.”

“NASA looks forward to supporting the president’s directive strategically aligning our work to return humans to the Moon, travel to Mars and opening the deeper solar system beyond,” said acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot. “This work represents a national effort on many fronts, with America leading the way. We will engage the best and brightest across government and private industry and our partners across the world to reach new milestones in human achievement. Our workforce is committed to this effort, and even now we are developing a flexible deep space infrastructure to support a steady cadence of increasingly complex missions that strengthens American leadership in the boundless frontier of space. The next generation will dream even bigger and reach higher as we launch challenging new missions, and make new discoveries and technological breakthroughs on this dynamic path.”

Intellectual curiosity and an old-fashioned can-do spirit is part of the American ethos. The passion for discovery and advancement has been integral to the United States since its founding. American technology and scientific breakthroughs has benefited the world tremendously. The space program has led to everyday improvements in health care, transportation, recreation, and many more sectors. After years of stagnation, the United States is returning full-bore to space exploration. Not only will this renew the zeal for scientific discovery, it will bear benefits that Americans will enjoy for generations.

Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is the marketing coordinator at The Heartland Institute and a former U.S. history teacher.

By Chris Talgo

In 2018, American entertainers have ascended to a position in society that would shock previous generations. In Why We’ve Let Actors Become Our Moral Guides, Jonah Goldberg provides a fascinating account of this stunning turn of events. As Goldberg explains, actors have not always occupied the moral perch they presently dwell upon. According to Goldberg:

For most of human history, actors were considered low-class. They were akin to carnies, grifters, hookers and other riffraff.

In ancient Rome, actors were often slaves. In feudal Japan, Kabuki actors were sometimes available to the theatergoers as prostitutes — a practice not uncommon among theater troupes in the American Wild West. In 17th century England, France and America, theaters were widely considered dens of iniquity, turpitude and crapulence. Under Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan dictatorship, the theaters were forced to close to improve moral hygiene. The Puritans of New England did likewise. A ban on theaters in Connecticut imposed in 1800 stayed on the books until 1952.

Obviously, actors have come a long way from being enslaved in ancient Rome. In 2017, Mark Wahlberg earned $68 million for starring in Transformers: The Last Knight and Daddy’s Home 2. Some of this is a testament to the insatiable demand for entertainment that currently exists in American culture. Athletes, musicians, and myriad other “entertainers” are paid handsomely for simply providing an escape portal for Americans.

However, among the entertainment profession, actors hold an extra-special place. Unlike most other ordinary entertainers, actors are now put on a pedestal high atop the moral universe. Alongside their economic influence, they also wield a newfound social influence. As Goldberg explains, the spectacle is relentless.

Watch the TV series “Inside the Actors Studio” sometime. It’s an almost religious spectacle of ecstatic obsequiousness and shameless sycophancy. Host James Lipton acts like some ancient Greek priest given an audience with Zeus, coming up just shy of washing the feet of actors with tears of orgiastic joy. I mean, I like Tom Hanks, too. But I’m not sure starring in “Turner & Hooch” (one of my favorite movies) bestows oracular moral authority.

Similarly, to watch the endless stream of award shows for Hollywood titans is to subject yourself to a narcissistic spectacle of collective self-worship. In 2006, George Clooney gave an (undeserved) Oscar acceptance speech in which he said, “We are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while, I think. It’s probably a good thing.” He went on to deliver a semi-fictional though no doubt sincere account of how actors are like a secular priesthood prodding America to do better.

The most recent Golden Globes ceremony has already been excoriated for being a veritable geyser of hypocritical effluvia, as the same crowd that not long ago bowed and scraped to serial harasser and accused rapist Harvey Weinstein, admitted child rapist Roman Polanski and that modern Caligula, Bill Clinton, congratulated itself for its own moral superiority.

Regardless of how detached Hollywood presently is, the more significant issue is why Hollywood has become the moral authority of the nation. Historically, children received moral guidance from parents, teachers, religious leaders, and others who occupied a prominent place in the societal hierarchy. An almost universally-agreed upon moral code was administered in schools and other institutions across the nation.

Although far from perfect, this moral code did permeate throughout much of American history. In good times and bad, Americans generally adhered to a set of values and ethics that were instilled from one generation to the next. Yet, in recent years, celebrities have become the arbiters of morality.

The interesting question is: Why have movie stars and other celebrities become an aristocracy of secular demigods? It seems to me an objective fact that virtually any other group of professionals plucked at random from the Statistical Abstract of the United States — nuclear engineers, plumbers, grocers, etc. — are more likely to model decent moral behavior in their everyday lives. Indeed, it is a bizarre inconsistency in the cartoonishly liberal ideology of Hollywood that the only super-rich people in America reflexively assumed to be morally superior are people who pretend to be other people for a living.

I think part of the answer has to do with the receding of religion from public life. As a culture, we’ve elevated “authenticity” to a new form of moral authority. We look to our feelings for guidance. Actors, as a class, are feelings merchants. While they may indeed be “out of touch” with the rest of America from time to time, actors are adept at being in touch with their feelings. And for some unfathomably stupid reason, we now think that puts us beneath them.

By Chris Talgo

Rarely does Hollywood make a movie that vividly celebrates American values. Contemporary Hollywood has become an echo chamber of social justice and liberal ideology. Just watch any entertainment awards ceremony and you’ll surely receive a dissertation on America’s sins and injustices.

Yet every once in a while, a movie is produced that captures the essence of American exceptionalism. Such is why the recent release of The Greatest Showman is so notable. As Brittany Hunter points out in The Greatest Showman and the Beauty of the Entrepreneurial Spirit, this movie defies the conventional Hollywood narrative by shining a positive light on American values.

Above all, The Greatest Showman is a tribute to the resilience and power of the entrepreneurial spirit.

The film tells the story of P.T. Barnum, the man responsible for the founding of the Ringling Brothers Circus. I don’t know much about the real-life P.T. Barnum, but the character in the film, as depicted by Hugh Jackman, is the hero I wish to discuss.

Born into nothing, Barnum is a lowly servant with big dreams working in a wealthy household. Without a family or support system, he is forced to learn how to rely on himself from a very young age. And no matter how cruel the rest of the world treats him, he is unfazed by the opinions and actions of others.

After getting in trouble for teasing his employer’s daughter, Barnum is struck hard in the face. But this does not lessen his resolve for greatness. Surrounded by luxuries far beyond his own means, Barnum gets a glimpse of the life he could live if he were to rise above his circumstances. So he commits himself to achieving something amazing and larger than himself.

As The Greatest Showman demonstrates, P.T. Barnum possessed the entrepreneurial spirit that fueled the rags-to-riches trajectory of so many great Americans. Unlike the class warfare and anti-business attitudes perpetuated in most modern films, The Greatest Showman rejects class envy and embraces P.T. Barnum’s extraordinary tenacity and work ethic.

Using all the money he has, he purchases a building and turns it into “Barnum’s American Museum.” Unfortunately, this venture is a dud. The only tickets he sells are to his wife and two daughters. So, like a good entrepreneur, Barnum goes back to the drawing board to figure out what the people actually want.

What is most admirable about this part of Barnum’s life is his unwavering dedication to hard work. Stories about lackadaisical dreamers often place too much emphasis on the dreams themselves, and not what it takes to make those dreams become a reality.

Regardless of Barnum’s dreams and work ethic, all would have been for naught unless he provided a product or service that people wanted. According to Hunter, this economic lesson turns out to be one of the central messages of the film.

Barnum longs to give the world something extraordinary, the likes of which they have never seen. But he realizes he cannot do this by merely imitating what has already been done. He decides to do something bolder, and by doing so, he ends up adding value to the world in ways he never imagined.

The market is the great equalizer, as this film drives home. Barnum’s original museum highlighted the spectacular and unbelievable marvels of the world. Unfortunately, none of these rarities were real. His original museum relied on poor quality replicas of mermaids and other mythical phenomena, which were not appealing to consumers. But the lack of customers drives Barnum to go in search of real, and rare, human acts.

Lettie Lutz, later known as “the bearded lady,” is resigned to a life of shame and isolation. She has no aspirations aside from keeping her head down while doing laundry for a living. But that was before she met Barnum.

After putting up signs looking for rare and exotic acts for his upcoming production, Barnum stumbles upon Lettie and is taken aback by her stellar vocal abilities. He begs her to join his act as a singer.

