"2024 GOP Platform - Some Thoughts"

 Biden has decided to drop out of the Presidential race. The Washington Post called it a “stunning decision,” but for most observers it was expected. Now, with the attempted assassination last week of former President Trump, the race, as Alice would say, “gets curiouser and curiouser.”

………………………………………..

 

This essay comes at the suggestion of a friend. At almost 1500 words, it is 20% longer than most of my TOTDs. Perhaps, as Mark Twain would have suggested, it just required more time on my part. At any rate, I found it a good exercise – to read the Platform, some of the convention speeches, peruse comments from columnists, and just to reflect on all that has transpired over the past couple of weeks. Attached you will find the 15-page GOP Platform.

 

You may find mistakes or disagreements in my analysis. Please accept that my opinions overlay my analysis.

 

Best regards, Sydney

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“2024 GOP Platform – Some Thoughts”

July 22, 2024

 

“The American people have proven time and again that we

can overcome any obstacle and any force pitted against us.”

                                                                                                                2024 GOP Platform

                                                                                                                Adopted by RNC July 15, 2024

 

The Platform, predictably bland and clichéd but positive in tone, carries the title “Make America Great Again.” It is an expression of both traditional conservativism and conservative populism. It is dedicated “To the Forgotten Men and Women of America,” those made famous by Hillary Clinton’s term “deplorables.” The dedication reflects the new base of the Republican Party, not the coastal elites who in places like Connecticut a couple of generations ago dominated the Party. Today’s Republican Party is more representative of America’s middle class – working men and women, of every race, nationality, and religion. The Platform’s preamble is titled “America First: Return to Common Sense,” an expression of nationalism and a reference to judgement based on practical observations and universally accepted facts.

 

A political party’s platform must be generic, as it must appeal a large swath of voters. There are, approximately, 162 million registered voters in The United States. According to an April 2024 study by Pew Research Center, registration is about equally divided between Democrats and those who lean Democratic (49%) and Republicans and those who lean Republican (48%). Keep in mind, America is noted for its individualism, citizens who, historically, have not marched to assigned drummers. Republicans, especially, tend to be free-thinkers, more difficult to lasso and corral.

 

The over-arching tone of the Republican Platform is “America first,” as regards trade and the border, and a return to common sense, as regards manufacturing, the border, energy independence, military strength, and equal treatment of all under the law. This analysis does not pretend to be complete, but among its subjects, the document addresses the economy, defense/national security, education, culture and size of government.

 

• The Platform recommends energy independence, reducing regulation, and making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, while imposing tariffs on some imported goods. Without providing solutions, the document reflects inherent contradictions between free markets of traditional conservatives – Jospeh Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction – and economic populism, the protection of jobs, industries and communities affected by globalization and changes in technology. Finding the balance between these competing forces will be the job of Congress, through debate and discussion. In his speech following acceptance of the GOP nomination, Donald Trump spoke of the need for improvements in education to help people become more competitive in today’s dynamic economy, i.e. a focus on community colleges. The document encourages innovation in emerging industries, such as Crypto, Artificial Intelligence and Space. It argues for the reduction of interest rates, without explaining whether that will be a function of government or markets. And it promises to do away with taxes on tips.

 

• It calls for ‘Peace through Strength,’ re-building the military to counter China, and to ensure that our military remains “the most modern, lethal and powerful force in the world.” It calls for building an Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield to cover the United States, but at what cost it leaves unsaid. It advocates securing our border against illegal immigration, strengthening alliances (including NATO), and championing “strong, sovereign, and independent nations in the Indo-Pacific…” Echoing President Obama in November 2011, the Platform calls for a pivot to Asia. But little was said of current, explicit threats from China, Russia and Iran.

 

• In terms of education, the Platform call for an environment “free from political meddling” and the restoration of parental rights. It supports school choice, and encourages merit pay for teachers in place of tenure. It advocates overhauling standards on school discipline, including the suspension of violent students. It ensures students are taught fundamentals like reading, math, science, history, civics, and the “restoration of a classical liberal arts education.” The Platform notes that the U.S. spends more per pupil than any other country in the world, yet results have been mediocre. It suggests the Department of Education in Washington be shut down, and return responsibility for education to the states. 

