The Political Actors Change…

The political actors change, but the script remains essentially the same. Over time, different individuals occupy the stage, but the principles upon which they act remain consistent.

Consider the policies supported by Obama, Trump, and Biden. Obama imposed controls and restrictions on energy producers in an attempt to foster “renewable” energy. He did not hesitate to use the coercive power of government to dictate how individuals can act. For his part, Trump wielded the government club against manufacturers in an attempt to stimulate job growth in the United States. He did not hesitate to use the coercive power of government to dictate how individuals can act. Biden has continued Obama’s policies.

While Trump’s policies differed from Obama and Biden in terms of details, the principles underlying them were identical. All three Presidents have embraced the notion that individuals should be forced to put aside their self-interest in order to promote the “public interest.” The difference between the three men is what they consider to be the “public interest.”

To Obama and Biden, the “public interest” is found in helping the poor and “people of color.” For Trump, creating jobs for blue collar workers served the “public interest.” All three have declared that one group or another represents the “public interest.” In the meantime, the individuals who comprise the public are forced to sacrifice for others.

While the actors change, one group or another is used as the standard for government policy. This is true of both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and Progressives. The individual, they all argue, must sacrifice for others. They only disagree on who should sacrifice and who should benefit.

The solution to this orgy of sacrifice is to reject the group as the standard. In its place, we must embrace a standard that enables the individual—every individual—to live a flourishing life. That standard is individual rights.

Similar Posts

  • The Fairness Doctrine 2.0

    Brendan Carr, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has implicitly announced a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Introduced in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to present different viewpoints on controversial subjects. When the doctrine was repealed in 1987, radio stations could air programs by conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh without being forced to…

  • A Call for Dictatorship

    In late July, two professors issued a call for dictatorship. In an open letter to President Biden, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin urged the President to restrain MAGA [Supreme Court] justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely…

  • Dictators Don’t Play Fair

    The No Kings protests on October 18 drew millions of people to 2,700 different locations to voice their opposition to Trump’s increasingly dictatorial policies. Despite predictions by Sen. Ted Cruz and others, the protests were peaceful and civil. I doubt that Trump’s minions will allow that to continue because dictators don’t play fair. Every dictator…

  • A Civility Campaign

    Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy recently stated that he has seen “a degradation in civility” among air travelers. As a part of what he called his “civility campaign,” he pleaded with Americans to quit wearing pajamas on airplanes. Rather than scold airline passengers for their attire, Duffy should convince his boss to set a better example….

  • | |

    Tariffs Won’t Make America Great

    In announcing new tariffs on China, Evader-in-Chief Donald Trump again showed that he believes reality will conform to his wishes. Tariffs won’t make America great. They never have, and they never will. Contrary to Trump’s claims, trade does not occur between nations. America does not engage in trade with China or any other nation. Individual…

  • |

    Promises are Cheap

    The Biden Administration has announced plans to build or restore 2 million homes to address the housing shortage. This is a very grand plan, and it is receiving praise from many advocates for low-income housing. However, it is more than likely that the number of homes built or restored will fall far short of the…