Barnum’s enthusiasm for his project is contagious, and Lutz agrees to come aboard. His excitement from finding Lutz redoubles his resolve to put together the greatest show on earth.

Barnum goes around collecting other so-called “circus freaks,” ranging from the incredibly tall to the incredibly tattooed and even a death-defying trapeze act. Barnum’s gang of outcasts set out not only to prove they deserve to be a part of society but that they have value to add to the world through entertainment. And this is when Barnum’s production really begins to take off.

As Barnum predicted, audiences were both shocked and thrilled to see such unique individuals brazenly performing. In 1850, when the film is set, being different was no cause for celebration. If you did not fit into society’s prescribed boxes, you didn’t belong. It was as simple as that. But by offering something consumers craved, these unconventional performers took their supposed “flaws” and turned them into a sought-after market entity.

Film critics have been quick to condemn this aspect of the film as “exploitation,” since Barnum earned a profit off of his rare performers. But each member of Barnum’s circus was there because he or she wanted to be. Voluntary association is not exploitation, especially when the performers themselves were able to improve their standard of living and their own emotional well being.

Like most people, Barnum did experience his series of ups and downs. The culminating scene in in The Greatest Showman occurs after Barnum experiences a personal and professional setback of epic proportions.

A mob of citizens angry that such unconventional performers were being allowed on stage set fire to his building, turning his dreams into ashes.

After a brief period of doubt and desolation, Barnum snaps back into entrepreneur mode and finds a way to continue his show. Since he cannot afford to rebuild or purchase a new facility, Barnum has the genius idea to save on overhead costs by using large tents instead: the same tents that are now so closely associated with circuses. Little did we know as children that these tents first emerged as an entrepreneurial response to tragedy.

But the entrepreneurial spirit is one of dedication and resilience. And through all of the disappointment and struggles, Barnum was able to leave a legacy behind not only for himself, but for each performer who found personal liberation through his show. He was also able to provide for his family and give them the life he dreamed of as a young boy.

While this movie has been unjustly panned by many critics, it is resonating with entrepreneurs and reminding them to hold fast and work hard to make their dreams a reality.

The Greatest Showman is one of the rare instances when Hollywood produces an uplifting film that celebrates American history and values. Although it probably won’t win a vaunted award, it is a tribute to the entrepreneurial spirit that has made America the most free and prosperous nation in world history.

By Chris Talgo

Like all nations, the people of the United States have faced challenging times. From world wars to economic turmoil, Americans have not cowered in times of peril. The very notion of America is rooted in struggle and grit. Tenacity and determination have been central to the American ethos since the founding of the nation. How else did a ragtag militia defeat the mighty British military?

In 2018, the United States does not face one existential crisis, but rather a series of internal problems that may foster its decline from superpower status. In The 7 Factors Turning America From a Great Nation Into an Also-Ran, John Hawkins identifies the most critical issues that plague the United States. Hawkins’ piece is especially pertinent when one considers that internal decline has led to the fall of many great empires throughout history.

Below are the seven factors that most threaten the United States, according to Hawkins. Because each factor is self-induced, a simple solution that can reverse the negative trend and rectify the problem is also included.

Ronald Reagan said “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” As Hawkins points out, the future of American freedom and greatness is in jeopardy, and it will be up to future Americans whether the United States remains a great nation or turns into an also-ran.

1. Debt: America is more than 20 trillion dollars in debt and this year is on pace to add more than 400 billion dollars to that number. Our debt, which we have no intention of ever fully paying, is now the equivalent of about 25% of the world’s GDP. That number is massive; the CBO estimates that by 2040, 58% of all our spending will be nothing but interest payments on the debt. How much are we going to be able to spend on our military then? If you think our infrastructure is bad now, what do you think it will look like then? What happens when we have large, unexpected expenses, like another 9/11? Our debt is just as big a threat to our future as the Brits and Axis once were.

This colossal debt is unsustainable and will ruin the prospects of future generations. How can it to be solved? Americans must wake-up to the harsh reality that their political leaders have made promises they cannot keep. Voters must force politicians to balance the budget and reform the massive entitlement programs that engulf nearly 70 percent of the current budget. Until entitlement reform takes place, the fiscal outlook of the United States remains bleak.

2. The Lack Of Production Capacity: America was the decisive factor in WWII, not just because of our excellent military, but because our massive production capabilities enabled us to send enormous amounts of military equipment to our allies. Just as an example, we sent Russia roughly a third of its fuel and half its trucks while the Brits received about a quarter of their munitions and aircraft from our country. Could we do that again? Not even close. That leaves us vulnerable, not just if there’s another world war, but if our own military were to suffer some sort of disastrous setback. In other words, if there were a Pearl Harbor 2, we might ultimately end up on the wrong side of the war.

Since WWII, America has transformed from a manufacturing to a service economy. A similar shift took place when the economy moved from agriculture to industry. What’s the difference? We didn’t abandon (or outsource) food production, we simply became more efficient in our farming methods. The same principle should apply to American manufacturing in the twenty-first century. The United States should lead the world in cutting-edge manufacturing techniques and reclaim its position as a leader in production capacity.

3. Immigration: Because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, there is no comparison between how much immigration may have helped America in the past versus how much it helps us now. Furthermore, our unwillingness to secure our borders has created a lot of problems with illegal immigrants. Currently 57% of families headed by a legal or illegal immigrant are receiving some form of welfare. It doesn’t help America at all to bring people here who are uneducated,  work menial jobs and don’t pay income taxes, who don’t assimilate or who end up on some form of welfare. As jobs and wealth in America have increasingly moved toward more educated citizens, our broken and outdated immigration system has not kept up. Contrary to what you often hear, our current immigration system is making America WEAKER, not STRONGER.  Immigration could once again be a source of strength for America, but stopping it altogether would be better than continuing with it under the current system.

Historically, immigration policy has been tied to economic circumstances. During the booming industrial days of the late nineteenth century, millions of immigrants were admitted (legally) and found immediate work in factories. In 2018, the economic situation is far different. It is imperative that future immigration policy be tailored to meet the present and future workforce demands.

4. Cultural Degradation: Americans tend to think that EVERYTHING gets better as time goes along, but pretty clearly the character of Americans has changed for the worse over the last few decades. Christianity is on the decline while tribalism, something that goes against our nation’s motto, “E pluribus unum,” is on the rise. The mainstream media has become so dishonest and partisan that there’s not much difference between it and the sort of propaganda that Pravda puts out. We’ve stopped treating people who became rich and successful as role models and started looking at them as people who somehow “cheated” at the game. There have always been sleazy politicians that lied to us, but as the public has become more partisan, we no longer treat poor character and dishonesty as defects that should keep someone out of office. We’ve moved from admiring wisdom to applauding snark and outrage. Instead of trying to bring people together, our “leaders” try to exacerbate differences to fire up their base. We are in a state of advanced cultural rot and it shows in every facet of our society.

Much has been said of the cultural decline that has taken place in America since the 1950s. Self-indulgence and instant gratification have replaced self-responsibility and temperance. Reversing the alarming trends that have taken place will not be easy.

A cultural renaissance needs to occur. A new crop of leaders must emerge and begin an effort to revitalize a decaying culture with the values and philosophies that made this country great in the first place. It’s unlikely the mainstream media would promote a message of cultural rebirth. As social media has revolutionized the speed and scope of communications, it just might be the platform that allows political and religious figures to circumvent the mainstream media and reach a new and willing audience.

5. Our Refusal to Take Nuclear Proliferation Seriously: Could America stop a nuclear bomb snuck over our border or even identify where it came from? Doubtful. Could we survive as a major power after an EMP is detonated above us? Given that some estimates put the number of deaths via starvation in that situation as high as 90% of our population, we’d have to be very fortunate to hold it together. In a world where a handful of successful states have nuclear weapons, those scenarios are unlikely. However, in a world where basket-case nations like Pakistan and North Korea have nukes and a new nuclear arms race is likely to start in the Middle East because of Iran, the chances of a nuclear weapon being used against us either by radical Islamists or a narcissistic dictator are much higher than they were even at the height of the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the United States was well aware of the cataclysmic danger posed by rogue nations attaining nuclear weapons. For decades, the threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of a tin-pot dictator remained a distant nightmare. Yet in the last twenty years, the odds of terrorist groups and unstable regimes possessing weapons of mass destruction have increased exponentially. Some of this is due to technological innovations and secret arms production. Partly is also a dereliction by the U.S. military in policing the proliferation of these weapons. A joint venture of preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction while maintaining missile defense systems will be a boon for international security.

