May We Never Forget

It was September 11, 2001. I was 8 years old, when I woke up one morning and watched repeated news coverage on TV one of the worst atrocities in American history. Nearly 3,000 people died in one of the worst terrorist attacks in history. 

America was stunned. Outraged. Heartbroken. But as many have noted over the years, we were also united. United in commitment to avenging those killed, protecting our nation from such actions of political violence and terrorism in the future. We rallied to support our fellow Americans who were suffering. It didn't matter their race, gender, political viewpoints. They were humans who had lost husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, children. They were our neighbors, our friends, our fellow compatriots. And they were hurting. We stood arm in arm, side by side and united in prayer and as Americans. One slogan rang out following 9/11/2001 --- We Will Never Forget. 

Then time passed. 

A lot of time.

Two messy wars - one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq. And a seemingly never ending "war on terror" across the globe with diminishing popularity. Americans understandably began to question whether our war in Iraq was justified to begin with. Most Americans now loosely feel the war in Afghanistan was justified in part, but feel the war in Iraq was unjustified and based on bad military intelligence. Probably. And a lot of people died - on all sides of those conflicts - every single one a tragedy. 

Technology also changed. Social media and expanded access to high speed internet around the globe allowed for immediate access to information from almost any populated area in the world. And algorithmically tailored to your own interests, viewpoints, political opinions, race, gender, religion.

Those on the political "left" are fed a steady stream of content confirming their viewpoints in issues and condemning the right. Those of the political "right" are likewise fed a steady stream of content confirming their viewpoints and condemning the left. 

Controversy and "hot takes" generate....engagement. Which in turn increases exposure, influence, financial opportunities, and ego. 

In 2015 and 2016, I think I first saw how fractured this country had truly become during the election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. But it pales in comparison to today. The last post I published on this blog was on August 18, 2016. That's about the time I decided to bow out of political discourse online.

I'll quote from that post a few times here: 

Now, as much as I would love to explore the factors that led to a choice of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as our two front running candidates, I will refrain. There are plenty of fantastic political commentators who have analyzed the specifics of this election cycle in more detail and provided far better data than I could ever hope to present. But I want to look at one particular topic that I continue to hear echoed among my peers – that the system is broken.

I was fascinated by the idea that the American system had failed and I rejected this premise. At the time, I made this analogy.

If a clock stops working, it doesn’t mean that it’s broken. It just means that no one has wound it for a while. The clock is not to blame – it’s only natural for the gears to stop turning eventually. All it needs is for a person to come and wind it up again and it will work just as well as before. The same is true with the American system of government. It isn’t broken. The gears have just lost momentum and have bogged down from the complexity of the mechanism. However, if the American people step up and engage in the political process, the momentum will return and the “clock” will start telling time again.

Now, at the time I was a silly little pipsqueak fresh out of college with a lot of big ideas - most of them unguided by experience and wisdom of real life. I had a big mouth and loud political opinions, but not a lot of real life experience. But I think I was still on to something there. 

But that's not the full picture. Systems will always be flawed. Even if I still love the American "system" as designed by our founders - it's still just a system. It was designed to work in a broken world to mitigate against the worst impulse of human beings through checks and balances. And it worked damn well. I still think it can work. 

The problem isn't just that a "system" is broken or flawed though. It's a problem of the human heart. Hopelessness. Grief. Anger. Dehumanizing those we disagree with. Seeking revenge. 

We spew words like "commie" and "fascist" at each other. We call those we disagree with a "threat to democracy." We try to jail our political opponents. We appoint partisan officials and reject those with different viewpoints. We burn flags, buildings, communities to the ground in protest. We drive around with MAGA or BLM flags championing our causes and condemning those who disagree.

A few days ago, a girl was stabbed to death. Rather than mourning it and coming together in solidarity against this violence, it became a political talking point for both sides. 

And yesterday, Charlie Kirk, an outspoken, controversial, and deeply loved (and hated) young man was assassinated at a public event for his political views. The same day Evergreen High School students were attacked and shot by a madman. 

A few days ago I saw on social media a reel with an image of the twin towers and the words "I Forgot." It broke my heart then, and it still does. It was cynical but even I have to admit - it was true. 

