In the runup to Tuesday’s midterm elections, I’ve been asked repeatedly why so many Americans plan to vote for candidates who oppose the president’s agenda when, by pretty much any objective measure, America is safer, richer, and freer than it was when he took office. It’s a good question.
America is safer.
On the international front, the past two years have been relatively quiet in terms of flareups in “hotspots” of conflict where American interests are involved; America’s borders have become significantly less porous; and America is less dependent upon foreign sources of energy.
And on the home front, there have been no mass pardons/commutations/releases of felons back onto our streets; foreign felons on our streets illegally have been systematically rounded up; and we haven’t had anti-police rioters burning American cities.
America is richer.
Federal taxes are lower, putting more dollars in the pockets of American workers and employers, and many employers have used those extra dollars to grow. America’s trade deals are fairer to American innovators, employers, and workers. Unemployment is at historic lows — particularly among demographic groups whom the previous president spent eight years ostensibly, yet unsuccessfully, trying to “help” — and both GDP and wages are growing again. (Yes, federal spending and our resultant national debt remain far too high, but the president at least acknowledges the need to turn these tides while few among his opponents can credibly claim to have been bothered by them heretofore.)
And America is freer.
Two new justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court, each one committed to honoring the original intent of the Framers of our Constitution (who, having recently freed themselves from the yolk of an oppressive government, sought to limit the size and scope of the one which they established in its place). In addition, federal regulations have been cut significantly, making American businesses more competitive and giving individual Americans more freedom to make their own decisions about such things as education, self-defense, and healthcare.
So why is there so much “resistance” to the track on which President Trump has put our nation? In answering this question, it’s helpful to sort “resisters” into three groups: the “free riders,” the “ill-informed/easily-influenced,” and the “avowed socialists/statists.”
The “free riders” are taking more out of our society than they’re putting into it, so, materially at least, they’re threatened by the expectation that they do all they can for themselves before turning to their fellow Americans.
They don’t want to take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions/inactions, and if collective responsibility is inversely proportional to personal liberty/choice — which it necessarily is — they’re okay with that (consistent with their entitlement mindset, they plan to just ignore, or find ways to circumvent, any restrictions that they don’t like anyway).
Interestingly though, while “free riders” may have the most tangibly to gain, they’re actually the least likely to bother to vote.
The “ill-informed/easily-influenced” actually believe what they’ve been told about the president for years now by “journalists,” politicians, “academics,” and entertainers — that he’s a “racist,” a “homophobe,” a “climate arsonist,” a “misogynist,” etc.
They don’t know, nor do they care to learn, that the past two years have been some of the best years on record for minorities in the American workplace; that gender-dysphoric teens have continued to be educated, to play sports, etc. without the federal government dictating which school locker/bathrooms they can use; that there’s no rational basis upon which to conclude that “climate change” necessitates or justifies sacrifices of our individual liberties or private property rights; that not all allegations made by females against males are true; and that pro-life is not anti-female (if we could survey the souls of all of the female babies who’ve been aborted, I think they’d take issue with the assertion that “pro-choice” equals pro-female).
Interestingly, again, while many of the “ill-informed/easily-influenced,” having convinced themselves that they’re the very heirs and heiresses of the Civil Rights movement, will vote, for many others, it’s easier and more fun to rant and rave in public than to actually find their ways to the polls.
The “avowed socialists/statists” are the smallest yet most likely to vote of these three groups of “resisters.”
Either erroneously-but-honestly (i.e., they simply misunderstand how human beings can live together most peacefully and prosperously), or disingenuously-and-insidiously (i.e., they want power over people and resources, and they think that their best chance of getting it is from government), they reject the ideology of personal liberty and personal responsibility which made America great. Among them are the “journalists,” politicians, and “academics” who — knowing that socialism/statism defies traditional American values, and knowing that there’s no rational basis upon which to conclude that he’s a “racist,” “homophobe,” “climate arsonist,” or “misogynist” — have misrepresented the president to their viewers, listeners, readers, constituents, and students in the hopes of persuading the “ill-informed/easily-influenced” (including most entertainers) to oppose him and his agenda.
“Avowed socialists/statists” are desperate to restore gridlock to Washington and thereby to halt the progress of the president’s agenda because they understand and fear that another two years of such progress could establish some of the most compelling evidence in the modern era that: peace is in fact best achieved through strength; free markets do in fact allocate resources better than bureaucrats; and decisions regarding such things as education, self-defense, and healthcare are in fact best made by individuals rather than by government.
The question now is, have they motivated enough of the “ill-informed/easily-influenced” so that, combined, the “resisters” who vote on Tuesday will outnumber those of us who think (regardless of whatever quibbles some of us may have with his personal style) that the president has our nation on relatively the right track? We’ll soon find out.
Brian Russell wanted to learn how people could live together as peacefully and prosperously as possible, so he studied what makes us tick (and got a Ph.D. in clinical psychology), how public policy keeps us in line (and got a law degree), and what motivates us to do our best (and got an M.B.A.). Then, he put theory to the test, practicing both psychology and law, starting his own small businesses, consulting with business leaders and lawmakers, and traveling the world comparing what does and doesn’t work in 40 societies. Now, he shares his expertise in people, public policy, and productivity on national television and radio, in his book, "Stop Moaning, Start Owning: How Entitlement Is Ruining America and How Personal Responsibility Can Fix It," and here on Newsmax. Learn more at DrBrianRussell.com. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.