The Partisan Abys How Political Parties Keep Us Blind
The Hubris of the Anointed How Progressive Policies Undermine Progress
The Unfinished Business of Citizenship A Call to Know Our Founding
When Empathy Denies Reality
Balancing Compassion and Truth in Criminal Justice
This op-ed highlights how George Washington’s warning about partisan politics has become reality, fueling division that obscures genuine character and policy details.
A pointed and critical analysis that exposes how progressive policies, from DEI to defunding the police, ironically stifle genuine progress.
Preserving liberty and our republic requires citizens to understand our founding principles, oppose threats to them, and hold leaders accountable.
This op-ed explores how misplaced empathy in criminal justice undermines accountability, public safety, and moral clarity by prioritizing offenders' circumstances over victims' rights and societal well-being.
The Poverty of Perspective Why the Simplistic Focus on Money Misses the True Roots of Human Struggles
The Regressiveness of Progressives A Case for Intellectual Honesty
Modern-Day Thought Crimes When Moral Certitude Silences Dissent and Debate
The Fallacy of Social and Cultural Equity
How Equity Stokes Division Instead of Delivering Justice
The Polite Evasion
How Certain Phrases Thwart Deeper Discussions
Whose Property Is It, Anyway?
When Public Use Begins to Look Like Private Loss
This op-ed explores how ego-driven self-importance, rather than malice, often fuels unintended harm by blinding individuals to the consequences of their actions and the deeper moral truths they must confront.
This op-ed criticizes the modern progressive movement for embracing policies and attitudes that ultimately undermine the ideals of genuine progress.
This op-ed exposes how modern social justice efforts, cloaked in equity and inclusion, can become a new orthodoxy that silences dissent and undermines true freedom.
This op-ed critiques the concept of equity as a misguided pursuit of equal outcomes that sacrifices merit, fosters division, and undermines true justice and individual opportunity
This op-ed critiques the use of polite but evasive phrases like "I respect your opinion but" to avoid meaningful discussions, urging for more genuine, open-minded dialogue.
This op-ed explores the tension between individual property rights and government taxation, questioning when public use crosses into private loss.
The Partisan Abyss
How Political Parties Keep Us Blind
by Michael A. Hancock
In his farewell address, George Washington issued a stern warning about the dangers of political parties. He spoke not as a partisan leader but as a statesman who understood the fragility of a young democracy. Washington feared that political factions, with their relentless pursuit of power, would sow discord, entrench division, and obscure the common good. Today, his insight is almost haunting.
Our nation finds itself caught in a whirlwind of polarization, where partisan loyalty takes precedence over thoughtful deliberation, where the merits of ideas are judged not by their substance but by their association with a political tribe. This is no accident; it is by design. Political parties, once vehicles for organizing collective action, have evolved into sophisticated machines of division, obfuscating the character of candidates and the consequences of legislation.
The Machinery of Division
At their core, political parties serve a useful purpose. They streamline the political process, offer a framework for governance, and provide voters with ideological clarity. But in the modern era, they have become less about governing and more about winning. The quest for electoral victory, fueled by the perpetual campaign cycle, has transformed politics into a zero-sum game.
To secure and maintain power, parties rely on a strategy of differentiation not through nuanced debate but through caricatured opposition. Complex issues are reduced to simplistic binaries. Healthcare reform becomes socialism versus freedom. Climate policy becomes a battle of jobs versus nature. Nuance dies on the altar of political expediency, sacrificed to ensure that voters remain entrenched in their respective camps.
This binary framing serves another purpose: it obscures the character of candidates. Instead of evaluating a candidate’s values, integrity, or competence, voters are conditioned to view elections as referenda on their party loyalty. A Democrat running in a Republican district or vice versa is often dismissed outright, not because of their individual merits but because they wear the wrong jersey. This tribal mentality shields candidates from scrutiny, allowing mediocrity and sometimes outright corruption to flourish.
Legislation in the Shadows
The partisanship problem extends beyond the ballot box. Legislation, the lifeblood of governance, has become another casualty of our polarized era. Bills are no longer judged on their content but on who sponsors them. A proposal from the opposing party, no matter how reasonable, is reflexively vilified. Conversely, deeply flawed legislation from one’s own party is defended with religious fervor.
Consider the 2023 debt ceiling standoff or the perennial battles over healthcare. Both sides framed their positions as moral imperatives, leaving little room for compromise or critical analysis. The public, inundated with partisan spin, was left to choose between two distorted narratives The actual consequences of these policies how they would impact families, businesses, and communities were secondary. What mattered was which party could claim victory.