We've forgotten who we were after 9/11. We forgot what it means to gather arm in arm and support each other despite our differences. We forgot how it felt to look at each other not as Republicans or Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives, red and blue but as Americans. And the outgrowth in that is more division, hatred, and violence than I thought possible in the America I saw on September 11 and September 12 of 2001. 

Last night my wife and I talked about the day's news and how difficult it is to remember that those we disagree with - even those we loathe - are still humans. Created in the image of God. We may have very little in common on our beliefs. But that man, woman, or child is imago dei. 

We must remember that. 

Psalm 121:1-2 says "I lift up my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come? My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth." 

Today I don't have answers to our political challenges or the world. I'm not going to tell you why the left or the right is wrong or what ballot measures to vote for or what cause to support. There are good and bad ones on left and right. But my prayer is that we remember that human institutions, structures, and political beliefs are merely ways that human beings interact in a broken world. No democratic vote, assassin's bullet, or mean tweet is going to solve our brokenness. Only God can. 

Maybe it's true that we've forgotten what it means to be Americans. We've forgotten the unity we had after 9/11/2001. If so, I hope its only temporary. I hope our nation can heal and come together again. 

But more importantly, I hope that no matter what, we all can remember that the "enemy" we see in front of us is another hurting broken human in need of a Savior. And may we never forget that.

John 3:16-21: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God." 

America in 2016: Is Democracy Broken?

Disclaimer: I apologize in advance for the length of this post. It has been a long time since I have had ample time to organize my thoughts on any political issues and as such, I may tend to ramble a bit more in this post than I had intended. However, I feel that the issue discussed here is something that is certainly worth at least a cursory glance and consideration. I hope my attempts to express my thoughts are at least mildly stimulating, albeit exhaustive. – Evan

PC: CNN

           Every election year has its share of challenges and disappointments. I want to make sure I am clear on that point before I go any further, because I feel it is something that many individuals tend to forget in the midst of the bloodbath that arises as we enter Q3 of a general election year. Elections are messy. They’re brutal. They’re full of misdirection, lies, and attack ads. Good ideas are discussed. Bad ideas are discussed. Democrats blame Republicans for our nation’s problems and Republicans blame Democrats. The media chooses favorites and feeds the horse race, not only in the primary but also in the general election. None of this is new.

        But something about 2016 is different than past elections – at least the ones that I can clearly remember. I admit that my own memory is rather foggy. Honestly, I can recall only vague details about the 2000 race between Gore and Bush. Most of what I know of elections, historically, is from my studies in college rather than from firsthand experience. Still, I find that I am not alone is calling 2016 a litmus test year for our nation.

        Only last year the GOP was positioned extraordinarily well - walking into this year secure in

PC: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

the knowledge that Obama’s approval ratings were plummeting. Republican legislators had swept the House and Senate in the last midterm election, and we had strong Republican figures positioning themselves for the White House race. Jeb Bush, the clear establishment favorite – ideally groomed for the position and riding off of the success of not only a father but also a brother who had served in our nation’s highest office. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina joined Jeb as key figures that seemed to grasp the importance of winning. As Marco Rubio put it in an early GOP debate, “People are starting to understand very clearly that this election is going to be a turning point. That 2016 is not just a choice between Republican or Democrat, it is a referendum on our identity as a nation and as a people…we’re going to bring this party together and we are going to defeat Hillary Clinton.” I was optimistic. I liked the majority of the candidates on the stage. Oh. Except One.

        Donald Trump. It’s funny to think back to last fall. I honestly am stunned by how far he’s come. Sure, he was leading in the polls from the beginning, but that’s normal. Plenty of commentators expected Jeb or Rubio to rise up as the “real” candidate once the novelty of the brash and offensive business tycoon died down. The problem was – that never happened.

PC: Michael Dwyer/AP

        Donald Trump swept the rug out from beneath the Republican Party. He rose on a tide not dissimilar from the momentum seen in the Democratic Party, with a relatively unknown and open socialist, Bernie Sanders. Donald, like Bernie, appealed to the frustrations of the American people with the duplicity of politics. They didn’t speak the same language as the other candidates in either party. They called out political correctness. They pointed out the problems that existed: rising cost of living paired with more and more minimum wage earning adults. Rampant illegal immigration. Apparent discrimination against LGBT communities. Debt. International terrorism. “The System is Broken,” they cried. And Americans rallied behind them.