6. A Broken Political System: America’s political system is nearly non-functional. The only things Republicans and Democrats ever seem to be able to come together and agree on are more spending and poorly thought-out, often counterproductive legislation passed in the midst of a crisis. There are a number of reasons for that. For one thing, both parties have become much more partisan and simply don’t agree with each other on much of anything. In addition, neither party feels compelled to keep its word to the other. In other words, a deal cut today doesn’t mean anything next year. So, realistically, only short term deals are even possible under the best of circumstances. No form of organization — including a nation — that’s run like this can succeed over the long haul and America will not be an exception to that.

The political divide in America is striking, and it is tearing us apart at the seams. Both parties are guilty of raw partisanship. Both parties are more concerned with power than with governing. America has experienced this phenomenon before, and political leaders have risen above petty partisanship to bridge the divide. Our political leaders ought to put aside the staunch partisanship. The nation is facing problems that require compromise on both sides of the political aisle.

7. Out of Control Government: The older America gets, the more the federal government seems to expand into every nook and corner of American life. Worse yet, the bigger government gets, the less competent it seems to become. It’s all a result of circular reasoning. Americans find a problem and demand that the government address it. The government does and usually creates some new problem that’s nearly as bad as the problem it set out to solve. Then, there are demands that we give the government even more power to fix the problem it created trying to fix the first problem. Rinse and repeat and many of our biggest problems today can be directly traced in some form or fashion to government involvement. It doesn’t matter if our politicians handcuff our military, can’t secure our borders or simply can’t explain how they spent billions of dollars’ worth of our tax money, the push is always to give them more power and control. The federal government is a tick and the bigger it gets, the less blood there is for the American people and less chance our nation has of succeeding over the long haul.

The problem of government creep is an especially odious and vexing problem. Big government is antithetical to the founding principles of America. Overtime, it erodes personal responsibility and stifles the entrepreneurial spirit that has fueled American prosperity.

Shrinking government is a difficult task. Special interest groups will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status-quo. But if there is a ray of hope, it might be the transcendent power of technology. The Millennial generation is the first-ever “digital native” cohort to grow-up in an environment enmeshed in the Information Age. As a result, most Millennials expect a level of efficiency and performance akin to the technological devices they use on an everyday basis.

Needless to say, big government will fall woefully short of their desires and expectations. The question therefore becomes, will Millennials demand accountability and results that only a limited and local government can deliver? If this is the case, the dark days of big government and American decline will be numbered, and the future of America will shine brighter than ever.

By Alexandra York

There is anger in this land. There is violence. There is disdain for law. There is hysterical emotionalism.

What do all of these conditions have in common?

A cause.

Without individual identity created by purposeful value selection, what is left for malcontents to do in order to receive the unearned except regress into modern versions of primitive tribal groups that claim a shared identity and cause? We now have tribes defined by gender identity, gender-preference identity, race identity, ethnic identity, and more. Each cause-driven tribe seeks special treatment. One person alone will usually desist from outrageous demands for economic advantage and odious deeds that seek to control the behavior of others, but when camouflaged within a group they will embrace all sorts of antics with zeal.

How do tribe-groups unify to fight for power to take from or control others? Although often naming an enemy to fight against — “racism,” “sexism,” etc. — they always rally together by naming a cause to fight for: king, country, religion, booty, land; history is littered with remnants of battles fought for a cause. Riled-up anger and fired-up emotions are crucial in rousing tribes to hostile action, so clever “chiefs” may first affect a call to arms by coordinating group activities and slogan chanting so members will be drawn together as one unified force. Mass mindlessness then results from trance rituals, and more aggressive and egregious “follow the leader” action ensues as group euphoria and hedonic excitement churn members into fervent battle-mode activists for their cause du jour.

Marches, sit-ins, protest gatherings, rock concerts, and speeches provide venues for “letting off steam” while demonstrating for cause-demands and solidifying tribal coherence among (perceived) discriminated-against minorities. Even planet earth is now deemed a “victim.” Environmental causes seek to control the unconvinced; race and gender “social justice” causes want reparations for generations-past real or imagined inequities; “economic redistribution” causes exist to take a “fair share” from producers and give to non-producers. All are group-oriented maneuvers to confiscate from or control others. (Permitted riots involving arson and looting are not cause-oriented; they are fierce indulgences in anarchy; remember the Baltimore Mayor’s “…we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that…” statement.)

We have activists who are dedicated to one cause. We have repeat “performance” activists attending whatever-wherever cause events because they provide safety in numbers and outlets for rage. We have cause-participants paid money for pumping fists into the air, shouting obscenities, and instigating havoc. We have movie actors and sports figures spouting pet causes; some of their causes may be legitimate, e.g., privately funded disease cure endeavors, but most are self-promoting stunts by ignorant or uninformed celebrities who long for legitimacy beyond their narrow-skill-set professions of pretending to be others or tackling a body on the football field. We have activists of all persuasions jockeying for media coverage to validate their cause.

In short: we have “cause junkies.”

But let’s attend to the core cause beneath all surface causes that entice increasing numbers of emotionalized people to leap into the cultural fray. America’s educational, political, and media elites initiate, sympathize with, or enhance cause events because participation by those who perceive themselves to be disenfranchised keeps them occupied while the elites gain increased power and influence. Example? When Barack Obama was president, his savvy Chief of Staff — Rahm Emmanuel, now Mayor of Chicago — shrewdly stated “Never let a crisis go to waste.” What better way to use crises to advantage than to manufacture and/or fuel them; witness Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlottesville, all abetted, distorted, and/or glamorized by so many.

Ergo: cause-driven folks seeking monetary favoritism and/or control over others are themselves manipulated by elitists wielding superior control. And the end-game fix is in: more encouragement for further division of the populace, more controls to “control” the divisiveness until it is “necessary” for government to institute some form of dictatorial rule, including rule over the cause junkies who are the unsuspecting pawns being played for the win. Fine. They let themselves be used. As Spinoza said: “They fight for their servitude as if it were their salvation.”

So why should the rest of us be wary of cause junkies? Because all tribe-identity causes arise from a contempt for individualism. Group causes by definition disregard and denigrate not only the value of the individual but the concept of individualism itself. Individualism: the singular hallmark of the United States and the fundamental value that made America exceptional in history. It is individualism — the respect for individual identity, a personal and unique identity created individually by individuals — that is under siege from within. Millions attend cause events. Half of all college students prefer socialism over capitalism. According to a recent Census Bureau report, 49 percent of the entire population is already on some degree of government welfare. In the 2016 Democrat primary, Hillary (elite progressive, i.e. combination socialist-fascist) won 16,914,722 votes, and Bernie (outright socialist) won 13,206,428; that’s 30-plus million votes for pure collectivism, forget the general election where H.C. won the popular vote of millions more. Mr. Obama (elite progressive) is still active in Saul Alinsky-type community meddling through his Organizing For Action foundation (OFA). Its website boasts 250 chapters and 5 million people who have taken action through it. Federal tax records count 35,000-plus OFA-trained progressive community organizers coming to your town to “help” make policies to (in Alinsky lingo) “take from the haves and give to the have-nots.”

The penalty for keeping silent on a personal level and refraining from prosecution on a legal level of the cause junkies’ behavior now is that when they are swept fully into the sea of collectivism, every individual American will be dragged along to drown with them.

Apathy is acquiescence. Think about civic engagement in your own school programs and community policies.

Alexandra York is an author and founding president of the American Renaissance for the Twenty-first Century (ART) a New-York-City-based nonprofit educational arts and culture foundation (www.art-21.org). She has written for many publications, including “Reader’s Digest” and The New York Times. Her latest book is “Adamas.” 

This piece orignally appeared on Newsmax.com.

By Chris Talgo

Sometimes one simply needs a change of scenery in order to see things more clearly. Samuel J. Abrams, professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently experienced this phenomenon. As he documents in his article Seeing American Individualism from Japan, Abrams has found a renewed sense of hope for America after his recent trip to Japan.

While abroad, Abrams noticed a stark contrast in Japanese and American culture concerning a wide range of topics. But something in particular stood out to Abrams: notions of individualism, hard work, and opportunity are more emphasized and held in higher esteem in the United States compared to Japan. According to Abrams

Despite the understandable anger and frustration with our current chaotic political system, a recent trip to Japan gave me incredible optimism about our nation’s future. Having a moment to leave our political milieu and spend time in a place with a very different outlook made it clear to me just how fortunate it is to be an American even with our current paralysis.