 

• As for culture, the document promotes the “sanctity of marriage, the blessings of childhood and the foundational role of families…” While the document says abortion rights belong with the states, it opposes late term abortions but supports mothers and policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control and IVF. The Platform would keep biological men from participating in women’s sports, and it would stop taxpayer-funded schools from promoting gender transition and taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries. Parents’ rights include knowledge of their children’s attitudes toward a possible sex change. It calls for the cutting of federal funding for sanctuary jurisdictions that release criminals onto the streets, and it would require that local authorities cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). It promises to deport illegal aliens who have violated our laws. 

 

• The Platform quotes Mr. Trump in his promise not to “cut one penny” from Medicare or Social Security: “Republicans will restore economic stability to ensure long-term sustainability of Social Security.” “Republicans will protect Medicare’s finances from being financially crushed by the Democrats plan to add tens of millions of new illegal immigrants to the roles of Medicare.” Nothing was said about the enormous deficits both plans generate. However, there is a promise to slash “wasteful” government spending, and to reinstate President Trump’s deregulation policies from his first term, “which,” the Platform claimswithout providing proof, “saved Americans $11,000 per household.” 

 

The Platform reflects a changed Republican Party, something that has been underway for a long time. It has become what Peggy Noonan recently described in The Wall Street Journal: “a populist, working-class, nationalist party.” It is a Party that puts less emphasis on living within our means and on free-market economics and reflects more of what George W. Bush in 2000 called “compassionate conservativism.” Columbia professor of economics Glenn Hubbard described the differences in last Friday’s The Wall Street Journal: “Conservative economic policy traditionally has emphasized the openness of markets and growth. By contrast, the populist conservative ideas under discussion at the Republican National Convention focus on people and places hard hit by the disruption that accompanies openness and growth.” Finding the balance is what democracy is about.

 

The concern of free-market capitalism is understandable, as the United States has out-sourced much of its manufacturing to places where labor costs are less. While that has harmed labor in the U.S. with the disappearance of manufacturing jobs, consumers have benefitted from lower prices. An imposition of tariffs, to limit imports, will cause affected countries to retaliate with their own tariffs, which will limit exports and possibly cause a global recession. But the Platform recognizes innovation, which reflects an understanding that economies are dynamic, that change is constant, that old industries die and new ones are formed. As mentioned above, Mr. Trump, in his speech to delegates, did talk of the need to improve education, saying that individuals should “raise their expectations.” Nevertheless, there is no perfect way to protect all people from changing economic conditions. An open border is distinctly not in our interest, and closing the border is not xenophobic when accompanied by increasing the number of legal immigrants. Unfortunately, while immigration reform was mentioned, increasing legal immigration was not mentioned. 

 

As for the Platform and the Republican nominee, Nikki Haley spoke for many of us in her Convention speech: “We should acknowledge that there are some Americans who don’t agree with Donald Trump 100% of the time. I happen to know some of them. My message to them is simple: You don’t have to agree with Trump 100% of the time to vote for him. We agree on keeping America strong. We agree on keeping America safe. And we agree that Democrats have moved so far to the left that they’re putting our freedoms in danger. I’m here tonight because we have a country to save and a unified Republican Party is essential for saving her.” I want to close with words Mr. Trump expressed in his acceptance speech, because they echo my beliefs, and they suggest a more sober and reflective man: “None of us know God’s plan, or where life’s adventure will take us. But if the events of last Saturday make anything clear, it is that every single moment we have on earth is a gift from God. We have to make the most of every day for the people and the country we love.”

 

This essay reflects my understanding of the Republican Platform, which may be fallible. I don’t agree with all parts of it, but that is understandable. We are a large and diverse country with millions of individual opinions funneled into two political parties. We never vote for the perfect candidate but for the one that most closely mirrors our beliefs and ideals.

"Why Can't We Talk?"

                                                                 Sydney M. Williams 

Thought of the Day

“Why Can’t We Talk?”

December 4, 2021

 

“It is better to debate a question without settling it

than to settle a question without debating it.”

                                                                                                                Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

                                                                                                                French moralist & Essayist

                                                                                                                Recuil des Pensées, 1838

                                                                                                                published posthumously

 

Ambrose Bierce, in his 1906 The Devil’s Dictionary, provided two definition of the transitive verb “Defame:” 1) “To lie about another.” 2) “To tell the truth about another.” People of myriad cultural backgrounds have long had difficulty communicating, as Rudyard Kipling expressed in the first two lines of his 1889 poem “The Ballad of the East and West:”

 

“Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great judgement Seat;”

 

Most politicians do not communicate honestly. They promise one thing while campaigning and promote another when governing. Speaking before the 2004 Democratic National Committee, Barack Obama embraced unity: “There is not a black America, a white America, a Latino America, an Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” But four years later when he became President, he chose discord over unity. In the words of Jason Riley, writing in last Wednesday’s The Wall Street Journal: “…he started talking about racist policing and black voter suppression, and he embraced divisive racial provocateurs... All the colorblind talk went out the window.” Mr. Obama is not alone. Politicians on both sides have long campaigned on the promise of unity and then ruled with a “divide to conquer” strategy. 

