Volume 6, Issue 26
This week, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy submitted his resignation. This now gives President Trump his second Supreme Court nomination. Justice Kennedy was considered a swing vote. Liberals and progressives fear that another conservative Justice will move the court too far to the right. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is now faced with the tactical operation of bringing to a vote of the Senate the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee.
Intellectuals would have you believe that the political tempest surrounding these policy manifestos is based on the ideology of the moral high ground. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Progressives fear the diminishing influence of their national press partners. And they are apoplectic in facing the reality that they may lose control of their primary tool, the courts. Elites are, in fact, aghast at the prospect of having to go to the people for permission to implement their policies.
The roots of all incivility are based upon selfish human nature.
A Brief Review of Current Incivility
Last week, societal rudeness and personal discourteousness hit an all-time low. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service at a local restaurant because she works for Donald Trump. She was out for an evening of casual dining with her family in an attempt to escape the turmoil of her everyday life. She respectfully left the restaurant honoring the owner’s request.
What apparently brought debate to the boiling point was the heightened images of immigrant families being separated at the U.S. border. The humanitarian calling of our cultural code demanded that we respect the unity of family structure. Whether these peoples were refugees fleeing unique circumstances or immigrants seeking asylum, it was beyond instinctive. It was emotionally compelling that we as a country represent sanctuary for all oppressed people. It has been our historical destiny.
For what may be the first time in his short administration, President Trump reversed a policy that he, in fact, instigated.
There has been little effort by the press or opposition leaders to soothe the situation. Time magazine’s recent cover was a photoshopped picture of the President looking down at a crying two-year-old Guatemalan girl. It is one thing to purposely portray the President in an unfavorable light. It is another to misuse the image of a child. She was not separated from her parents.
Time magazine defends its cover manipulation by saying that the child’s picture was iconic and had gone viral. Really! This would imply that, if someone erroneously posts a photo on the internet taking advantage of personal tragedy, because it went viral and so many people had seen it, it is acceptable to implicate the same scenario, even though the base story was false.
Time magazine has now taken the standard for journalistic integrity to an all-time low.
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters exacerbated the anger by advocating that people protest and confront, in the public square, any individual or government servant associated with the Trump Administration. The purpose is to disrupt such officials’ everyday personal lives.
Congresswoman Waters has taken the standard for citizen integrity to an all-time low.
What is the real concern and driving force behind progressive leaders and the accommodating media? Certainly in America today, rule of law and due process are equally accessible for all citizens. Everyone enjoys equal privilege to government programs. Education, healthcare, and welfare are not denied on any basis of race, creed, color, or sex. Yes, there may be occasions of egregious acts by individuals, groups, or even the police. But it is not the character of the United States government, at any level, to target individuals because of their race, gender, or belief. So, what is it then that is so irritating to progressives?
What are the causes of such acrimony?
Money is the root of all evil. This is a common phrase in American vernacular. The source of the quote is:
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
--1 Timothy 6:10 New King James Version (NKJV)
Such an economic system thwarts and impedes the personal pursuit of happiness. Each individual has a different definition of economic goals in their composite definition of happiness.
True freedom depends upon economic freedom.
Adam Smith was the great capitalist economist who coined the term “the invisible hand.” He used that term to describe the unintended social benefits of an individual’s self-interested actions. He believed that turning people free to pursue their economic destiny as they saw fit, without government interference, is the most efficient way to manage the distribution of wealth and resources. Greed and self-interest would be monitored, contained and guided by the economic system.
John Wesley, the great Methodist minister and a contemporary of Adam Smith, disagreed with the proposition that free markets, left unchecked, would result in fairness for all citizens. He counseled that Christian principles of morality must be adhered to in the total equation to provide economic equilibrium for society. Greed could lead to too much power. Too much power leads to too much economic control. Wesley’s faith of Christianity was one of inclusion. Free will was paramount.
It is not capitalism alone that is America’s foundation. It is the doctrine of free will, applied to one’s own pursuit of destiny through Free Enterprise, guided and directed by the Judeo-Christian moral compass of ensuring that the needs of all citizens are addressed.
The balance of morality advanced by these two great minds provided the overriding principles which fueled and guided the United States of America to the greatest economy the world has ever known.
The root of all contentiousness is tribal superiority. Ancient society evolved around chieftains. Such strong leaders provided order, necessities, and protection for a clan. Since the beginning of recorded history, people have identified with like-minded groups culturally. War often resulted between competing tribes. Modern nation-states did not come on the scene until the 800’s. Sovereigns today often reflect alliances of ancient tribal order.
Nature never seeks equality, but rewards efficiency through survival of the fittest.
Politics never seeks equality, but rewards power through domination.
The birth of the United States, part and parcel, was the consequence of a rebellion against socialism. England was a monarchy. The colonies were governed by the authoritarian socialism of the king. A democracy of the people did not exist in the world. It was a revolutionary idea.
A critical element of this idea of democracy was that birth is not destiny. The station in life in which one was born, or the origin of one’s family, was not in any way to restrict one’s equal rights to pursuit of happiness. The social status or background of a citizen (his or her tribe) was not governing or paramount for their goals or objectives to be met. Yes, Native American, African-American, and women’s rights have been a process. A process which must continue. But socialism is not the answer.
The natural inclination of mankind is to desire money and power in groups of affinity rather than peace and harmony through an integrated, heterogenous commonwealth.
In a sense, activists now pursue identity politics appealing to the base instincts of tribal association. This may be based on race, creed, gender, culture, politics, religion, idealism, greed, intellectualism, racism, or perversion. Pursuing tribal superiority results in civil unrest. Tribal debate is not about the advancing of society, but about how to secure more power for one tribe at the expense of another.
In America today, leadership sought is for tribal purposes, not unity of a diverse culture.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, in her campaign for Congress and in post-election comments, personified, possibly innocently and unknowingly, the two roots of incivility. She attacks the wealthiest as privileged and economic prosperity as in need of government management. Further, she identified her opponent, the incumbent Democrat, as a white male not only out of touch with the district, but unqualified to be the Congressman because a majority of the district’s citizens are Hispanic and female. This is identity politics pursued without a connection to principle.
For America and democracy to survive, citizens must seek leadership that recognizes a higher calling that unifies us as a nation in principle and purpose. Otherwise, we deny the ideal of American freedom by reverting back to pre-American morality that birth is destiny based in tribal culture. And the tribe that controls all wealth controls all power.
And in such denial of free will, we will spiral and decline into a country of emotions rather than laws.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?