As Americans, we celebrate the drive and power of the self and the value of hard work. I found it hard to locate a strong sense of agency and self-determination among the Japanese, and it appeared that the individual was lost. This reality stands in stark contrast to the strong self of possibility and individualism that many Americans continue to possess.

Notwithstanding his personal observations, Samuel Abrams sought a more unbiased method to determine if his inclinations were correct. Abrams began conducting research because as he states

Observations and intuitions, however, are not proof.

So I turned to the most recent comparative World Values Survey to investigate my impressions more deeply. What became immediately clear is that the answers to the survey questions on hard work and agency strongly and cleanly confirmed my ideas about mobility and outlook in the United States vis-à-vis Japan.

Since the nation’s founding, rugged individualism has been an economic and social driving force, a sacred American institution. From the pioneers who ventured westward to the entrepreneurs who built Silicon Valley, individualism has bred ingenuity and innovation. Abrams wondered if Americans still ascribe to this fundamental American ideal. In other words, do Americans still believe in the power of the individual?

One question in the Values Survey is regularly asked, “Some people feel they have completely free choice and control over their lives, while other people feel that what they do has no real effect on what happens to them.” This measure captures one’s sense of individual agency and the data shows that 79% of Americans believe that they have some control over their lives — this over twice the 37% rate among those in Japan.

Another set of questions exist in the Values Survey which again reveal substantial Japanese-American differences. Respondents are presented with a battery of statements about an individual and are asked to state how closely each statement represents their personal outlook or situation.

For instance, respondents were prompted with “Adventure and taking risks are important to this person; to have an exciting life.” Only 9% of Japanese agreed with this idea compared to 35% of Americans — a huge difference and one which suggests that the Japanese are deeply risk averse. Similarly, respondents were asked about the idea, “It is important to this person to think up new ideas and be creative; to do things one’s own way.” This is another variant on the question of one’s proclivity to focus on the collective or the individual. Once again, a substantial difference emerged with 40% of Japanese believing in individuality and creativity compared to a far greater 67% of Americans.

Finally, the idea of hard work and upward mobility was appreciably different comparatively and surfaced in a few key questions. Respondents, for example, are given a list of qualities that children can be encouraged to learn at home and hard work was one quality. Among the Japanese, 36% selected hard work as a key quality among their children while 66% of Americans did. When asked about the idea that, “In the long run, hard work usually brings a better life” compared to luck and connections, 50% of those in Japan compared to 65% of Americans believed that hard work begets more success than simple luck. Similarly, in response to the idea that, “competition is good. It stimulates people to work hard and develop new ideas” when placed against the idea that competition is harmful and brings out the worst in people, 64% of Japanese compared to 72% of Americans were supportive of competition. This difference, while not as large as the other measures, adds up to a clear picture that Americans are more enthusiastic about the value and the return on their hard work and this attributes leads to innovation and experimentation which is in the blood of American culture.

After assessing the data he collected and taking into account his observations while in Japan, Samuel Abrams came to the realization that there is reason for optimism and hope in the future of America. Despite the naysayers claims that the American work ethic is in steep decline and most Americans reject hard work in favor of handouts, the data and his mind’s eye convinced Abrams that this might not necessarily be the case. As he dug deeper, he found

The data makes it unambiguously clear that non-trivial differences exist between Americans and Japanese with respect to their sense of opportunity and individuality. This is not to pass judgement on either system in any way. In fact, the survey data also shows that 90% of respondents in both nations assert that they are “rather” or “very happy” with their lives and well over three-quarters of those in both countries assert that they are satisfied with their lives with the US being about 9 points higher at 85%.

My point is quite simple — Americans value hard work and the upward mobility that comes from their labors. Our strong individualistic worldview promotes agency and self-determination and that makes America a hopeful nation which people from around the world explicitly seek out. Political polarization, Congressional deadlock and an unpopular President cannot change this ethos. Visiting a place where such individualism is simply less potent and dreams of upward mobility are not ever present, I returned home with a deeper appreciation of our ethos and the cultural attribute which actually makes America great. I could not have been happier to have been so powerfully reminded of the agency that we continue to have in the US and am grateful that a short sojourn to Japan make this so clear.

By Edward Hudgins

George Washington unfortunately has become a cliché. For an older generation, he was too often treated as such a mythic figure that it was difficult to appreciate his true importance. In today’s politically correct society many label him as a white, male oppressor.

Most Americans celebrate his birthday by taking advantage of massive discounts at the mall. This is not a bad use of time, but it is appropriate to take a moment to reflect on the real greatness of George Washington and his moral leadership.

Washington exemplified the spirit of early America. In his heart and for most of his life he was a farmer and an innovator who developed new crops and agricultural techniques. He valued the production of wealth as a worthy goal in life. But he also understood that the freedom to produce often must be fought for.

Washington was the general who won America’s independence from Britain, then one of the world’s strongest powers. It was an incredible feat. In 1777, when he marched his 12,000 ragtag volunteers to winter camp at Valley Forge, their prospects were as bleak as the bitter weather. Some 2,000 men died from the brutal cold and from sickness. But the volunteers persevered in large part because of Washington, who forged them into a formidable army.

He was no great orator but he had the inspiring words of Thomas Paine read to his frozen troops: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” This certainly is an appropriate epitaph for Washington and the Continental Army soldiers who ensured the survival of the United States.

Washington’s achievements reflected his outstanding moral character. He set for himself the highest standards in everything he did and thus became exemplar for his associates and his fellow countrymen. Indeed, when he presided over the Constitutional Convention, he spoke little. It was his example — the fact that the other delegates were in the presence of Washington — that kept those delegates focused on the task at hand and inspired them to come together for the good of the country.

But Washington was not some ever-frowning moralist; he enjoyed life, whether at a dance or dinner party or just riding through his beloved Mt. Vernon estate.

Washington hardly considered himself a philosopher like his friend Thomas Jefferson. But he lived his philosophy. For example, he was born into a slave society but his experiences in life led him to appreciate the evils of that institution. He freed his slaves upon his death.

Perhaps Washington’s most important legacy was his attitude towards political power. After his victory over Britain, some suggested that he be made king of the newly formed United States of America. He adamantly refused such a title. He wanted to return to his farm.

Washington longed to follow the example of the retired Roman Senator Cincinnatus who was called away from his farm by a Senate that gave him absolute power to defeat an invading army. As general, Cincinnatus accomplished his goal in a matter of weeks and then, with total power, the esteem of his people and an army in his hands, gave up his position and returned to his plough. Sculptor Jean Antoine Houdon’s statue in the Virginia state house, the only one Washington every posed for, depicts him as a general setting aside his sword and returning to civilian life.

Illustrative of his deep integrity, Washington resigned from the Cincinnati Society, an organization for Revolutionary War veterans, because he feared it would create in the new nation a hereditary class of nobles. Washington believed that individuals should be honored for their own achievements, not for the achievements of their ancestors.

Washington, America’s first president, set the example for future presidents by limiting himself to two terms in office. He is reputed to have said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.” This is a philosophy that far too many American citizens and politicians have lost.

George Washington indeed should be honored by all Americans today as he was by Henry Lee who wrote at the time of Washington’s passing that he was “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

Edward Hudgins is the research director for The Heartland Institute.

This article originally appeared on The Atlas Society. Reprinted with permission.

By Chris Talgo

On February 19, Americans will “celebrate” President’s Day with a day off from school and work.  Savvy shoppers will trek to the mall to take advantage of the myriad holiday sales. In recent years, President’s Day has become less about honoring the 44 men (Grover Cleveland served non-consecutive terms, making him the 22nd and 24th President of the United States) who have held the highest office in the land, and more about saving money on a new mattress.

President’s Day, originally established in 1879 as Washington’s Birthday, recognized the birth of George Washington on February 22, 1732. Until 1885, the federal holiday applied only to government offices in Washington. In 1885, Congress expanded the federal holiday to include all government offices.

In the early 1950s, the term “President’s Day” entered the American lexicon. By this time, the President’s Day National Committee began a campaign to remake the holiday into a celebration of all presidents.

In 1971, the Uniform Holiday Act shifted the date of Washington’s Birthday to the third Monday in February; hence Washington’s Birthday would never again fall on Washington’s actual day of birth. By the 1980s, the term President’s Day had become ubiquitous. Although still officially called Washington’s Birthday, the holiday has now become a day to recognize all those who have occupied the Oval Office.