 

We are sorted by identity into “hot issue” buckets, like race, gender, immigration, climate and abortion. For example, if one does not agree with the preferred woke policy prescriptions of President Biden, one is a racist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, a denier or a sexist. Case closed, no room or time for debate. Social media companies, instead of being impartial arbiters permitting the free exchange of ideas have closed Twitter accounts of conservative “deplorables” and declared opinions contrary to what is currently “woke” to be “harmful” or “hurtful.” Given their political leanings, this has meant that conservative speech is shut down. The same thing is true on college campuses where speeches by conservatives are cancelled.

 

I was reminded of Bierce’s definition of “Defame” when reading an op-ed last week by Greg Sargent of The Washington Post. Mr. Sargent sees risk to our democracy coming from the right; I see it coming from the left. The truth is that despotism can come from either the left or the right, as we know from history: Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany and more recent examples in North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. It is extremism, regardless of whether right or left, that should concern us. And we should never forget that a failure to freely exchange ideas abets extremism. 

 

But perhaps things are not so bad as I fear. Over the 232 years since George Washington was elected our first President, the United States has been tried several times: On August 24^th, 1814, the British burned the White House. During the years 1861-1865, the United States fought a Civil War that left about 700,000 dead, when the country was less than 10% of its size today. We have suffered economic collapses, including a decade of depression in the 1930s. We have lived through periods of violent racial and religious prejudices. American soldiers have gone overseas to fight (and die) for freedom in at least eight wars. We were attacked on our homeland on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists. Yet, the United States has always rallied when down. As Churchill observed, in a backhanded compliment: “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.” How long will it take for politicians now – when governing, not campaigning – to admit that we are Americans first, rich or poor, black or white, female or male, believer or non-believer. Will they speak without hyperbole? Will they be tolerant or patronizing? In the third and fourth line of Kipling’s opening stanza in the poem quoted above he offers hope based on mutual respect:

 

“But there is neither East nor West, Border nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth.”

 

But that is not us today. There is no mutual respect. We are more politically divided than at any time I can recall in my eighty-plus years. And what discourse we have is too often uncivil. Either you are with me, or you are against me, to borrow a phrase from George W. Bush. We cannot agree on problems that should be easy to resolve. For example, no nation can exist without borders, yet we cannot agree on how to handle the thousands of illegal immigrants who daily cross our southern border? The earth’s temperature is changing, yet the subject has become so politicized that reasonable people cannot discuss adaption, or man-made versus natural causes. COVID-19 has been ravishing our country and the world for almost two years, yet debate is not allowed as to its origin or even its science. The Constitution gives the right (and duty) to vote to all American citizens (who are not felons) above the age of 18. Proof of age, address and citizenship should be all that is required. Why should that be so difficult to implement? Inflation has become ubiquitous, but one side says pass the $1.8 to $5 trillion Build Back Better bill and inflation will recede. The other side says inflation is a function of deficit spending paid for by monetary expansion. Is not that something we should be able to discuss? One side claims racism is endemic in our white-supremacist nation. The other says that to treat blacks as needing special attention is condescending. Are we only to listen to one side? Do we only hear what we want to hear? The economy has been recovering for over a year, since 2020’s second quarter debacle; yet pessimism permeates the country, as can be seen in birthrates below replacement. Why? Francis Fukuyama famously declared “the end of history,” with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and victory for a democratic, liberal West. Now, thirty-two years later, Russia is in ascendancy, China is militarily expanding in the Pacific and interning its Uighur citizens, while the West questions its foundations of individual freedom and free-market capitalism. History is storming back.   