This manipulation is deliberate. By keeping voters focused on partisan drama, parties divert attention from the specifics of the legislation. They know that a well-informed electorate, armed with facts and context, might question the wisdom of their policies. And so, they muddy the waters, ensuring that clarity remains out of reach.
The Cost of Division
The ultimate cost of this partisan gamesmanship is a deeply divided nation. Neighbors become adversaries; civil discourse devolves into shouting matches, and the shared identity that binds us as Americans frays at the edges. Worse still, this division breeds cynicism. Many voters, disillusioned by the relentless polarization, disengage altogether. They see a system rigged to prioritize party loyalty over public good, and they choose apathy over participation.
But disengagement is not the answer. If anything, it plays directly into the hands of those who benefit from division. The antidote to our current malaise lies in reclaiming the ideals that Washington championed: unity, reason, and the common good.
A Path Forward
To overcome the partisan abyss, we must first recognize it for what it is a tool wielded by those in power to maintain their grip. Voters must demand more from their leaders, refusing to be swayed by shallow talking points or partisan dogma. They must insist on transparency, on debates that prioritize substance over spectacle.
Media, too, has a role to play. Journalists must resist the temptation to amplify partisan narratives and instead focus on providing context and clarity. The press
should be a bridge between voters and the truth, not an accomplice in the machinery of division.
Finally, we must rediscover the lost art of civic engagement. Democracy thrives when citizens actively participate when they engage with ideas, and challenge their assumptions. It is not enough to vote; we must also deliberate, debate, and, above all, listen.
Washington’s warning was not merely a prediction; it was a call to vigilance. The dangers he foresaw are upon us, but they are not insurmountable. If we are willing to look beyond the partisan fray to judge candidates by their character and policies by their merit, we can begin to mend the fractures in our democracy. The path is difficult, but the stakes could not be higher. Let us rise to the challenge.
The Hubris of the Anointed
How Progressive Policies Undermine Progress
By Michael A. Hancock
In the mid-1980s, my Uncle Winfred sent me a book that became the catalyst for my lifelong journey into exploring why societal conditions always seem to deteriorate. The book was Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed which offers an incisive critique of how well-intentioned elites impose their ideas on society, often with disastrous results. Sowell identifies a recurring pattern: identify a problem, propose a sweeping solution with little empirical backing, silence dissent, and refuse to acknowledge failure. In recent years, this script has been replayed on the stage of American public policy with movements like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, defunding the police, and other progressive causes. Beneath the veneer of moral righteousness lies a troubling disregard for consequences and a disdain for dissent, all in the name of “progress.”
Step 1: The Crusade Against a Crisis
The process begins with the identification or sometimes creation of a crisis. Sowell calls this “the assertion of a great danger.” Today, racial inequality and systemic injustice serve as the catch-all crises that justify progressive interventions. Certainly, these are real issues worth addressing, but the anointed frame them in apocalyptic terms, claiming that the nation is irredeemably steeped in oppression.
Take Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Corporate boardrooms, universities, and government agencies have embraced DEI as a moral imperative to root out systemic racism. Advocates proclaim that unless immediate and sweeping changes occur, society will continue to perpetuate injustice. Yet, DEI initiatives often prioritize optics over outcomes. Mandatory training sessions, hiring quotas, and public commitments to “equity” focus more on appearances than addressing structural barriers to opportunity. Worse, these measures have sometimes created resentment and division, as meritocracy is sidelined in favor of ideological conformity.
Step 2: The “Solution”
Once the problem is established, the anointed propose solutions that align with their vision of how society should operate. The solutions are presented as
unassailable, moral imperatives, leaving no room for debate. Consider the movement to defund the police, a flagship cause of progressives in the wake of George Floyd’s tragic death. The argument went as follows: policing is inherently racist and oppressive, and therefore, the solution is to dismantle or severely reduce police budgets while reallocating funds to social services.
In cities like Minneapolis, Portland, and San Francisco, this vision became reality. Police budgets were slashed, often without thorough planning or assessment of consequences. Advocates insisted that reducing police presence would create safer, more equitable communities. The results, however, tell a different story. Violent crime surged in many areas, leaving the very communities the policies sought to help more vulnerable to harm. Residents of high-crime neighborhoods predominantly minorities were the first to call for a reversal of these policies
Sowell’s insight shines here: the anointed rarely concern themselves with the unintended consequences of their actions. Instead, they move to the next stage of their playbook.