        Now, as much as I would love to explore the factors that led to a choice of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as our two front running candidates, I will refrain. There are plenty of fantastic political commentators who have analyzed the specifics of this election cycle in more detail and provided far better data than I could ever hope to present. But I want to look at one particular topic that I continue to hear echoed among my peers – that the system is broken.

        It’s not unique to Trump or Bernie. It’s a common message this year all around. Earlier in the election, candidates like Cruz and Rubio condemned the established party leadership as an obstacle to true conservative reform. Democrats also point to a broken system – rigged by powerful corporations and businessmen and special interest groups that fight for profit at the expense of “everyday Americans.” Honestly, I thought for a while that this was just the candidates attacking competitors (Jeb was an establishment candidate, Trump is a powerful businessman, etc…). Then about a month ago, I was chatting with a friend on social media, and I heard that phrase again – the system is broken.

        The only thought that I can offer is – Really? Is “the system” really to blame for this election year? For the political issues that exist in our nation and around the world? I would seriously question that premise. In fact, I would argue that our system is as near to flawless as sinful man is capable of crafting.

   

Our Founding Fathers crafted a system of government that combined the best of all worlds, as near as they could find. They rejected the authoritarian monarchy of Great Britain and looked instead to classical political concepts from the Greco-Roman world. They crafted a constitutional republican democracy where the American people have the ability choose representatives who would tackle the difficult issues of their communities at local, state, and national levels. The constitution was crafted as a way to prevent the expanse of government regulation from strangling the liberties of the American people. However, nothing about this era was particularly pure or perfect. There were many issues that presented themselves for representatives to debate. One of our earliest presidents pushed for radical legislation known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which garnered massive opposition and support. In addition, there was the looming issue of slavery that would later erupt into violence less than a century later.

However, the founding fathers were clever enough to plan for all eventualities. The three branches of government, vying over conflicting interests, slow the gears of government action to a crawl to ensure that bad policies are exposed and stopped before they can root themselves in established jurisprudence and legal code. Government in the United States was designed to be inefficient, messy, and overly complicated – it’s the entire purpose of constitutional “checks and balances,” which most Americans will recognize as a good thing for our nation. Unfortunately, the

structure of American society is only as strong as its foundation – the American people themselves. This is the “problem” with democracy. When voters abdicate their role, political elites reign supreme. Parties coalesce and build up their own members. Healthy compromise between ideas turns into quid pro quo exchanges between lawmakers seeking to create their own careers and legacies.

I think this is why many Americans see the system as broken. It’s normal and natural and all democracies eventually reach this point, throughout history. But the issue really isn’t the system, here. It’s the American people refusing to engage in the process. Whether through party alienation, indignation at corruption, or just plain apathy.

If a clock stops working, it doesn’t mean that it’s broken. It just means that no one has wound it for a while. The clock is not to blame – it’s only natural for the gears to stop turning eventually. All it needs is for a person to come and wind it up again and it will work just as well as before. The same is true with the American system of government. It isn’t broken. The gears have just lost momentum and have bogged down from the complexity of the mechanism. However, if the American people step up and engage in the political process, the momentum will return and the “clock” will start telling time again.

Now, you might object and say that “I haven’t disengaged. I’m not a part of the problem.” Well good for you. If you’re communicating regularly with your representatives on how you want them to vote, walking precincts, engaging in civil political debate of ideas, and making an informed decision at the ballot box, good for you! Most of us, however, are busy with our day to day lives. I’m a political junkie – I love to discuss American politics, weigh ideas, and consider alternatives. I try to remain an informed voter. But I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve contacted my representatives and urged their vote on a political issue this year. However, as responsible adults and voters, we cannot continue to lie to ourselves and shift responsibility onto “the system,” when we refuse to even participate. It’s time that we take responsibility for our own failure and take steps to repair the damage we have done.

Come on, America! We’re better than Trump and Hillary. Let’s be optimists again. Let’s fight for our nation, instead of tearing it down. Let’s be that shining City on a Hill that shows the world that Democracy works, when you hold each other accountable.

Let’s actually Make America Great Again. 

-        ~  Evan Gillespie, copyright 2016. 

