An ugly truth is that, historically, any development of society results in a certain segment of the population less beneficiary in the opportunity provided. And, government always doubles down on previous policy to rectify the dilemma, regardless of any measure of successful remedy.
The United States of America has unquestionably prospered the last 100 years. In that there is no debate. Yet, 40% of society, pre-Covid, lived at or near the poverty line. This segment of society had less than $500 in savings at any given time and was woefully unprepared for interrupting emergencies.
Innovation, technological advancement, and economic globalization have provided freedom of choice for activities that have enhanced or enriched society. However, some struggle to benefit and participate. This may be as a result of health, lack of education, or discrimination. Government makes the mistake of doubling down on control rather than providing opportunities for the 40% to assimilate.
This is a misguided concept that will not bring societal parity.
When someone is caught in quicksand, the answer isn’t to bring them food and water every day. You throw them a rope and pull them out of it. Government always doubles down on regulation, government programs, and regional services. The question government policymakers should ask is, how do we facilitate the 40% into becoming part of the 60%? Government bureaucrats give lip service to this question, but spend the majority of their energy on servicing the status quo.
A practical example to explore is the criticism of the new Iowa election laws just passed by their state legislature. Early voting was reduced from four weeks to three weeks. And rural voting locations on election day are to close one hour earlier. These new laws are called voter suppression by progressives. It is interesting that in the State of New York, early voting is only 2 weeks, and the polls are open the exact same number of hours. Why is it that the State of New York, which operates more restrictive voting procedures, is not criticized as discriminatory?
The answer is that the debate is much less about voting rights than political party privilege.
Iowa struggles to man polls in rural areas. Maintaining early voting for a month is very costly. There is no evidence whatsoever that the difference between four weeks of early voting and three weeks of early voting is discriminatory. Ask New York.
The reason New York’s laws work is because more of their population is urbanized. Urban areas have advantages in efficiency of cost in healthcare, other government services, and access to voting.
But there is another reason. Minorities in New York have become assimilated into the everyday life of economic activity, and have breached the threshold of the opportunity provided. New York outlawed slavery in 1817. New York became the first state to pass a law for the total abolition of legal slavery setting July 4, 1827, as the official date of emancipation. Freedom mandated to all citizens has made all citizens inclusive in the democratic process.
The question to be asked is, what is required in government policy to make all citizens of the United States equal in participation like the State of New York? The goal is to eliminate any need for a special category of protection for any segment of American society so that we each feel fully emancipated.
This is a goal all Americans can pursue together.
The ugly truth that, in fact, some Americans have been left behind, has been exposed by the Covid pandemic. The world continues to develop technologically. Economic globalization is in full momentum. Normally, the transition of the labor force would have occurred more slowly over a period of years. Covid accelerated and collapsed the transition to a matter of months.
Political policy debated in elections would have been more piecemeal rather than universal driven by a crisis situation. What has happened? By an unprecedented number, able-bodied men and women are refusing to go back to work or are quitting work. This labor supply chain plight is unprecedented and still under analysis. The reason appears to be job dissatisfaction. After taking a Covid break, many people don’t want to go back into a situation that appears to be putting themselves back into quicksand. With no government rope in sight, they have taken matters into their own hands. Adding to the numbers are Baby Boomers in their late sixties and early seventies who are deciding to retire. They see futility in fighting the fight any further.
What does this ugly truth about government doubling down on policy have to do with Ukraine and Russia today?
Russia is amassing troops on the Ukrainian border threatening to invade unless certain demands are met. What demands based upon what rights? This is not an ordinary border dispute like between Pakistan and India. This is not a religious or cultural dispute like between Israel and the Palestinians. This is not a government dispute like between China and Taiwan. This is simply one dictator doubling down on the obsolete government policy of a remnant czarist empire to hold on to the power of a failed oligarchy. There is no demand Ukraine can meet except subservience.
What Vladimir Putin wants is a commitment from the West that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. NATO is not a threat to Russia. It is a defensive organization whose charter is only called into action to defend a member state when attacked by a foreign enemy. Freedom is the basis of government policy binding the NATO alliance.
Totalitarianism is the ugly truth unchecked. Putin has every reason to fear freedom in the opposition to the doubling down on the ugly truth of his intentions.
Governments never change in an effort to facilitate the freedom of the people. They always double down in support or manipulation of the segment of society caught in quicksand. They never consider how to get the person out of the quicksand as a priority. Why? Because once the person is out of the quicksand and independent, there is less need for the government.
People change in perspective through response to technological advancement and world globalization. In so doing, society appears to have changed when, in fact, society simply reflects the new perspective of the people.
What then should guide perspective?
Righteousness is the only guidepost. How is righteousness defined? There are only two ways, by religion or evolving thought of perspective. Religious principles are transcendent. Secular principles are transitory. God’s laws never change. Eternal principles provide standards of moral equity for society. If a government never changes in attitude by doubling down on questionable policy, then eternal standards of righteousness are necessary for an evolving society to maintain freedom. Only in commitment to transcendent righteous principles can society secure stability.
The lesson of an ugly truth is that only God’s righteousness, implemented in government and enforced by freedom, will lift those left behind past the threshold of opportunity realized.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?