In 2018, Americans are severely divided when it comes to the man residing in the White House. President Donald Trump has become a lightning rod, some Americans cheer him every step of the way, and others jeer his every move.

By no means is this a new phenomenon. Throughout American history, presidents have been bellwethers of partisan rancor. During this current period of division and strife, Americans ought to put aside their political differences and celebrate one of the less renowned, yet unquestionably exceptional presidents.

Unlike most modern presidents, Calvin Coolidge, known as “Silent Cal”, was not an outstanding orator. But what he lacked in the spoken word, he more than made up for in his values and ethics. In an article for the Foundation for Economic Education titled He Was a President Who Understood Principle, Jake Yonally, a high school student in Santa Barbara, California, tells the tale of a president who certainly deserves to be celebrated this President’s Day.

In his veto of a congressional salary increase, our 30th president, Calvin Coolidge, told Congress that, “No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave.” This statement truly characterizes Coolidge for who he was as a man.

Not only was he deeply concerned with tax reduction and the federal budget, he was also highly dedicated to the serving of both his neighbor and nation. Coolidge had a special understanding of public service and never swayed from his foundational beliefs. These qualities made him the beloved man that he was. Calvin Coolidge — although soft-spoken — showed immense amounts of courage in serving his nation and staying true to his fundamental convictions.

Economic Responsibility

An important way in which Calvin Coolidge showed this courage was in his approach to public service. Prior to his term as Commander-in-Chief, the government had grown unchecked for years under the Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson administrations. Wealth redistribution, government regulation, and the strength of unions were on the rise in America during this era of progressivism. Soon after stepping into the Oval Office, Coolidge promptly went on a budget- and tax-cutting spree to abolish what he referred to as “Despotic Exactions.”

Although scoffed at by many, this decrease in taxation and government spending saved the average American over $200 per year (about $1,500 today). Coolidge wanted to help the poor, and he saw that this was the only way to enact true, long-term change toward raising the American standard of living. He and his Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, referred to this policy as “Scientific Taxation.” Coolidge once said, “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.” This informed approach was his creative service to the least of these.

It took an immense amount of courage on Coolidge’s part to abandon previous methods and take a new approach to public service. This new approach was both utilitarian and grounded in a strong respect for people’s basic human rights. Though unorthodox, his principled fiscal stewardship caused many poor Americans to succeed in achieving a better life. With the national debt being cut almost in half, the 17.5 percent increase in the nation’s wealth, and illiteracy being cut in half as well, his presidential term was a success by any standard.

Strong Principles

Although seemingly reserved, Coolidge was a man of strong principles. He called his fellow citizens to return to the proven principles of the American political tradition and encouraged them to examine their own beliefs in light of these principles. He believed strongly in the limits of social engineering, the nature of wealth, individual responsibility, and society’s dependence on moral and religious values. His ability to stand by these fundamental convictions in the face of adversity is rare among men.

In her book entitled Coolidge, Amity Shlaes refers to President Coolidge as our “Great Refrainer.” She suggests that inaction can benefit a nation more than action, as demonstrated by his numerous vetoed bills. “This was the boy with his finger in the dike, stopping a great progressive tide,” she accurately states. Throughout his life, Calvin Coolidge rejected what Bastiat called “legal plunder” and worked toward the creation not only of wealth but of beauty.

Calvin Coolidge’s messages regarding public service and his fundamental convictions have held true for almost a century. These firm principles were the groundwork for his ability to enact change for the better in America through public service. The way he thought determined the way he lived; his form followed his function. Calvin Coolidge lived by the principles that defined him. His belief system never aged. Even in the culturally diverse, globalized world we live in where people are desperate for new answers, ideas, and solutions, the simple social and moral code by which he lived remains as relevant as ever.

It is difficult to imagine how a modest man like Calvin Coolidge would preside in today’s sharply partisan and hyperbolic media environment. President Coolidge was a man of few words, but when he spoke, he spoke with wisdom and candor.

When describing his key to success, President Coolidge said, “Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.” Almost one hundred years later, President Coolidge’s soft-spoken words ring louder than ever. This President’s Day, Americans ought to honor the legacy of President Coolidge by following his leadership style and sage advice.

By Chris Talgo

Since its founding, America has been blessed with a robust streak of anti-elitism. It is no accident the nation’s founding document begins with the seminal words: “We the people.”

America, born in a time when nobles dominated society and one’s birthplace largely set the course for one’s life, wholeheartedly rejected this antiquated notion.

Many brave Americans risked life and limb in a seemingly fruitless attempt to establish their independence from the world’s foremost monarchy. By doing so, these courageous men and women established a government in which the people, not the elites, held power.

For centuries, the principle of “We the people” has withstood trial and tribulation. Economic turbulence, foreign wars, and social strife were all overcome with the people, not the elites, at the helm of America.

Yet, as the United States enters the twenty-first century, an alarming trend has begun to take shape: the growing creep of elitism in government and culture has resulted in a fissured society.

President of the American Principles Project Frank Cannon makes a strong case for combating this anti-American scourge in a timely piece: The First Amendment Is In Far Greater Danger Than The Second. Cannon begins by explaining how

Our nation’s elites are waging war on the American people, wielding the institutions they’ve spent several decades capturing to punish those who disagree with their preferred positions and to deny them the ability to speak publicly, all in an effort to stifle free and open debate. And no, this isn’t a George Orwell novel — this is the United States of America.

While many still mistakenly view our political arena as a skirmish between “liberals” and “conservatives”, it would be more accurate to describe it as an all-out war between “elitists” and “populists”. As my late friend Jeff Bell argued in his 1992 book, “Populism and Elitism: Politics in the Age of Equality”, elitists believe in a top-down approach where a cadre of experts rule the country and determine what is acceptable discourse and what is not, while populists believe the people should ultimately determine the course of our politics and culture.

Traditionally, the “elitists” have always had the upper hand in this battle by controlling many of our cultural institutions, but the respect for the will of the people — exercised by the ability to elect our political leaders — remained in place. Over time, however, that respect eroded, and today, it is completely gone. Now the “elitists” find the “populists” to be repugnant, backward, and bigoted, and they believe the only way to defeat the people is to use elite institutional power in academia, corporate America, the administrative state, and the mainstream media to stifle debate, force-feed elite opinions masquerading as facts, and stamp out dissent.

Cannon captures the titanic struggle at the heart of American society: the will of the elites v. the will of the people. Historically, American elites and the American people have co-existed rather harmoniously.

Although these groups were far apart in terms of wealth and material standards, they remained closely aligned ideologically.  In general, both groups ascribed to the same moral code while holding similar principles, aspirations, and values.

In 2018, America is fractured. The elites now hold views antithetical to the people. As Cannon points out,

consider these three widely held views by the American people:

Young children should not be taught about transgenderism or changing their gender.

Abortion is wrong, especially after the first trimester.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Despite their relative popularity, these views are repulsive to our elites, and in recent years, they have sought to shut down debate on all three topics by calling anti-gender ideology activists “transphobic”, anti-abortion activists “anti-women”, and defenders of the Constitution “gun nuts” who have “blood on their hands”. On the gender ideology issue, elites have been wildly successful in completely removing debate over transgenderism from the public square and even politics. On abortion, they have largely failed as pro-life sentiment among the people has proven too strong for elites to overcome. And on guns, the jury is still out, but elites are engaging in perhaps their most brazenly outrageous effort to silence opposing views to date.

The battle between elite opinion and popular opinion is as old as time, but the recent tactical change among elites seeking to stifle dissenting speech is a new, and frightening, development. In a departure from the normal give-and-take of American democracy, the elites have begun using their clout within every major institution of civil society to demonize and punish their opposition — through public shaming in the media, economic extortion and retaliation by big businesses, and even criminalization of certain protest activities. And given their entrenchment within these institutions, the elites face little or no consequences for their blatant illiberality.

A case in point of this change has been the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting. Despite the complexity of the issues involved and the diversity of views held by Americans as to the proper response, the elites have pursued a scorched earth campaign against those who do not hold their black-and-white views on guns. In the news media, a narrative emphasizing the immediate necessity of national gun control legislation has become a 24-hour rallying cry, with victims of the tragedy exploited to advance this narrative and brand those who disagree as somehow complicit in the violence. Meanwhile, corporations have begun to sever ties with the NRA, sending a message that only one side of the debate is socially acceptable while the other is deserving of punishment.