The Land of the Free

Veterans Day provides a special opportunity in our nation. It's a time for us to take a moment and thank the veterans of the United States Armed Forces and the service that they have offered in defense our nation and the American way of life.

As I sit here today, I find myself reflecting on the sacrifices that many of my friends and colleagues have made to serve our nation - time with their families, career opportunities, recreation, and even their own health and safety. Granted, it isn't always a dangerous way of life - many find successful careers in military service - but it's a lot to ask of anyone even so.

Unfortunately, veterans of foreign wars - like Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq - often face criticism for their actions "over there." It's a reality that has garnered backlash by many and rightly so. I would encourage anyone who reads this post to remember that regardless of personal feelings about individual practice of American foreign policy, our servicemen deserve the highest respect for their defense of the American way of life.

That's an interesting expression isn't it? The American way of life. What does it really mean? Undoubtedly it has something to do with Freedom, but beyond that, it's a bit difficult to define.

In the early days of our nation, revolutionaries fought to free their families and nation from a tyrant that taxed them into poverty, without allowing them any representation. Later, our nation faced an existential crisis over states' rights and human slavery - resorting to a brutal war between brothers for the future of the nation. the United States of American shifted from a collection of free states into a unified nation - and firmly rejected the slavery of any human being as being immoral and totally unacceptable in America.

The 20th Century saw another series of wars that ravaged our world - and these wars propelled our nation to unprecedented heights - as the economic, military, and moral leader of the free world - and a strong opponent of the Communist threat of Eastern Europe. The various military engagements for the remainder of the century largely were proxy wars between our nation and the Soviet Union - as we fought to contain communism. The century closed to a new world - the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of globalization and the genesis of today's technical revolution - America won. Freedom won.

Now, the 21st Century hits. We see a new rise of radicalism in response to American imperialism, "Western" promiscuity, and ideological reform in many religious and political groups. Today, we find ourselves facing a presidential election cycle that is almost unprecedented in the degree of cynicism and disinterest by the American people. I think that it is fair to say that, today, more than ever, it is important for us to take some time to remember what it means to be an American.

I recently watched the new Tom Hanks film, Bridge of Spies, and his character made a stunningly simple point on that subject, that I think is dead accurate:

"I'm Irish, you're German. But what makes us both Americans? It's just one thing...the Rulebook. We call it the Constitution. And we agree to the rules. And that's what makes us Americans." 

In the end, the only point I would make this Veterans Day is - remember who we are as Americans.  A large mess of people with different interests, passions, and ideas. But people who are united in our respect and love for our founding documents - the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

These documents - no matter how old or "out of date" they may seem, still shine as the one example of what it means to be an American. These documents are the reason that thousands upon thousands of American servicemen have sacrificed their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor at home and abroad.

So, yes, I hope we all thanked a veteran today for their service. But more than that, I hope we all take the time to consider what that service really means and resolved never again to underestimate their sacrifice in defense of our freedom as Americans.

Globalization & Protectionism

The development of the global economy is perhaps one of the most controversial topics in economics, while also the most inevitable. Very few economists would argue that resisting

globalization is a wise idea, or even possible. However, there are definite advantages and disadvantages to a global economy. This blog simply weighs the positives and negatives of how globalization has impacted the United States and the international market as a whole in regards to specialization of economies, protectionism, and international trade.  

           

 The American system was designed around an understanding of the free market – where supply

and demand determine the prices of various good and services. This allows scarce resources to flow to their most efficient uses, since capitalist producers will not continue to waste valuable resources on failed experiments, if there is no economic incentive. As competition increases due to more countries and businesses having interaction with each other – the international consumers will have a greater quality and quantity of product.

Gas lines resulting from OPEC Embargo, 1973

There are a number of factors that impact the degree to which developing nations are capable of competing with more prosperous nations. First, some countries simply maintain an absolute advantage in a particular sector of the economy. An absolute advantage is when, “one country, for any of a number of reasons, can produce some things cheaper or better than another” (Sowell, p. 503, Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy). Whether this advantage comes from climate, technology, or even the culture of society – it can cause other nations to become incapable of competing in that sector. Comparative advantage is where specialization in national economies allows countries to divide their resources to produce the most efficient amount of goods, despite possible absolute advantages exercised by one country over another. This can allow for massive increases in productivity – but it also has the potential for abuse by one country toward another. In 1973, due to the comparative advantage that Saudi Arabia and OPEC held over the oil industry, Arabs “imposed an embargo against the United States in retaliation for the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military and to gain leverage in the post-war negotiations” (“Oil Embargo” Office of the Historian). The globalization of the economy, then, can have both positive and negative consequences on the growth of national wealth. 