Step 3: Silencing Opposition
Opponents of progressive policies are not merely mistaken; they are labeled as immoral or even complicit in the problem. Sowell describes this as “demonizing the opposition.” Rational debate gives way to moral condemnation.
For example, those who questioned the effectiveness of DEI initiatives or raised concerns about defunding the police were branded as bigots or defenders of systemic oppression. Universities, the media, and social platforms played their part by amplifying progressive orthodoxy and marginalizing dissent. Professors were ousted for critiquing DEI practices. Public figures were “canceled” for advocating a balanced approach to criminal justice reform. In the marketplace of ideas, the anointed sought to monopolize the conversation by silencing competitors.
Step 4: Denying Failure
Finally, when progressive policies fail as they often do the anointed refuse to take responsibility. Sowell notes that outcomes are irrelevant; what matters is the purity of the vision. When cities like Seattle and San Francisco saw violent crime and homelessness rise after police budgets were slashed, progressives did not admit error. Instead, they doubled down, blaming systemic racism or insufficient implementation. DEI advocates, too, defend programs despite scant evidence of their efficacy. The narrative is always the same: failure is proof not that the solution was flawed, but that society resisted change too stubbornly.
Conclusion: A Path Forward
Sowell’s critique of the anointed is more relevant than ever. The failure of progressive policies like DEI and defunding the police underscores the dangers of implementing sweeping solutions without empirical backing or accountability. Progress is not made through slogans or utopian visions but through hard-nosed policies that consider both intentions and outcomes.
The path forward requires a return to humility: the humility to recognize that no single ideology has all the answers, the humility to listen to dissenting voices, and the humility to accept when policies fail. If the anointed truly wish to serve the public good, they must abandon their hubris and embrace the messy, imperfect process of real progress.
The Unfinished Business of Citizenship
A Call to Know Our Founding
by Michael A. Hancock
As a senior in high school, I embarked on what seemed a routine civics assignment: a report on the Bolshevik Revolution. What began as an exploration of foreign upheaval sparked a lifelong fascination with political philosophy, the dynamics of governance, and, most importantly, the intellectual origins of our republic. Over the years, I’ve grown to appreciate the unparalleled genius of our nation’s Founders the audacity of their vision, the depth of their principles, and the resilience of the system they crafted to safeguard liberty while acknowledging human imperfection.
But if I’ve learned one thing in all this reflection, it is this: no matter how well-designed, a republic is only as strong as the citizens entrusted to uphold it And that strength comes from understanding not just our founding ideals but also the contrasting principles that threaten to undermine them.
The Fragile Architecture of Liberty
The Founders understood something that is increasingly lost in today’s political discourse: liberty is not the natural state of humanity. Tyranny, in its many forms, is. History is replete with examples of rulers consolidating power and stripping freedom from their subjects in the name of order, equality, or even security. The American experiment was unique not because it sought to prevent government oppression many had tried that but because it sought to do so while embracing the inherently messy nature of liberty.
To that end, the Constitution was not simply a set of rules but a framework grounded in the principle of limited government. It recognized that power corrupts and that human ambition unchecked by competing forces inevitably leads to despotism. Through separation of powers, federalism, and individual rights, the Founders created a system designed to pit ambition against ambition, ensuring no single entity could dominate.
But the beauty of this architecture is also its fragility. A republic demands vigilance from its citizens to function as intended. It is not self-sustaining. John Adams famously warned, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Adams wasn’t advocating for theocracy; he was making a broader point: that self-government
depends on self-discipline. When citizens become apathetic or ignorant of their responsibilities, the system falters.
The Perils of Forgetting
Today, we are witnessing what happens when a nation forgets its founding principles. Political tribalism has replaced meaningful debate, with both sides more concerned with winning than with governing. Civics education is in decline, leaving a generation unfamiliar with even the basic structures of our government, let alone the ideas that inspired them.
Worse, many Americans are drawn to ideologies that directly contradict the principles of the Founding. Whether it’s the collectivism of the far left or the authoritarian tendencies of the far right, both represent a rejection of the core belief that individuals not the state are the ultimate source of sovereignty. These opposing principles may take different forms, but they share one goal: to centralize power, eroding the checks and balances that protect liberty
This is where understanding history matters. To recognize the dangers of socialism, for instance, one must not only study the failures of the Soviet Union but also understand how collectivist policies erode the very freedoms the Founders sought to protect. Similarly, to guard against authoritarianism, one must appreciate the wisdom behind a free press, an independent judiciary, and the peaceful transfer of power traditions that are too easily dismissed in the heat of partisan conflict.