 

Extremism on social media platform gets thousands of “likes.” Extremism sells books, newspapers and cable news. Yet most Americans, I am convinced, are moderate in their politics, leaning slightly left or slightly right. Most are patriots who love their country and who want to live peacefully. Most admire the success the United States has had over its almost 250 years of existence, and most recognize what a marvel the Founders created. They know we are the envy of the world. Our nation is not perfect, but that was something the Founders also knew – they created a “more perfect union.” In Philadelphia, the Founders had different agendas and represented different parts of the country. If they had been unwilling to debate, where would we be today? We will never agree on all issues, nor should we. However, as Joseph Joubert stated in the rubric that heads this essay, we must be willing to debate all issues. Why can’t we talk? 

"The Liberal World Order - At Risk?"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“The Liberal World Order – At Risk?”

June 20, 2019

“Where is the life we have lost in living?

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?”

                                                                                                T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)

                                                                                                Choruses from the Rock, 1934

The liberal world order grew from the ashes of World War II, a war that killed almost four percent of the world’s population – that is one out of every twenty-five people. Look at your town, city, street or apartment building and consider the human cost! It is no surprise that Western leaders wanted to ensure that no such atrocity happened again. It was the United States that exited the War in a position of global strength, and thus became the guarantor of security and the principal provider of funds necessary to rebuild both its allies and its enemies. The U.S., in 1945 had about 50% of the world’s wealth, with only 6.5% of its population. Militarily, the U.S. was peerless and, until 1949, the only country with an Atomic weapon.

The liberal order was committed to democratic ideals and the free movements of goods and people. It was organized around nation states. The result has been seventy years of unprecedented prosperity. And, while genocides in subsequent years were experienced in Cambodia and Rwanda, Europe and Japan remained at peace. To help enforce that liberal order, supranational organizations were built, like the United Nations, NATO and the World Bank. However, because of transnational governance, those institutions threatened to override the laws of the sovereign states they were charged to uphold. As well, the impulse to impose progressive norms on all nations was a natural consequence of these organizations. They interfered with internal affairs, when autocracies threatened, and they spread progressive ideas, without regard to a country’s customs and traditions. As well, well-intentioned Presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush wanted to transform autocratic regimes into democratic ones, with the former’s National Endowment for Democracy and the latter’s “freedom agenda” – a task that proved insurmountable.   

As early as February 1948, George Kennan said we must avoid “sentimentality” and deal in “straight power concepts” – a role played by the United States’ military, which was not always welcomed. In the same memo, Mr. Kennan was emphatically realistic: “We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization.” Yet the reach of humanitarian groups within the United Nations has expanded: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nation Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the United Nations Economic and Social Council, the United Nations Department of Global Communications, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and UNICEF. These NGOs employ tens of thousands of people, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, with the U.S. being the principal benefactor. While purporting to further the “liberal order,” they, in fact, undermine it, at least according to the dictates of Mr. Kennan. Brock Chisholm, a Canadian and first Director- General of the World Health Organization and who died in 1971 was blunt: “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas” – an Orwellian concept, the beginnings of which we see in Brussels today and in the words and deeds of those who put supranational organizations and treaties above the nation state.

Things change. The world today is different from the one in 1945. The Soviet Union recovered and fell. China rose. Theocracy appeared in Iran, which then became an exporter of terror, as did its neighbor Iraq. The 1970s oil embargo strengthened OPEC and enriched the elite in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia and other oil-rich nations. North Korea became an aggressor. Climate change became politicized. Today the United Nations Human Rights Council includes such non-democratic nations as Cuba, Afghanistan, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A re-energized Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine. China’s attempt at reform was set back by an autocratic Xi Jinping. On a relative basis, the United States position in the world declined. Today, with 4.4% of the world’s population, the U.S. produces 24% of the world’s GDP. Non-state terrorism, under the guise of Islamism, became a major threat, while nations like Iran and North Korea, footnotes in 1945, threaten the world with exported terrorism and are aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. A resurgent Russia and China offer economic and societal alternatives to developing nations, from a West that has vacated its moral framework.

We are told by progressives that populism, nationalism and authoritarianism threaten the “liberal order” from within, while powers like Russia, China and Iran contest its hegemony and legitimacy Dartmouth professors Jennifer Lind and William Wohlforth wrote last January in Foreign Affairs: “Instead of expanding it to new places and new domains, the United States and its partners should consolidate the gains the order has reaped.” In a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, a few days before Donald Trump was sworn in as President, Vice President Joe Biden warned: “The liberal international world order is at risk of collapse.” His words were aimed at Russia and at the social instability he claimed was caused by the top one percent not paying their fair share of taxes. But there are other causes. A recent survey, taken by the Center for American Progress and quoted by David Brooks in a recent New York Timesop-ed, suggested that Americans care most about terrorism and illegal immigration. What they care least about is promoting democracy. Mr. Brooks believes the U.S. is “withdrawing from the world.” I am not so sure. It is my sense we are re-ordering priorities after spending too much time on what George Kennan called “sentimentality and day-dreaming,” and not enough time on jobs and security.