One of the biggest problems with specialization resulting from globalization is that countries can reduce or even eliminate entire sectors of their economy – for example, the US now imports most factory-made goods from overseas in China or Taiwan – countries that have specialized to focus on industrialization. This makes for cheaper products, but costs the US blue-collar factory jobs. When workers lack expertise outside of a particular sector, job losses in factories can destroy their livelihood and lead to vast homelessness in certain communities.

It must be understood, though, that this does not mean that the entire economy suffers, as a result. If blue-collar jobs are lost to overseas corporations – it will usually result in more white-collar jobs domestically. Thus, an economy might experience rapid growth, through specialization, while still seeing entire sectors lost and radical increases in unemployment rates. At this point, however, labor unions historically will arise to protect the rights of workers to have full employment. If a large enough union can mobilize a grassroots campaign against the government of a nation, it can easily prevent the export of economic sectors, causing entire sectors to be “protected” from outsourcing. This is known as protectionism – and it results in a country favoring domestically produced goods and services – often going so far as to place tariffs and quotas on foreign imports.

It is fair to note that protectionist policies are effective at accomplishing their chief objective – they artificially preserve the jobs they seek to protect, and insulate these workers from potential job loss. This can benefit a country domestically, as issues of joblessness and homelessness are not as rampant, despite changing technology. However, protectionist policies have the unintended consequence of harming foreign nations, by blocking or limiting the amount of goods and services that these countries can export. Organizations like the World Trade Organization exist to address the rules of international trade, and to ensure that protectionist policies remain limited, to avoid unnecessary disputes between nations. The area where protectionist policies become the most problematic is in regard to the commanding heights of the economy – large industries like coal, oil, and steel.

Finally, the globalization has had a profound impact on the development of international trade agreements. As the global market has expanded to allow more rapid trade and more international business, many nations have sought to establish freer trade agreements with each other, in the interest of bilateral economic growth. One key example of this is the formation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. This agreement “reduced barriers to commerce and business among the three nations (Weidenbaum, p. 193, Business and Government in the Global Marketplace). NAFTA was viewed by Canada and Mexico as a great achievement toward more equitable trade between themselves and the United States. When NAFTA was under debate in the United States, many conservative politicians objected to the adoption of the agreement due to potential harm to the economic stability of the U.S. economy, by allowing lower skill jobs to transition toward Mexico and forcing unionize labor to suffer. While ultimately, politicians voted in support of NAFTA, in light of recent developments, the success of this agreement is questionable. As Weidenbaum points out, “Overall, the changes resulting from more open trade are turning out to be much less than forecast by either NAFTA’s supporters or opponents” (193). Thus, even with strides being taken toward freer trade, the globalization of the market still creates difficulties for successful trade between developing nations and more prosperous countries.  

In conclusion, the globalization of the market is essentially a neutral phenomenon. There are both negative and positive consequences – but it is an inevitable result of free market capitalism. While there are certainly potential complications, through protectionist and punitive trade policies, as well as unbalanced trade between nations, there are many advantages as well. It is important to understand that, whatever fears or dreams that economists may express in regard to globalization, it has certainly benefited economic and human rights advances in developing nations. It is vital that politicians – and the general public – understand the essentials of the global market – and ensure a healthy respect and fear for the potential consequences of manipulation of the markets by national or international government agencies.

- Evan Gillespie

Copyright April 2014

The Melting Pot

Have you ever heard the analogy that the United States of America is a "melting pot" - where different cultures, religions, ethnicity, and personalities come together to create something unique and special? I've always appreciated this analogy for its simple depiction of what makes America great - our pragmatic assimilation and appreciation of the good ideas in the world. This "melting pot" approach to American society and government can be traced all the way back to the original colonies in this nation. While many were British, there was also a great deal of influence Dutch, Spanish, and French society, as well. Settlers came to have opportunity, land, and freedom from the "old country." As time went on, the predominantly Protestant Europeans also began to be diversified among different denominations, and even Catholicism and some non-Christian sects, as well. By the time America declared independence, there was already a great deal of diversity of culture, religious denomination, and ethnicity represented.