Accountability as a Civic Duty
If liberty is to endure, citizens must not only understand the principles of our founding but also hold those they elect accountable to them. This means more than voting; it means engaging with the issues, questioning leaders, and demanding adherence to the Constitution’s limits. It also means resisting the temptation to prioritize short-term gains over long-term stability. A politician who promises to “get things done” by circumventing Congress or ignoring court rulings may seem effective, but such actions chip away at the very system that safeguards our freedom.
The Founders envisioned a nation of active, informed citizens. They understood that government is not an entity apart from us; it is a reflection of us. When we tolerate corruption, excuse incompetence, or demand government solve every problem, we invite the kind of overreach that the Constitution was designed to prevent.
A Call to Action
As I reflect on my journey from that high school project to a lifetime of studying politics, I am struck by one simple truth: understanding our founding is not an academic exercise; it is a moral imperative. To be an American is to inherit a legacy of liberty—but also a responsibility to preserve it
We live in an age where ignorance of history is widespread, and cynicism about government is rampant. But if we are to fulfill the Founders’ vision of a “more perfect union,” we must reject both. We must educate ourselves and each other. We must embrace the principles of liberty, even when it is inconvenient. And we must hold our leaders to the highest standard, not as partisans, but as patriots.
The work of building and maintaining a republic is never finished. It demands constant effort, reflection, and renewal. The question is whether we, as citizens, are willing to rise to the challenge or whether we will let apathy and ignorance do what no foreign enemy ever could: bring this great experiment to an end
When Empathy Denies Reality
Balancing Compassion and Truth in Criminal Justice
by Michael A. Hancock
Empathy has become a virtue so universally celebrated that any critique of it seems, at first, heartless. And yet, for all its moral force, empathy has a threshold beyond which it ceases to be beneficial. When extended past its natural limits, it can distort our understanding of fundamental realities especially in the realm of criminal justice, where the stakes are high, and the line between compassion and denial can grow perilously thin.
In an ideal world, empathy functions as a corrective to cruelty, a safeguard against callous policies that overlook human dignity. It motivates us to see others as more than the sum of their worst actions, urging a sense of mercy that can be absent in a purely punitive system. But when compassion becomes untethered from facts, the results can be dangerously naive. Indeed, the reality of criminal behavior is that some individuals are incorrigible, their crimes not merely a fleeting departure from personal decency but a demonstration of deeper malevolence. To deny this reality under the banner of empathy is to dismiss the lived experience of victims and the legitimate duty of the state to protect its citizens.
Consider the push in some jurisdictions to eliminate cash bail for certain offenses, ostensibly to reduce the undue burden on the poor. The impetus behind this reform is empathic: No one wants to see a minor offender languish in jail simply because of economic disadvantage. But the noble intention too frequently mutates into a leniency that fails to distinguish between the truly low-risk defendant and the high-risk repeat offender. In such cases, empathy transforms from a moral guide into a moral blindfold. The resulting policy might release a dangerous individual back onto the streets, jeopardizing the safety of the very communities that reformers claim to protect.
Thomas Sowell often argues that good intentions or moral sentiments - the feeling that you’re doing the “right thing” - aren’t enough to guarantee good results in public policy. There is a reason that our justice system has historically balanced compassion with accountability. For instance, sentencing guidelines are not shaped merely by a warm impulse to give every offender the benefit of the doubt; they are also influenced by empirical data on recidivism, deterrence, and societal harm. When empathy overwhelms these practical considerations—allowing mercy for
those who show no contrition, no inclination to reform we end up with outcomes that produce more victims, not fewer.
To be sure, acknowledging the limits of empathy in criminal justice does not mean advocating a system devoid of humanity. Our courts should strive to understand the socio-economic, mental health, and familial contexts that contribute to crime. Rehabilitation can and should be part of the equation. But it must be pursued with eyes wide open, recognizing that not everyone responds to kindness with contrition. Some will exploit leniency for further wrongdoing. Pretending otherwise can lead to policies that protect criminals from consequence rather than protecting the public from criminals.
What is particularly tragic about an overextended empathy is that it ultimately erodes faith in the very concept. When communities witness repeat offenses by individuals who were given undue clemency, the collective empathy they once felt for the disadvantaged offender turns into cynicism or fear. In this sense, irrational lenience can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: it undermines the public’s trust in any compassionate approach, leading to a backlash that favors the other extreme draconian sentences, mass incarceration, and a wholesale dismissal of extenuating circumstances.