A similar strategy has been playing out with the movement to normalize the Left’s gender ideology. Despite a lack of scientific evidence — and widespread parental skepticism — regarding the soundness of treating young, gender dysphoric children with highly experimental puberty blockers and hormonal treatments, elites have slowly co-opted influential medical associations in order to ensure that these treatments are not only widely adopted but also that alternative approaches to gender dysphoria are marginalized and even criminalized. Moreover, opponents of this takeover, no matter how well-grounded their opposition, are branded by the media and its self-appointed experts as “transphobes” and “bigots” while being denied any opportunity to make their arguments in a respected forum.

Despite the doom and gloom scenario outlined above, there is hope for the future. The threads of a populist resurgence were revealed in stunning fashion not too long ago.

In 2016, after eight years of President Obama’s “elitist” agenda, voters shocked the world and rejected his heir apparent, the uber-elitist candidate: Hillary Clinton.

In an upset of epic proportions, a plain-spoken billionaire with a populist streak won election to the highest office in the land. Donald Trump’s campaign targeted elites in a no-holds barred triumph that sent political and social shockwaves around the globe.

Trump’s simple slogans to “make America great again” and “drain the swamp” resonated with millions of Americans fed-up with counterproductive elitist policies and hollow rhetoric.

Trump’s strategy, coupled with his power to circumvent the elitist, mainstream, “fake news” media with the push of a button on his smart phone, gave a booming voice to his populist, anti-establishment platform. At the end of his piece, Cannon conveys the enormity of this achievement, as well as what lies ahead.

Make no mistake: an America with total elite control over the population and where dissent from their views is vilified is not an America at all. The gun debate is simply another battle in the all-out war elites are waging on the American people’s right to even have an opinion, let alone speak out about it and not be punished for it.

Fortunately, the American people are fully cognizant of what is taking place, which is why they voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Instead of looking at Trump and Clinton through the two lenses voters typically use, moral character and issue positions, voters applied a third lens: would their views be allowed to be articulated at all without dire consequences under a Clinton administration?

We cannot keep pretending, like so many Never Trumpers do, that we are operating in an environment of normal political give-and-take on issues. That time has passed. We are instead operating in a country now where elites demonize the populist position with such ferocity that many are afraid to voice their opinion at all, which is, of course, the entire point of their strategy. Our fight is no longer just over political issues — it is a battle against the very tactics being used by elites to stifle debate and destroy the essence of what makes America great.

By Chris Talgo

Seventy-two years ago, Winston Churchill delivered a speech that established the global tone for nearly five decades. Speaking in the immediate aftermath of World War II at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill provided an oratorical masterpiece that reset the stage for the next world conflict: the Cold War.

Churchill’s speech, aptly titled “Sinews of Peace,” focused on two themes. First, it described the new threat to world security posed by the Soviet Union. In doing so, Churchill introduced the phrase “iron curtain” into the lexicon, an expression that symbolized communist tyranny.

Secondly, it advanced Churchill’s ardent belief of the “special relationship” that existed between the United Kingdom and United States. By highlighting this Anglo-American bond, Churchill sought to create an alliance devoted to maintaining freedom and a long-lasting bulwark against communist despotism.

In Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech as prophetic — and chilling — today as it was 72 years ago, Senior Fellow in Western European Affairs at the London Center for Policy Research Lee Cohen explores the past and current context of this remarkable speech by one of the twentieth century’s greatest statesman.

Known colloquially as “the Iron Curtain Speech,” this event had an important impact on framing the primordial threat to world peace in the post-World War II period – the Cold War – and to focusing attention on the leading global alliance motivated to protect world peace, the Anglo-American Special Relationship.

After the devastation wrought during the Second World War, Churchill pressed world leaders to remain heedful regarding future threats to world stability and freedom.

Unlike most politicians (then and now), Churchill didn’t mince words.  The plain-spoken Churchill candidly labeled things as he saw them.

When it came to the atrocities committed by Josef Stalin, Churchill did not hold back.

In the speech, Churchill sounds a chilling warning to the West to be vigilant against the gathering clouds in Europe: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent…seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control.” Worse still, he cautions as to the acquisition of nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemies.

Unlike his predecessor, Churchill adamantly opposed appeasement. He refused to surrender in the face of Nazi oppression.

He reminds us with an authority no one else could have that, “Last time [World War II] I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my fellow countrymen and the world, but no one paid attention…It could have been prevented, in my belief, without the firing of a single shot… but no one would listen, and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool.”

The great war leader went on to outline his hope for the outcomes of the Marshall Plan and the formation of global organizations committed to peace-keeping.  The subsequent history of these, one fears, would have left Churchill sadly disappointed. Of particular note, the United Nations and the European Union, with their sovereignty-leeching tendencies to stifle nation states and great bi-lateral friendships such as that of the U.S. and United Kingdom, would have confounded as well as disappointed Churchill.

But Churchill had a greater purpose beyond pointing fingers and casting blame. He also sought to cement the critical bond between Great Britain and the United States. Churchill proposed the prospect that a “special relationship” ought to be established and cultivated.

What were the grounds of this “special relationship?” Simple, the two nations shared a unique history based upon Western values.

Even more importantly, the United States and United Kingdom held a common vision of the future of the world. This future vision was predicated on freedom, the total antitheses of the repression epitomized by the Soviet Union’s iron curtain.

Notably, he coined a phrase in this speech, “THE Special Relationship”—referring to the Anglo-American alliance— which suggests the importance it deserves.  At Fulton, Churchill highlighted the need, for the whole world, of our great alliance—a relationship based upon a compassionate world view underpinned by “the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world,” undergirded by the resources of our combined military might.

While he would have been let down by the trajectory of many global organizations, Churchill would have been reassured by the achievements of the Special Relationship, which endures to help stabilize the world, notwithstanding new global threats and all manner of heads of government in both countries.

Indeed, thank heaven for a bi-lateral alliance that has not only the strength, but the resolve to take on the world’s great menaces, undeterred by the voices of protest.

If not for leadership like that of Churchill, and Reagan and Thatcher after him, freedom would surely not prevail today.

What if, for instance, Churchill had bent to public opinion favoring appeasement in Britain before she entered the war?  The period of darkness and inhumanity unleashed by the Nazis likely would have penetrated the whole world, including our own shores.

Seventy-two years after Churchill’s speech, the state of the “special relationship” remains strong. The United States and United Kingdom persist as staunch allies in the fight against terrorism. Economic ties still bind the Anglo-American alliance, as does a commitment to individual freedom within each nation.

Even with his legacy of having saved the free world, and his great oration, Churchill’s speech earned scorn from many sides, unsurprisingly fueled by the media, both American and British. The New York Times said Churchill had painted “a dark picture of post-war Europe.” He was accused after the speech for positing “poisonous doctrines” that were tagged as alarmist, racist, and imperialist.  Even Truman initially backed away, but once again, under Stalin’s leadership, events proved Churchill prophetic.

Winston Churchill, the straight-talking, conservative politician, was lambasted by some in the media due to his style and substance. The legacy media, even in those days, vehemently disagreed with his views and his language.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because a very similar scenario exists in America circa 2018.

Contemporary detractors wail against the American Exceptionalism embodied by President Trump’s approach and protest on the streets of San Francisco and elsewhere. In the UK socialist-embracing Corbynistas and American Sandersites wail against capitalism and free markets and wring their hands over holding our enemies in the Middle East and North Korea to account.

Happily good sense still prevails in some quarters.  The stirring new film “Darkest Hour” is an example.  It portrays for a new generation Churchill’s stand against the whirlwind of adversity and reminds us just how close we came to losing everything we fight for. And for its part, Fulton, Missouri, has a museum dedicated to the inspiring statesman.

In the end, Churchill’s instincts were right—about nearly everything that counts.  Thank you, Winston for Fulton and for your courage and resolve.

By Chris Talgo

Thousands of students walked out of their classrooms in schools across the United States on March 14. Under the banner of the #NeverAgain movement, the student walkout occurred on the one-month anniversary of the tragic shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. While the political activism of these students is laudable, unfortunately they are improperly framing the problem of school shootings and gun violence.