Our political philosophy also traces through centuries of thought - ranging from John Locke to Thomas Hobbes to Aristotle and even Plato.

Something else that we Americans often forget is that even our own government system is a "melting pot" of sorts - at least at its foundation. Democracy was not unique to America. The ancient Greeks actually practiced a form of pure democracy, and the Roman Republic sported a Representative Democracy, something that the USA later mimicked. Even the bicameral nature of our Congress hearkens to back to the British Parliament with a smaller, more elite upper house and a larger, more "common" lower house.

Thus, diversity in our nation is not a bad thing, at its core. However, in order for America to properly function as a melting pot there are three key conditions that must first be met:

1. There Must be Mutual Respect for Individual Rights (Libertarian's excel at this)
2. There Must be a Desire to Unite as a Nation (Democrats are good at this)
3. There Must be a Foundation of Morality & Ethics (Conservatives are good at this)

I'll tackle each of these three in turn, to explain why this is so vital the America's melting pot.

1. There Must be Mutual Respect for Individual Rights

This is perhaps the most universally touted condition, but in many ways the least understood. It is also the most "American" of the conditions. In order for there to be any hope at progressing to Condition #2, individuals must be willing to respect the rights of other individuals in their communities, states, and nation. This is at the very core of the ideology on which our nation was founded. Just because one individual makes choices another disagrees with does not necessarily mean that someone has the right to interfere. Libertarians tend to excel at depicting this condition in society. At its core, it is very Lockean because it depends a respect for an individual's Life, Liberty, and Property.

One of the weaknesses of this condition, however, is that it does very little to encourage a melting pot - in fact, it segregates society into small, confined units of individuals that have little interaction. Many times, this is the weakness in matters of civil rights and diversity because it doesn't allow the full integration and growth of a community that is all-encompassing. It works in small communities, but there is little to no national identity.

2. There Must be a Desire to Unite as a Nation

The second condition is an uncomfortable transition from the first because now there arises the problem of competing values. It depends an element of compromise in the interest of unification. Conservatives (GOP & Libertarians) hate this. Democrats thrive on this. As frustrating as this condition is for many conservatives, it is actually fairly uncontroversial at its core - and it is the very basis of representative democracy. In a society of individuals, there will be differences. In order for the society to protect Life, Liberty, and Property there must be a universally respected structure that encompasses the nation-state.

There are many different political theorists that offer different views of government, but I hold most strongly to the Social Contract view which describes government as a conceptual contract to which individuals agree to uphold, whether consciously or subconsciously. Individuals grant to government the ability to make and enforce laws, and agree to abide by laws that are created in accordance with the social contract. In the United States, the government system is Republic in which individuals elect Representatives that pass laws, make treaties, and perform the functions of government. They can tear down "unjust laws" by replacing their representatives with new ones that more accurately represent their values.

The problem with unification and Social Contracts is that there will always be dissenters. Some individuals in
a society will simply refuse to abide by the contract. Whether consciously or subconsciously, they will operate in deviance from the norm. Governments historically create police forces that control crime and deviance by punishing those that are in violation of the law. Not all views, then, can be tolerated in a united society. Thus, a nation must balance competing values in a way that provides the best protection of liberty while also remaining united.

3. There Must be a Foundation of Morality & Ethics

This is the least palatable condition in contemporary America. I list this condition last, due to its controversy, but in reality, it is the very foundation of a just society.

Allow me to explain...

John Adams, one of America's founders once wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." This is not an extreme statement. I will temporarily divorce this discussion from religious undertones (don't worry, I'll incorporate them later).
First, let's define "morality" and "ethics" before jumping to conclusions. Merriam-Webster should do fine:

Morality (n): Beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.

Ethic (n): Rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good or bad.

 Morality and ethics, at there core, are the glue that holds a society together. Without them, there is no way for a free society to function. The fundamental difficulty in any free society, though, is establishing whose morality and ethics will be followed. This problem isn't as pronounced in smaller societies. However, as any society begins to grow - whether intellectually, culturally, or geographically - the resulting plurality of beliefs and rules of behavior among the body politic begin to diversify at an alarming rate.