The world changes, but the needs for order and freedom, remain. In World Order, Henry Kissinger wrote: “Order and freedom, sometimes described as opposite poles on the spectrum of experience, should instead be understood as interdependent.” We live in an information age, with the amount of data growing exponentially. We have an accumulated knowledge that exceeds our ability to consume and digest. But, have we gained wisdom? Listening to our politicians and pundits, one could only answer in the negative. Whatever direction our foreign policy goes, not all will be satisfied. But we should have one goal – the avoidance of nuclear devastation. There are those who recommend restraint and, while that sounds reasonable, restraint without a moral framework will not do the job – and it will not do the job unless one is militarily strong. We in the West, with our Judeo-Christian heritage and our traditions of families, churches and schools, should have the right moral impulse. A problem with globalism is it leads to multiculturalism and an absence of moral certitude. We do not have all the answers and are not always right, but thus far no other culture comes close to ours in terms of moral rectitude. Margaret Thatcher once wrote: “There is little hope for democracy if the hearts of men and women in democratic societies cannot be touched by a call to something greater than themselves.”  Morality is not, as some globalists would have one believe, relative. It is absolute. There is good and there is evil. To prevail, we must remain militarily and morally strong. 

Later, in “Choruses from the Rock,”T.S. Eliot goes on:

“The world turns and the world changes,

But one thing does not change.

In all my years, one thing does not change,

However you disguise it, this thing does not change:

The perpetual struggle of Good and Evil.”

Eliot is lamenting a world that has forsaken religion, first for Reason and then for money and power. The liberal world order was always an ideal. Though it worked well for Europe, it has separated from its moral anchor. Roger Scruton in Conservativism wrote, “…political communities, democracies included, are held together by something stronger than politics. There is a ‘first person plural,’ a pre-political loyalty, which causes neighbors who voted in opposing ways to treat each other as fellow citizens, for whom the government is not ‘mine’ or ‘yours,’ but ‘ours,’ whether we approve of it or not.” The liberal world order bemoaned by Vice President Biden is not possible unless Western Nations recognize the moral turpitude of practices that promote incivility and elevate identity politics over unity. We must remember that in the U.S., we are Americans; in Germany, Germans; in Italy, Italians; in Poland, Polish, etc. We have rights that must be honored. We have traditions that must be maintained. We have communities into which all, including immigrants, must be integrated. As for immigrants, the onus is on them to adapt to the standards and customs of the country to which they have emigrated. It cannot be otherwise. Within a nation, we cannot live segregated lives. We have laws that, until they are changed by the legislative process, must be obeyed. Personal responsibility and accountability are fundamental. Together, these elements create the foundation on which all else stands. It is the only way a civil society can persevere. It is the only way a liberal world order can prevail. 

            

"Government, Compassion & Charity"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Government, Compassion & Charity”

January 15, 2018

“Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see.”

                                                                                                            Mark Twain (1835-1910)

Year-end is when requests arrive to support myriad causes. Some are of no interest or are fraudulent, but most are from organizations we want to help. Most of us have to make decisions, as our pockets are not bottomless. Nevertheless, the exercise is cathartic and feelings of altruism add to a sense of well-being.

For more than eighty years, safety nets have been a structural part of federal budgets. Now, they dominate spending. According to Pew Research, entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veteran’s benefits, unemployment compensation, etc., accounted for 67% of 2016’s $4 trillion budget. We are a compassionate people, and politicians are especially so when it comes to other-people’s money. The dispensing of largesse is a popular way to win votes, and nobody is more expert at this than Washington politicians. But, as Margaret Thatcher once warned, we risk running out of “other-people’s” money. Removing the cookie jar (or making it more difficult to access) – what adults must do – is unpopular. Those who have grown dependent on government – and millions have – lend credence to a modern-day interpretation of that post-World War I song: “How Ya Gonna Keep ‘em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree?)” It is right to be compassionate. It is not charitable to foster dependency.

President George W. Bush once said, “I call my philosophy and approach compassionate conservativism. It is compassionate to actively help our fellow citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on responsibility and results.” The first part of Mr. Bush’s explanation is agreed to by all. The second is ignored.