The vast majority of the student-led crusade following the deadly shooting in Parkland has focused exclusively on the issue of gun control. The premise put forward by student (and professional) activists, as well as the mainstream media, is far too simple: Nikolas Cruz, the deranged Parkland shooter was 18 when he legally purchased the weapon he used to kill 17 of his former classmates. Therefore, if the age to purchase weapons is raised to 21, high school students will not be allowed to purchase weapons and will be unable to commit school shootings.

If only it were that easy. Of course, this flawed thinking fails to address the fact that Nikolas Cruz is not a typical law-abiding citizen. Rather, he is a disturbed criminal. Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Sadly, no law may have been able to prevent this senseless act of violence.

The scourge of school shootings is a complicated, multifaceted problem. The causes of these appalling acts of violence are deeply rooted. If we, as Americans, truly wish to deter these atrocious episodes, we will need to confront some uncomfortable and deeply rooted issues endemic to our society and culture.

For instance, why does American popular culture promote grotesque violence in movies, music, video games, and TV shows? Should we re-examine how we diagnose and treat those in society with mental illnesses who demonstrate a propensity for violence? And lastly, how has the near-collapse of the family unit in American society contributed to juvenile delinquency and criminal activity?

In a timely piece titled Deadly Harvest: Patriarchy & the Violence of Fatherless Men, James M. Kushiner writes about the integral role fatherhood plays in maintaining social values and cohesion. Kushiner begins by describing the sad event that took place on February 14, 2018:

[On] Valentine’s Day, there was a mass shooting of high-school students in Florida. The killer escaped the school campus, but a clear description of him went out to the police. Officer Michael Leonard spotted and arrested the suspect, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz. Leonard said, “He looked like a typical high school student.”

Robert P. George commented on Facebook:

These crimes are almost always committed by men, frequently young men (and sometimes even boys). So the very first question I want to know the answer to is this: What do we know about the perpetrator’s father and the young man’s relationship with him? . . . [T]ime after time the answer has been that the father is (and was) absent (for one reason or another) from the boy’s life or had virtually no relationship [with] the son or effective authority over him.

I would be surprised if fatherlessness were not the number one predictor of criminality. I recall hearing a veteran Texas prison chaplain say he often asked prisoners if they were raised by their biological fathers. The vast majority—well over 90 percent—said no.

Fathers Needed

This is one reason why patriarchy is important for the health of a society. Read that carefully. I did not say male chauvinism or male dominance or male privilege or misogyny, which some assume is meant by the “code word” patriarchy.

Patriarchy is based on the Latin word pater, father, and I am particularly thinking of fatherhood and not mere maleness: young men are supposed to be shaped not by a flood of male hormones or dangerous masculine bravado or the oppression or sexual use of women, but by the prospect of fatherhood.

Patriarchy is about fatherhood. It is about fathers raising boys and young men to become fathers themselves. A whole generation, or neighborhood, of boys without fathers will succumb to the chaos and violence of Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies. Wherever you find many fatherless young men not being trained for fatherhood, you will find most of today’s violent crime.

Family in Greek, patria, based on pater, is often translated as nation and is thus the root of patriotism. But where there are fewer and fewer fathers, there can be no enduring patria, no homeland, no security.

Kushiner is correct: A healthy patriarchy is a prerequisite for a society to function and thrive. Young men (and women) need role models. They need the direction, discipline, and sense of love that only fatherhood can provide them. Absent this cherished and vital presence, young men (and women) are far too likely to grow-up emotionally wounded.

The United States faces a crisis: a generation is coming of age without fathers present in their lives. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 40 percent of all births in the United States were to unmarried women in 2016. In the same year alone, 1.6 million children were born out of wedlock.

Certainly, some of these children will grow up to accomplish great things. Their lives will be fulfilling and successful. However, far too many of these fatherless children are being set-up to fail. They will endure aimless and difficult times.

The difficulties are evident from a young age. According to a study by the National Association of Elementary School Principals, 33 percent of two-parent elementary school students ranked as high achievers, compared with only 17 percent of single-parent students. The same study found that children in single-parent households are more likely to be chronically truant and have disciplinary problems.

To solve any problem, one must properly identify its cause. The problem of gun violence and mass shootings is complex and multidimensional. The instant gratification, quick-fix solution espoused by students will not work.

Instead, a frank and unpleasant societal dialogue is necessary. As a nation, we must address the problems of family breakdown, mental illness, and a culture of violence. Then, and only then, will America make strides and reduce mass shootings and the torment of gun violence.

By Lennie Jarratt

April 4 is the 50^th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s tragic assassination in Memphis, Tennessee. On this sad occasion, Americans ought to reflect on MLK’s monumental life and reconsider his philosophy on our waning freedom.

MLK awakened the oppressed to yearn for freedom and inspired them by example. Dr. King initiated a peaceful revolution with his tantalizing words and brave deeds. He preached love, respect, civil disobedience, and perseverance through trying times.

His countless personal sacrifices led a generation to finally topple societal barriers. He did not seek violence, but when violence was inflicted upon him, he handled it with valor.

The civil rights revolution Dr. King set in motion produced great victories. There are battles still to be waged, but we are much closer to MLK’s “dream” of a colorblind, integrated society.

In the words of Dr. King, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protests to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.”

MLK was a Baptist minister. He preached that freedom emanated from God, not government. King’s philosophy, largely dismissed today, was shared by the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson.

As Jefferson eloquently stated in The Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The fight for freedom is never-ending. So long as humans seek power, they will use the levers of government to control and oppress others. As MLK noted in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

On April 4, Americans should honor MLK’s legacy by recognizing his achievements, sacrifices and the ultimate price he paid for the cause of freedom.

By Chris Talgo

Historically, “drain the swamp” has referred to the emptying of swamplands to reduce mosquito populations, thereby curbing diseases such as malaria. Today, the phrase has become a popular political metaphor after being masterfully used by Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election. “Draining the swamp” now refers to the Trump administration’s effort to reduce the size and scope of the corrupt national government, thereby curbing political malfeasance.

The reason why “drain the swamp” resonates with so many Americans is simple: It embodies their antipathy for the bloated, out-of-touch federal government. As the 2016 election clearly demonstrated, Americans are fed up with how ineffectively the people’s representatives conduct the people’s business in Washington, DC.

“Draining the swamp,” while widely used, can mean different things to different people. In April 2017, the Frontier Lab’s Ear to the Ground Listening Project (ETTG) distributed a survey to better understand why so many people now believe the hallowed grounds of the nation’s capital have mutated into “the swamp,” and a potential threat to self-governance.

ETTG’s “goal was to measure the degree to which American voters perceive a ‘swamp problem’ exists in their political leadership, how they define that problem, and the impediments that exist to removing its influence over political culture,” according to the report.

Working with pollster McLaughlin & Associates, ETTG sought information on a wide variety of swamp topics. ETTG experts “wondered: is the Swamp concern more than rhetoric? Does it represent real angst, anger, and distrust — or is it an easily tossed-aside slogan? How do Americans of all political affiliations relate to a concept of the Swamp?”

What did the polls reveal about the state of the swamp?

The level of concern, across political ideology, is as follows:

• “More than half the country – 55% – say they are concerned about the DC Swamp.”

Who Americans hold responsible for the swamp:

• “53% of Americans disagree that their elected officials in Washington share their level of concern for threats to their freedom.”

Americans’ understanding of the swamp:

• “When asked to name the top three impediments to draining the Swamp, only Trump voters identified the media as the top obstacle. Americans of all political ideologies identified lobbyists as one of the top 3 impediments to draining the Swamp, but only liberals and moderates identified the bureaucracy in the top 3; conservatives did not.”

The swamp and self-governance:

• “Overall, voters have greater trust Trump will keep campaign promises than Republicans – 31% of all voters believe Trump will keep his campaign promises, 27% believe the Democrats will, and 6% believe the Republicans will.”

Broader context and concerns:

• “80% said they agree that American traditions of freedom and individual rights are being threatened by social movements, public bullying, and increasing political violence.”

ETTG’s conclusion is straightforward: “When only 39% of Americans feel their elected officials share their level of concern for the threats to their freedom, it’s clear that Washington is on a different page from the American people.”

This statement reflects the sad truth that our elected representatives hold their own interests (i.e., getting reelected) above the national interest. Americans now face, among many other crises, out-of-control spending, a surging national debt, and failing public schools. No wonder Congress’s approval rating is currently hovering near 18 percent!

These results create an interesting question: If Americans are so tired of the swamp, why do the same “swamp creatures” continuously manage to win elections and keep their jobs at bloated federal agencies?