This is essentially why any great society - be it ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, the Catholic Church in the middle ages, the United Kingdom, and even America - all shift toward authoritarian government. There are other factors in this slide, to be sure. In fact, I could probably spend pages on the other factors, but I'll restrict myself for now. Fundamentally, though, this has been a consistent factor throughout history.

Now, the touchy subject is that I firmly believe the Judeo-Christian tradition - which is the the foundation of Western society - is the most stable and just model for an ethical and just society. Now, I'm not saying this because I am a Christian (okay, that's probably part of it) but for a few key reasons:
 - It emphasizes freedom and justice
 - It gives legitimacy to governmental authority while providing accountability.
 - It has proven the most revolutionary and successful philosophy.
 - It sees human nature as fallen and depraved - and therefore government as fallen and depraved.
Historically, the Republican Party has had the greatest impact in holding to Judeo-Christian values in society - largely a result of Reagan's ability to draw the Moral Majority into his coalition.

The great difficulty in America, however, is preserving this framework of morality and justice - despite the reality that many citizens do not hold to the basic tenants of Christianity - or even Western thought - whether through sheer ignorance or ideological differences. There are a few choices on how to approach this, ranging from forcing "Christian values" on a pluralistic society to abandoning religion-based morality to abandoning objective morality altogether. As terrifying as the third option may appear, in many ways tyrannical law is the only way to sustain a diverse population.

Unlikely Allies: Feminism and its Core in Republican Values

Many conservatives are quick to spout criticism of “feminists” and how the push modern drive for women’s rights has damaged the nation. However, in my experience, true feminists and conservative republicans really share many core beliefs, and the movement itself was rooted in a fundamental understanding of the principles upon which our nation was founded. It has certainly been corrupted in recent years, but I would argue that true feminism is a strong ally to the Republican Party, and a vital component to winning the cultural war before us today.

The Merriam Webster dictionary offers a few interesting definitions for "Feminism" that will help illustrate my primary thesis:

1: The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.

Both of these definitions offer some insight into the basis of the "feminist movement" - I would blend these definitions to something akin to the following -

"an organized activity on behalf on women's rights and interests, predicated upon the theory that women ought to be politically, economically, and socially equal to men in all respects." 

Forgetting other components of the movement, I would argue that this definition is deeply rooted in an understanding of Republican values. In fact, I will go one step further – this definition fits perfectly within a conservative Christian view of American politics.

The truth is, Christianity is, in many ways, responsible for the cultural respect for the value of women in society. There is extensive evidence that nations lacking Western traditions –deeply rooted in religious traditions – also have greater levels of human rights violations and abuse of women. I have spent time in the past describing how “Christian” the founding of America really was, but I will condense this argument, for now, to the simple statement that our founders recognized that Christian morals were vital to the nation’s survival. Even those that were personally deists or atheists, still recognized that Christian values were necessary.

John Adams once wrote that “our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” These same founding fathers argued that “all men are created equal” and that they possessed “inalienable rights” such as life, liberty, and property. This understanding of natural rights is what allowed the women’s liberation movement to take steam, as well as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s – recognizing that all of mankind possesses God-given rights. The Feminist

movement recognized the fact that there was not equality of opportunity – women did not have the same opportunity to achieve as men, and they pushed for legislation that would overcome this obstacle and allow for equal opportunity for men and women.

Yet somehow, in recent years, that same movement has entangled itself with the LGBT community, advocating less for equal status for women, and more for legislation recognizing “gender identity” – a concept that is actually detrimental the very values that represent the core of the feminist movement.

On June 26, 2014, Slate published an article on the subject of gender identity, claiming that a doctor declaring your newborn as male or female is "infant gender assignment," which causes your baby's life to be:

 ...instantly and brutally reduced from such infinite potentials down to one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes, and any behavioral deviation from that will be severely punished - both intentionally through bigotry, and unintentionally through ignorance. 

The author advocates that parents should object to a doctor "assigning" your child's gender at birth because "Infant gender assignment might just be Russian roulette with your baby's life."

Do true feminists really wish to create a society where biology is ignored in favor of a euphoric belief that one’s identity is a choice?

As the Slate article illustrates, many in today’s society feel that recognizing one’s biology has “reduced” them to “one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes.” This is diametrically opposed to feminist thought, which advocates that in order to achieve equality among the sexes, gender stereotypes must be broken down and both sexes should be allowed to pursue their own interests. Have feminists abandoned their own cause in favor of another?

Finally, while gender neutrality is more of a concept than an actual movement, it also has great potential harm for feminists in the future. Once the concept of male and female is blurred, there is very little opportunity for legislation and regulation that ensures that “women” have equal opportunities as men. If people can pick their own gender identity, how long will it be before biologically female individuals once again find themselves underrepresented?

"Tyler"

I’ll wrap up with the story of a girl named Kathryn, whose parents have made her into a key figure in the transgender movement. According to reporters, at the age of 2 she insisted she was a boy. The parents then accepted it, and allowed their “son” to change her to “Tyler.” She’s now 7 years old. The Washington Post records the evidence of how good their “son” is doing now that [s]he’s accepted the change:

“Come on! Let’s play Batman!” he screamed to my younger son, his partner in crime on a recent play date. The two boys swam together, compared Lego guys and had sword fights. Whenever the family watches television, Tyler roots for the boy characters. His home looks like a house with a son. Karate gear, soccer balls, cars, trucks and pirate swords abound. At school, he’s a boy. Plain and simple. (Washington Post)

Now, I may not completely share the same view as many modern feminists –  I do believe that there are differences between men and women both physically and emotionally. I think that there are areas that men are more suited to, and women are more suited to. In addition, in many ways, parents fail to establish how much of a gift gender is and how the differences between men and women actually compliment each other and lead to a more balanced family and society. However, I also recognize that there are exceptions - not all women fit a mold, nor do all men - there are plenty of tomboyish girls, and more feminine boys.Which is why I find it incredibly fascinating that the evidence presented for “Tyler” being a true “boy” was her interest in perceived “masculine” activities. Most of all, though, I find it disheartening that feminists would accept such a stereotype and condemn a 5 year old girl to a life as a mascot of the LGBT community simply because she dared to have interests in “masculine” activities.  

In the end, I believe that conservatives and true feminists really have a great deal of common ground on many of these issues. If these two unlikely allies can find it in their power to unite and remember our common heritage and values, there is a chance that both our goals can be reached. If there are women that truly wish to fight to allow for greater equality of opportunity and representation, they must unite with conservatives that wish to resist the trend toward gender identity and neutrality legislation which is detrimental to this very objective and to our families, and our nation at large.

"When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created." - Genesis 5:1b-2 ESV

"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." - Declaration of Independence, 1776

Hobby Lobby Win For Conservatives

Today we celebrate a huge victory for religious freedom and the pro-life movement, in this nation. This morning, the United States Supreme Court stood up for Hobby Lobby's suit against ACA's HHS mandate that employers provide abortive contraceptives to their employees.

In the majority opinion, Justice Alito describes why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act grants Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties the exemption from the mandate:

In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS's argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs. 

While the Left is in an uproar over this "step backwards" in regard to "women's reproductive health" it is important to note that this decision does not allow a complete exemption - it only allowed the exemption in

the case of the abortive contraceptives that were in dispute in the case, and it specifically applies to the organizations that were parties to the suit. Other forms of contraception and other health procedures of medication are still mandated through the far reaching ACA mandates, and there are plenty of organizations that will no doubt lack the grounds to reject the HHS mandate, due to differing circumstances,  However, this remains a huge victory for religious liberty in our nation, and specifically for the pro life movement. This is even more evident when coupled with the previous decision regarding buffer zones around abortion clinics - which granted permission for pro-life activists to council women away from abortion, while they were on their way to abort their children at Planned Parenthood clinics. The massive 35 foot buffer zone that had been regulated was struck down in favor of a much smaller zone.

While these two victories are small in scope, they represent great potential for future momentum. While there are many cases of defeat and loss in our nation as we struggle to undue the downward spiral in our nation's political, economic, and religious preservation, these victories allow us time to remember that our nation still allows for the redress of grievances against severe violations government overreach. Let's be thankful for the small victories we do receive and push forward to effect more substantial change so that we can restore our nation's religious and economic freedoms once again.