In the end, a healthy society must find equilibrium. Empathy properly understood is not in tension with facts; rather, it depends on them. Compassion that ignores the realities of human behavior, including the capacity for repeated harm, is not compassion at all It is denial And denial in the realm of criminal justice leaves citizens vulnerable and victims unheard, neither of which is a fitting outcome for a society that prizes both justice and mercy. The moral duty, therefore, is to anchor our empathy in a sober assessment of reality to recognize, as Charles Krauthammer often did, that genuine compassion acknowledges the fallen nature of humanity while still protecting the innocent and holding wrongdoers to account. Only then does empathy serve its highest purpose without abandoning the truth.
The Poverty of Perspective
Why the Simplistic Focus on Money Misses the True Roots of Human Struggles
By Michael A. Hancock
In the annals of modern discourse, few ideas have attained the sacrosanct status of the belief that money or the lack thereof is the root of all problems. It is an aphorism as pervasive as it is simplistic, reducing human existence's complexities to financial arithmetic. How often have you heard the adage “Numbers don't lie?” While the absence of resources is undeniably a hardship, the fetishization of monetary insufficiency as the sole or primary driver of societal malaise reflects a profound poverty of perspective.
To be clear, poverty is not an abstraction. A visceral reality grinds the soul, limiting access to basic needs, education, and opportunity. However, to ascribe all human dysfunction to a lack of money is to mistake the symptom for the cause. It is an indulgence in intellectual laziness that absolves us from examining deeper, more uncomfortable truths about culture, character, and human nature.
Consider the example of public education, a perennial target of the “not enough money” lament. For decades, we have poured billions into school systems nationwide, yet the outcomes in many districts remain dismal. Why? Because education is not merely a function of dollars spent per pupil. It is a function of expectations, discipline, parental involvement, and the intangible but indispensable transmission of values from generation to generation. To assume that the injection of cash will automatically raise test scores and close achievement gaps is to misunderstand the deeper roots of success and failure.
In politics, too, the fixation on financial inequities often obscures governance's moral and cultural dimensions. Take, for example, the rise of urban decay and violent crime in some of America’s most impoverished neighborhoods. Progressives often point to a lack of funding for social programs as the primary culprit Yet cities like Baltimore and Chicago, which receive substantial federal and state funding, continue to grapple with entrenched violence and dysfunction. Could the problem be less about dollars and more about the erosion of social cohesion, family structure, and a sense of individual responsibility?
The insistence that financial poverty is the root of all societal woes reflects an underlying materialism deeply at odds with the human spirit. Humans are not
automatons whose behavior can be manipulated purely through economic incentives or disincentives. Our motivations, aspirations, and failings are informed as much by intangible forces pride, shame, love, envy, and faith as by the balance of our bank accounts. To reduce the human condition to a financial ledger is to ignore the incalculable richness of human experience and the many ways in which culture and character transcend material conditions.
Consider the remarkable story of immigrants who arrive in America with little more than the clothes on their backs yet manage to ascend the social and economic ladder within a generation. Their success is rarely due to a sudden influx of wealth. Instead, it stems from a set of intangible assets: a willingness to work hard, to delay gratification, to prioritize education, and to build strong familial and communal bonds. Contrast this with the tragic phenomenon of lottery winners who squander millions in a matter of years The difference lies not in the amount of money at their disposal but in the values and habits they bring to its use.
This is not to suggest that money is irrelevant. Material deprivation is real, and alleviating it is a moral imperative for any society that claims to value human dignity. But solving the problem of poverty requires more than writing bigger checks. It requires fostering the cultural and moral conditions that allow individuals and communities to thrive. It requires recognizing that the ultimate source of human flourishing lies not in external circumstances but in the internal cultivation of virtues such as resilience, self-discipline, and a sense of purpose.
Our obsession with money as the root of all problems is, in many ways, a form of escapism. It allows us to externalize blame and point to impersonal forces beyond our control rather than confront the more complex and uncomfortable truths about ourselves and our societies. But actual progress demands that we resist this temptation. It demands that we look beyond the superficial allure of material solutions and grapple with the human condition's deeper, often messier realities.