What happens when compassion becomes charity? Government should mirror its people. But it is devoid of feeling. Its purpose and responsibility is to create, administer and adjudicate laws, ensure the rights and property of its citizens, provide defense against enemies at home and abroad, and to ease commerce via treaties and through the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, and ports. It should provide youth a basic education. It should ensure a safety net under those who because of age or infirmity are unable to care for themselves. Compassion is healthy, as it reflects the people, but federal deficits, a crumbling infrastructure and a depleted military suggest politically-motivated hearts are bigger than fiscally-responsible heads. Charity is distinct, and best left to individuals and to private, non-profit organizations.

This is not to be critical of Mr. Bush. His post-Presidency has shown him to be a decent, empathetic man, especially in his treatment of soldiers wounded in wars to which he committed them. I look at his book, Portraits of Courage, and marvel at how he captured despair and bravery, sadness and joy, grief and relief. He wrote in his introduction: “I painted these men and women as a way to honor their service to the country and to show my respect for their sacrifice and courage.” What greater devotion to his country can a former President express?

There are those who argue we are a nation of equals, and we are, before the law and in our rights as citizens. But that notion becomes convoluted by those who feel compassion requires outcomes to be equal, despite inherent and unalterable differences. We have myriad talents and aspirations. Some are more intelligent, more dedicated, with greater ambitions. Some more athletic, and others willing to work smarter and harder. A few are born with limited skills and opportunities. A free society allows people to achieve what they can, within the law and with deference to civil behavior. A compassionate society ensures that those unable to care for themselves will not be forsaken. But we should not encourage recipients of government largesse to become dependent. Throughout history, inequality becomes exaggerated during times of rapid innovation, as happened during the industrial revolution and as is happening now, with innovative new technologies. However, over time, these “creatively destructive” changes benefit all society. In the U.S., we partially compensate for different outcomes through the provision of services to aid the needy, aged, infirm, and those born with conditions that prevent the realization of dreams. We fund those costs with an income tax that is the most progressive in the world. But, we are not the same, nor can we ever be.

At his son’s graduation from the 9^th grade at Cardigan Mountain School in New Hampshire last June, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke: “From time to time, in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly, so that you will come to know the value of justice…I wish you bad luck, again from time to time, so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life, and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.” Roberts words might have been taken from the Gospel according to Luke: “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” He was right about justice and the role luck plays in our lives.

He was speaking to a people who are the most magnanimous on earth – not because of government entitlement programs, but because of the nature of its people. As a percent of national income, no nation comes close to the U.S. in the generosity of its citizens. According to the IRS, Americans gave away $373 billion in 2016, to 1.5 million registered non-profits. That amount does not include hundreds of millions in cash contributions that millions give to the homeless on city streets, or the millions placed in collection plates in houses of worship. It does not include the hundreds of millions of dollars in non-itemized donations. It does not include volunteerism, Kickstarter, or Go-Fund-Me. According to the latter’s web site, $5 billion has been raised in contributions from 50 million people. Other countries have more lavish welfare programs, but our citizens’ generosity is unique in the annals of nations. We take pride in self-sufficiency, and we recognize the dignity that is attributed to work and the independence that self-sufficiency brings. Nevertheless, in a world tilting toward selfies, the Chief Justice’s wisdom was refreshing.

A Chinese proverb that has pertinence says: “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.”  We cannot feed all in the world who are hungry. We cannot provide sanctuary for all who have been forced to emigrate. We cannot protect every person against the ravages of nature, or the bestiality of mankind. We cannot protect every forest, river and stream, nor clean up every ocean and pond. Like individuals, options must be weighed. We can help educate people. We can show the advantages of democracy and liberty through the example of our lives and our government – of how freedom, which can never be taken for granted, is illusive and worth defending. We can call out those who repress their citizens, and support those who revolt against tyranny. But we must acknowledge that behind the empathy we offer is a free people and the free-market capitalism that allows us to be charitable. We should be compassionate, but we must measure economic costs, less we become a nation and people in need.

The Left must understand that charity is individually driven, and that making people dependent is not charity. The Right must recognize that government reflects the compassion of its citizens. Both sides must realize the necessity for economic growth. Both must know where compassion ends and charity begins. In 1 Corinthians, in the King James version, the Apostle Paul speaks: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” He wasn’t addressing the Roman Senate (or the U.S. Congress); he was speaking to the people.

.