One reason is politicians enjoy name greater name recognition than their challengers, not to mention a huge advantage in campaign resources.

Another, more sinister reason, is far too many politicians are desperately working with other swamp creatures, including special-interest groups, to solidify their power by bringing home the bacon for their constituents: pork-filled spending projects and other goodies doled out thanks to taxpayers and trillions of dollars of debt.

Americans are tired of the national government’s ruling class and their swampy deeds, but nothing will change unless the American people change. Voters have a responsibility to find candidates who will work to destroy the current corrupt system and replace it with one that values individual liberty and property rights. Frankly, they haven’t taken the responsibility as seriously as they need to, and time is running out.

If the people don’t soon stand up to the swamp, we’ll all surely drown in it.

Tom Wolfe, an American literary icon, died this week at the age of 88. Although Wolfe’s legacy almost surely will be based on his immensely popular books, such as Bonfire of the Vanities and The Right Stuff, his cultural impact was far-reaching and more profound than most understand.

Wolfe, born in Richmond, Virginia during the turmoil of the Great Depression, played semi-professional baseball after graduating from Washington and Lee University. After his ill-fated baseball career came to a halt, Wolfe earned his Ph.D. in American Studies from Yale University. His doctoral thesis, The League of American Writers: Communist Organizational Activity Among American Writers, 1929-1942, was just a preview of Wolfe’s career as an astute cultural and political commentator.

Although most literary critics praise Wolfe for his unparalleled use of language and his knack for great storytelling, it may very well be his insights into the nether regions of the cultural landscape that are his most enduring achievement.

Wolfe is credited with the advent of “new journalism,” because of his propensity to embed himself within a culture—thus gaining a shrewd understanding of his subjects. His, articles, novels, and non-fiction works were renowned best sellers because they gave his audience an insight into a world they knew little about. Oftentimes, he offered a cultural analysis through a unique (and exceedingly rare) journalistic lens—a classical liberal point of view.

Respected by his peers and hated by his enemies, Wolfe was not afraid to approach controversial topics. From his critique of family breakdown in Hooking Up to his expose on the progressive, elitist, narrow-minded American higher education system in I am Charlotte Simmons, Wolfe left no societal stone unturned.

His contemporaries praised his work for its ground-breaking nature. Kurt Vonnegut described Wolfe as “the most exciting–or, at least, the most jangling–journalist to appear in some time.” Literary critic Dwight Garner called Wolfe “a brilliantly gifted social observer and satirist.”

Wolfe is oft-cited as a conservative because of his embrace of President George W. Bush, but his conservative bona fides extend far greater than his preference for Bush’s “great decisiveness and willingness to fight.” His unflinching critique of socialist Noam Chomsky in The King’s Speech deliver a much deeper portrait of Wolfe’s social and political views. It should come as no great surprise that Wolfe embraced classical liberalism and he ardently believed in individual liberty and free-market capitalism.

As the world mourns the loss of Tom Wolfe, we should simultaneously celebrate his vast accomplishments. Tom Wolfe, the creative genius, historian Meredith Hindley credits with presenting terms such as “statusphere”, “the right stuff”, “radical chic”, and “the Me Decade” into the American vocabulary should also be celebrated as a conservative icon who bravely and compellingly exposed the fallacies of leftist culture and ideology.

By Ilana Mercer

Not a day goes by when the liberal media don’t telegraph to the world that a “Trumpocracy” is destroying American democracy. Conspicuous by its absence is a pesky fact: Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy.

To arrive at a democracy, we Americans destroyed a republic.

One of the ways in which the republic was destroyed was through the slow sundering of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The 10th was meant to guarantee constitutional devolution of power.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The de facto demise of the 10th has resulted in “constitutional” consolidation.

Fair enough, but is that enough? A perceptive Townhall.com reader was having none of it.

In response to “Whodunit? Who ‘Meddled’ With Our American Democracy” (Part 1), the reader upbraided this writer:

“Anyone who quotes the 10th Amendment, but not the 14th Amendment that supplanted it cannot be taken seriously.”

In other words, to advance the erosion of the 10th in explaining who did our republic in, without mentioning the 14th: this was an omission on the writer’s part.

The reader is admirably correct about Incorporation-Doctrine centralization.

Not even conservative constitutional originalists are willing to concede that the 14th Amendment and the attendant Incorporation Doctrine have obliterated the Constitution’s federal scheme, as expressed in the once-impregnable 10th Amendment.

What does this mean?

You know the drill but are always surprised anew by it. Voters pass a law under which a plurality wishes to live in a locality. Along comes a U.S. district judge and voids the law, citing a violation of the 14th’s Equal Protection Clause.

For example: Voters elect to prohibit local government from sanctioning gay marriage. A U.S. district judge voids voter-approved law for violating the 14th’s Equal Protection Clause.

These periodical contretemps around gay marriage, or the legal duty of private property owners to cater these events, are perfectly proper judicial activism. It flows from the 14th Amendment.

If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be.

Put differently, matters previously subject to state jurisdiction have been pulled into the orbit of a judiciary. Yet not even conservative constitutional originalists are willing to cop to this constitutional fait accompli.

The gist of it: Jeffersonian constitutional thought is no longer in the Constitution; its revival unlikely.

A Court System Centralized

For another example of the endemic usurpation of The People, rendering the original Constitutional scheme obsolete, take the work of the generic jury. With his description of the relationship between jury and people, American scholar of liberty Lysander Spooner conjures evocative imagery.

A jury is akin to the “body of the people.” Trial by jury is the closest thing to a trial by the whole country. Yet courts in the nation’s centralized court system, the Supreme Court included, are in the business of harmonizing law across the nation, rather than allowing communities to live under laws they author, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

States’ Rights All But Obliterated

Like juries, states had been entrusted with the power to beat back the federal government and void unconstitutional federal laws.

States’ rights are “an essential Americanism,” wrote Old Rightist Frank Chodorov. The Founding Fathers as well as the opponents of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists, agreed on the principle of divided authority as a safeguard to the rights of the individual.

Duly, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison perfected a certain doctrine in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. “The Virginia Resolutions,” explains historian Thomas E. Woods, Jr., “spoke of the states’ rights to ‘interpose’ between the federal government and the people of the states; the Kentucky Resolutions used the term nullification—the states, they said, could nullify federal laws that they believed to be unconstitutional.”

“Jefferson,” emphasized Woods, “considered states’ rights a much more important and effective safeguard of people’s liberties than the ‘checks and balances’ among the three branches of the federal government.”

And for good reason. While judicial review was intended to curb Congress and restrain the Executive, in reality, the judicial, legislative and executive unholy federal trinity has simply colluded, over time, in an alliance that has helped abolish the 10th Amendment.

Founding Faith Expunged

And how well has First Amendment jurisprudence served constitutionalists?

Establishment-clause cases are a confusing and capricious legal penumbra. Sometimes displays of the Hebraic Decalogue or manger scene are taken to constitute the establishment of a state religion. Other times not.

This body of law forever teeters on conflating the injunction against the establishment of a state religion with an injunction against the expression of faith—especially discriminating against the founding faith in taxpayer-supported spaces.

The end result has been the expulsion of religion from the public square and the suppression therein of freedom of religion.

On the topic of religious freedom, Jefferson was prolific, too. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was a crowning achievement for which he wished to be remembered, along with the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia.

Jefferson interpreted “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof”—as confirms by David N. Meyer, author of Jefferson’s Constitutional Thought—to guarantee both “an absolute free exercise of religion and an absolute prohibition of an establishment of religion.”

Yet somehow, the kind of constitutional thought that carries legal sway today prohibits expressions of faith or displays of a civilizing moral code in government-controlled spheres. Given my libertarian view of government’s immoral modus operandi, I find this amusingly apropos. Still, this is not what Jefferson had in mind for early Americans.

Indeed, why would anyone, bar Nancy Pelosi and her party, object to “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not commit adultery, steal or covet?” The Ten Commandments can hardly be perceived as an instrument for state proselytization.

Nevertheless, the law often takes displays of the Decalogue or the nativity scene on tax-payer funded property as an establishment of a state religion.

“I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercise,” Jefferson expatiated.

He then gets to the soul of the subject: “This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise of religion but also from the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states [or to the people] the powers not delegated to the U.S.”

So, dear reader, if there’s one thing we know for sure, it’s that the Russians didn’t deep-six our republic of private property rights and radical decentralization; we did.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016) & “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011). She’s on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube.