The reality is that the future is going to require us to make hard choices. This was made evident during the COVID vaccinations where the government sought to make it near impossible to exist in society without being vaccinated. This reality was more visible based on where one lived, as liberal states enacted more measures to make the lives of the unvaccinated difficult -- such as the vaccine mandate for city workers. And if it wasn’t for the Supreme Court of the United States, private employers would be required to have their workers get vaccinated or otherwise face a penalty.
But this example is only the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface is a shift in norms that have been at the core of our nation's identity and have created the liberal democracy we live in today. By liberal democracy, I don’t mean the ideology espoused by Democrats. Liberal comes from the Latin word libertas, meaning free. By liberal democracy, I am referring to the broader concept of modern-day democracy of equality under the law, where our leaders are elected through free and fair elections and the government’s power is defined by a constitution.
For Americans, we were fortunate to have the founders of our constitution enshrine a Bill of Rights for the protection of enumerated liberties and rights. Among this was the vaulted and esteemed first amendment. Noble in its aspiration, the first amendment was too unwieldy to turn into a pragmatic policy. Courts have recognized this, seeking to carve out a sensible legal framework for how to treat the core freedoms of the first amendment: freedom of speech, assembly, and religion.
In a fallen world, there were bound to be hiccups along the way and incorrect decisions. Nevertheless, despite the human error, it was clear that our courts -- particularly the Supreme Court -- valued the free exchange of ideas, and saw this belief as a noble virtue necessary for a functioning democracy and as a necessary predicate for the advancement of the ideas enshrined in the declaration of independence -- right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Religion was also seen as deserving the utmost protection, as courts respected the boundaries between conscience and obligation. This was generally the consensus among the legal community and Americans from across both sides of the political aisles.
As our nation progressed, these ideals were married together, albeit in a somewhat schizophrenic dance. And it was the almost canonization of these ideals that led to a liberty that few in the span of the entire earth have come to enjoy. For those living in the United States, we’ve largely taken them for granted. We’ve taken for granted that we can meet every Sunday in a chapel without being molested, harassed, or even arrested for the practicing of our belief. We’ve taken it for granted that we could work alongside others with whom we disagree, but with whom we could put those differences aside for a common goal and work towards achieve laudable ends.
The Decline
Yet, this thread that has held us tightly is beginning to unravel. Prior to this period, those who shared different viewpoints could peacefully coexist without much violence or conflict. But these times of peace are changing and those who are paying attention can see it.
In the words of Bob Dylan, the times are a-changing.
Recently a hockey player for the Philadelphia Flyers (Ivan Provorov) has been at the center of controversy for refusing to wear a Pride jersey warm up citing his religious belief about marriage and LGBTQ issues. Many complained that he wasn’t benched and some sports pundits demanded that the NHL fine the Flyers for Ivan conduct. It’s worthwhile to point out that Ivan was not being criticized for his comments, but because he refused to wear a Pride jersey.
Besides this, conservative and classically liberal minded professors who value the principles of the Enlightenment -- i.e., free speech and free exchange of ideas buttressed by reason, evidence, and robust debate -- run the risk of losing their job for expressing views counter to or critiquing the progressive orthodoxy espoused in universities, and many have been axed -- or preemptively resigned as a response. Bret Weinstein, Peter Boghossian, Joshua Katz, and others have become collateral damage to the appetite of the offended.
28 years ago the The Family Proclamation was declared. Although the public sentiment regarding the family began to deviate from traditional values, the belief that marriage was exclusively between man and woman was largely undisputed. One year later the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, codifying into federal law that marriage was between a man and women. That was 1996.
Today if you espouse the views contained in the Proclamation you are a bigot and fit for public opprobrium.
This perhaps explains why nearly two-thirds of Americans say they have political views they’re afraid to share according to a national survey by the Cato institute. This share of Americans, moreover, has raised by several points since 2017 when 58% reported this.
In 1990s around .1% of the population identified as transgender. Today it is 3-5%. Moreover, 5.1% of adults under 25 are likely to identify as trans, compared to .5% from 25-29. The gulf is widening.
If you are in academia and you critique this practice, you are marked, targeted, and censored. For the rest -- especially parents -- then you are castigated for not being loving and accepting, while, unbeknownst to you, the state will step in as loco parentis, and make the decisions for you. School administrators, steeped in progressive ideology, will make sure to tell you child who their gender really is and have no qualms about hiding it from you.
The Academy of Pediatrics now says that 9 year-olds are mature enough to consent to puberty blockers (Lupron) which carries serious health consequences and will, if persisted, lead to cross-sex hormone treatment 90% of the time. According to the head of Boston Children’s hospital, puberty blockers are given out “like candy” to children.
The Truth Is Now Unpopular
Recently, the Church of England departed from Christianity's’ orthodox position on same-sex marriage.
In light of this, Alexander Pope’s remarks about humanity's tendency to embrace evil hits a strong chord:
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
A recent Rasmussen poll found that a very thin majority of Black Americans agreed with the statement “It’s okay to be White.” This suggests there is a large segment of Black Americans who view being white as a problem. Van Jones, a CNN commentator, said that white people have a “virus” in their brain that causes them to act violently and irrationally. His comments are sadly not an outlier as other Black pundits and scholars are voiced similar views.
The Biden Administration issued an Executive Order requiring that every major federal department and agency must establish Agency Equity Teams within 30 days. This may sound benign, but it will lead to favoring groups over others based on race and their LGBT status. Those who don’t fit into this category (e.g., whites, white conservatives, conservatives) will be treated as second class.
Fortunately, this Order could be defunded through Congressional efforts or even struck down on Constitutional grounds, but the tea leaves are there. If not this administration, then the next. Eventually these plans will be accomplished when those who so desire, gain enough political power and clout to implement their plans without obstruction.
Institutions At Risk
Although the Supreme Court of the United States is an obstacle in the way of radicals, it will not always serve as a bulwark to the slow march of progressive ideology infecting out out legal institution. Justices die and can be replaced and new seats can be added on the Supreme Court.
Law schools are already churning out woke ideologues. The American Bar Association requires all law schools to educate students on “on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism.” That education must include an ethics course that informs students of their duty to "work to eliminate racism. Some of these upcoming graduates will be our future judges shaping the law and others will be ill prepared for the demands and rigor of legal practice due to preferential admissions.
A recent decision by the Washington Supreme Court portends to the future of the law in America. In an automobile accident case, the plaintiff, a black woman, sued the defendant seeking for 3.5 million for the defendant rear-ending the plaintiff. At trial, the defendant’s lawyers pointed to the plaintiff’s behavior which they described as “combative.” Jury awarded the plaintiff only $9,200. Plaintiff appealed arguing that the defense's biased statements had “influenced the jury’s unconscious bias.” By “unconscious bias,” The plaintiff was referring to racial negative stereotypes about black women that caused the jury to view the plaintiff in a negative way.
In its opinion, the Washington Court agreed with the plaintiff, stating that by calling the plaintiff “combative” the defense “evoked "the harmful stereotype of an 'angry Black woman.'" The court held that when a litigant claims racial bias affected a trial verdict, the opposing party “must prove how it did not.” The court presumes that racial bias occurs and it's up to the opposing party to provide otherwise. In other words, the deck is stacked against the opposing party to prove a negative -- which is practically impossible. It’s also no surprise that the justice who wrote the opinion quoted from critical race theorists throughout her opinion as support for her holding.
Medical schools are no different. In the race to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, Medical schools will not only produce ill-qualified doctors who will lower the standard and quality of care, but we shouldn’t be surprised when hospitals start prioritizing treatment based on race, not need. And this is not a tin-foil hat conspiracy, as we saw this during COVID where, even in Utah, racial groups were given first priority in receiving vaccinations and other COVID related treatments. As pointed out by Aaron Sibarium, Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services endorsed this scheme and Utah’s race-preference system, which gave “Latinx ethnicity” priority over congestive heart failure, as a "promising practice" for other states to consider.
The FDA allocated life-saving COVID drugs based on race and in some cases affording “no-white race” more weight than hypertension, heart failure, or chronic lung-disease. In line with the FDA's policy, some of the private hospitals gave race more weight than diabetes, obesity, asthma, and hypertension combined in its allocation scheme for COVID treatments.
In fact, COVID revealed what the government is willing and able to do when it comes to limiting our freedoms. Create a pretense of emergency and pump out misinformation (and label truth misinformation) and viola! you have propaganda fed to the populace who surrender their liberties in turn.
Outside of race-based preference for health treatment, San Francisco is piloting a universal income initiative that excludes whites. And California lawmakers set aside 35 million to give for universal income that is “centered in equity.”
Adding to this is the glaring problem that our democratic institutions have increasingly shifted their power to nondemocratic institutions -- i.e., courts, the military, central banks, and regulatory agencies. As those become captured by progressive ideology, then it will spread and be enforced with fines and penalties, making the Biden Executive Order all the more significant. The power of the Federal government is immense. We haven’t noticed it fully because for a long time the government’s values aligned with ours.
As The Hour Hand Passes
Norms are being broken down, with division and contention on the rise. Each passing movement of the hour hand accompanies the slow and steady deviance of society who has embraced the vice over virtue and is moving away from the ideals that created prosperity, creating a further chasm in values.
And within this, we must decide which place to stand.
The future, then, will inevitably result in making hard choices.
The question is whether we’ll find the price worth the cost.