To paraphrase a timeless observation: Money is a fine servant but a poor master. It is a tool, not a panacea. To mistake it for the latter is to ensure we remain trapped in a cycle of superficial diagnoses and ineffective remedies. Let us instead strive for a richer understanding of what truly ails us and what might ultimately redeem us.
The Regressiveness of Progressives
A Case for Intellectual Honesty
by Michael A. Hancock
Progressives often pride themselves on being the vanguard of change, the heralds of a brighter, more equitable future. They wrap themselves in the rhetoric of progress, touting inclusivity, justice, and modernization as their guiding lights. Yet beneath this glossy veneer lies a disquieting contradiction: their actions and policies often undermine the ideals they claim to champion. In truth, the progressive movement has become profoundly regressive, unwilling to grapple with the complexities of the world they seek to remake and dismiss dissenting views that might refine their approach.
The essence of progressivism lies in its vision of continual improvement—socially, politically, and culturally. By this standard, progressivism should champion open debate, intellectual diversity, and humility in the face of human imperfection. However, contemporary progressives increasingly reject these principles. Instead of fostering dialogue, they silence dissent through cancel culture and moral absolutism Instead of addressing societal challenges with nuance, they reduce complex issues to simplistic narratives of oppressors and oppressed.
Take, for instance, the issue of education. Progressives loudly advocate for equality, yet their policies often deepen inequities. The push to eliminate advanced placement courses or gifted programs in the name of “equity” denies opportunity to students of all backgrounds who excel. Progressives claim such programs are exclusionary, ignoring the fact that they often serve as ladders of opportunity for low-income and minority students In dismantling these programs, they effectively pull up the ladder's rungs, consigning ambitious students to mediocrity in the name of fairness. This is not progress; it is regression disguised as virtue.
Similarly, consider the progressive approach to criminal justice reform. The demand to “defund the police” emerged from a genuine concern about abuses of power and systemic inequality. Yet the wholesale embrace of this slogan often without a serious plan to address its consequences has led to predictable chaos. Cities that slashed police budgets have seen spikes in violent crime, disproportionately harming the very communities progressives claim to protect. True progress would involve reforming law enforcement while maintaining public safety, but the progressive instinct to reject institutions outright has left vulnerable neighborhoods to fend for themselves.
Even in environmental policy, progressivism falters under the weight of its contradictions. The Green New Deal, for example, proposes sweeping changes to energy production and consumption, often without regard for economic realities. The transition to renewable energy is essential, but progressives routinely ignore that such a shift requires time, innovation, and a realistic consideration of costs. By demonizing fossil fuels outright and vilifying industries that employ millions, progressives alienate working-class Americans and undermine their own cause. True progress requires persuasion and compromise, not ideological purity.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of modern progressivism is its disdain for free speech and intellectual diversity. Once bastions of debate and critical thinking, universities have become echo chambers where dissenting opinions are unwelcome. Progressive orthodoxy now polices language, thought, and expression, creating a culture of fear rather than inquiry This intellectual conformity stifles innovation and erodes the foundations of liberal democracy. How can a society progress when its members are afraid to speak honestly?
The irony is that progressivism’s regressive tendencies are not new. The French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and countless other historical movements began with lofty ideals, only to descend into authoritarianism and chaos. The common thread is an unwillingness to grapple with human complexity a utopian impulse that seeks to impose perfect solutions on an imperfect world Progressives today would do well to remember this history and temper their zeal with humility.
Progress, real progress, demands more than slogans and moral posturing It requires patience, intellectual rigor, and a commitment to principles that transcend partisan passions. It requires acknowledging that human beings are flawed, that institutions evolve slowly, and that meaningful change often comes from persuasion, not coercion.
Progressives face a choice: they can double down on their regressive tendencies, silencing dissent and pursuing utopian fantasies at all costs. Or they can reclaim the mantle of true progress by embracing complexity, fostering debate, and working toward practical solutions. The latter path is harder, but it is the only one worthy of the name “progressive.”
Modern-Day Thought Crimes
When Moral Certitude Silences Dissent and Debate
Michael A. Hancock
The concept of a “thought crime,” once confined to the realm of Orwellian fiction, has come to life in our modern era. It no longer requires government surveillance or clandestine enforcers of ideology. Today, it thrives in the open, carried forward by social movements that weaponize moral certitude to enforce conformity. Under the banners of systemic racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and the relentless march of censorship, a new form of ideological policing has emerged, punishing dissent, stifling debate, and elevating group identity above individual liberty.
At the heart of this phenomenon lies the fallacy of equity a noble-sounding but deeply flawed principle that promises fairness by engineering equal outcomes. Equity asserts that all disparities between groups are the result of oppression, requiring intervention to correct systemic injustices. While equality offers equal opportunity for all, equity demands equal results, irrespective of effort, talent, or choice. This distinction is more than semantic; it marks a profound shift in how society views fairness, merit, and justice.
The pursuit of equity begins with a fundamental error: the assumption that any disparity in outcomes is inherently unjust. This premise disregards the complexity of human behavior, the diversity of individual abilities, and the freedom to choose different paths. It turns every gap whether in income, education, or representation into proof of discrimination that must be remedied through redistribution or preferential treatment. By framing disparity as evidence of systemic failure, equity’s champions bypass critical questions about personal agency, cultural differences, and other factors that contribute to inequality.
This ideological rigidity finds its most powerful expression in the expansive DEI apparatus now embedded in corporations, universities, and public institutions. DEI initiatives, ostensibly designed to foster inclusivity, often serve as tools of coercion. They demand adherence to a prescribed worldview that interprets every interaction through the lens of power dynamics and identity politics. Employees and students are subjected to training sessions that force them to internalize narratives of privilege and oppression, with failure to comply seen as evidence of moral deficiency. These programs do not promote true diversity of thought, experience, or background but instead enforce a monolithic ideology that tolerates no dissent.
Equity’s corrosive effects are especially evident in education, where the goal of equal outcomes has led to a lowering of standards rather than an elevation of students. Advanced placement programs are curtailed, admissions criteria are adjusted, and merit-based achievements are dismissed as relics of systemic bias. These policies may create statistical parity on paper, but they do so at the expense of excellence and individual potential. Worse, they instill a culture of mediocrity, where success is no longer earned but allocated, and where identity trumps ability.
The enforcement of these new orthodoxies is further aided by the growing reach of censorship. Under the guise of combating “harmful” or “offensive” speech, social media platforms, universities, and even public discourse are increasingly policed for deviations from the prescribed moral order. Ideas that challenge equity, systemic racism narratives, or DEI doctrines are swiftly labeled as hateful or bigoted, often resulting in professional or social ostracism This creates a chilling effect, where individuals self-censor out of fear of being misinterpreted or targeted.
What makes these modern thought crimes so insidious is their veneer of moral righteousness. Equity, DEI, and systemic racism initiatives are framed as movements of progress, justice, and compassion. Those who question them are cast not as thoughtful skeptics but as enemies of equality. This moral absolutism shuts down debate, replacing dialogue with dogma. It turns good-faith dissenters into heretics and forces compliance through guilt, fear, or public shame
The danger of this ideological policing is not just the loss of individual freedom, though that is grave enough It is the destruction of the very principles that allow a society to thrive: merit, excellence, and intellectual pluralism. A society that prioritizes outcomes over opportunities, identity over individuality, and conformity over curiosity is one that stagnates, unable to adapt or innovate.
What’s more, equity’s methods are unsustainable. Forced redistribution of opportunities and resources creates resentment among those who feel unjustly penalized and does little to address the root causes of inequality. Rather than lifting the disadvantaged, equity often drags everyone to the same level (escalating levels) of mediocrity. It fosters dependency rather than empowerment, division rather than unity.
True progress cannot be achieved through coercion. Justice is not about equalizing outcomes but about removing barriers to opportunity. It is about ensuring that individuals are free to pursue their own paths, judged by their abilities and character rather than their identity.
Modern-day thought crimes, wrapped in the language of justice, are anything but. They silence debate, erode meritocracy, and perpetuate division. To preserve
freedom and fairness, we must resist the seductive simplicity of equity and the ideological rigidity of its enforcers. Justice demands more than conformity it demands the courage to defend liberty, even when doing so is unpopular.
The Fallacy of Social and Cultural Equity
How Equity Stokes Division Instead of Delivering Justice
By Michael A. Hancock
In the battle over America’s identity, a new mantra has emerged: equity. Unlike equality, which has long been a bedrock of democratic ideals, equity seeks not to offer equal opportunity but to impose equal outcomes. Proponents of this doctrine argue that equity is justice, that disparities in outcomes are proof of systemic injustice, and that only by leveling the playing field often by force can true fairness be achieved. It is a seductive narrative, but like most utopian ideals, it is riddled with contradictions, unintended consequences, and dangerous implications.
At its core, equity is not about fairness; it is about control. To engineer equal outcomes across vastly different individuals and communities, equity demands that merit, effort, and choice be sidelined in favor of quotas, redistribution, and enforced uniformity. This approach presumes that disparities in achievement whether in education, the workplace, or the criminal justice system are the result of systemic bias rather than individual or cultural factors. It also assumes that all inequality is inherently unjust, an assertion that crumbles under scrutiny.
Consider education, where equity has become a guiding
Is not you know it could be yeah but that's impossible you know what you might expect an outcome is something that you know is something that I think it's ridiculous in terms of you know I would never want that out though that's one of the fallacies right of that whole social justice equity diversity equity that it wants to try to you know engineer they can feel and make everybody You get that like that that's cool so Where is the president so that I was just showing you the title principle. Across the country, school districts are dismantling advanced placement (AP) programs, eliminating gifted classes, and scrapping standardized testing. Why? Because these systems often produce “inequitable” results, with some demographic groups outperforming others. Rather than addressing the underlying causes of these disparities such as poverty, family instability, or access to quality early education—equity demands we lower the bar for everyone Excellence is sacrificed at the altar of parity. This is not progress. It is a race to the bottom.
The arts are no less vulnerable to equity’s corrosive effects Museums, theaters, and grant-making institutions are increasingly judged not by the quality of their work but by the demographic composition of their artists and audiences. Funding
decisions are made based on identity rather than creativity or merit. The result is a cultural landscape shaped not by the best ideas but by the most politically expedient ones. This diminishes the arts, reducing them to a tool of ideological conformity rather than a celebration of human imagination.
Equity’s reach extends beyond education and culture into the realm of public safety. Advocates of equity-based policing argue that disparities in arrest and incarceration rates are evidence of systemic racism. In response, many cities are shifting resources away from law enforcement toward social programs or implementing policies to reduce racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes. While addressing bias in policing is essential, equity’s narrow focus on outcomes ignores a crucial fact: crime rates vary across communities for reasons that have nothing to do with race or prejudice. Poverty, family breakdown, and lack of economic opportunity are all contributing factors By framing every disparity as proof of bias, equity-based reforms risk undermining public safety and leaving the most vulnerable communities unprotected.
Charles Krauthammer once observed that good intentions are not enough. Policies must be judged by their results, not their rhetoric. Equity, for all its lofty promises, fails this test. By prioritizing outcomes over opportunity, it fosters resentment and division. Those who work hard and achieve success are penalized, while those who benefit from equity’s largesse are denied the dignity of earning their rewards This creates a zero-sum dynamic, pitting groups against one another and deepening the very divisions equity claims to address.
True justice cannot be imposed from above. It cannot be engineered through quotas or mandates. Justice requires opportunity the chance for every individual to rise as high as their talents and effort can take them. It requires removing barriers, not imposing ceilings. Equity, by contrast, is a form of soft tyranny. It assumes that individuals are defined by their group identities rather than their unique abilities and choices. It reduces people to statistics and society to a balancing act.
The way forward lies not in equity but in equality—true equality of opportunity. This means investing in education that challenges students to excel, regardless of their background. It means addressing the root causes of poverty and crime, not merely masking their symptoms. It means celebrating merit and achievement, rather than tearing them down in the name of fairness.
Equity may claim to deliver justice, but it cannot. It sacrifices aspiration, fosters division, and erodes freedom. If we truly seek a more just society, we must reject the fallacy of equity and recommit ourselves to the principles of opportunity, excellence, and individual dignity. Only then can we achieve a fairness worth striving for.
The Polite Evasion How Certain Phrases Thwart Deeper Discussions
By Michael A. Hancock
We’ve all experienced it: a lively conversation spirals into a heated dispute maybe about education policy, religion, or the pros and cons of technology. Tensions rise until someone says, “I respect your opinion but disagree.” Then another adds, “Let’s just agree to disagree.” The debate fizzles, and we pivot to last night’s sports scores
At first glance, these phrases seem polite or considerate. Look closer, though, and you’ll find they’re often used to sidestep genuine dialogue. When someone says, “I respect your opinion but ” it can really mean, “I’m not prepared or willing to dig deeper or reconsider my position.” In other words, we preserve social harmony at the expense of truly understanding each other.
Walter Williams a straightforward economist and columnist frequently criticized the tendency to avoid tough, fact-based discussions. He urged people to bring evidence, logic, and sincerity to the table, rather than relying on overused phrases that end the conversation. It’s easy to see why: “Let’s just agree to disagree” denies us the chance to learn or refine our thinking. While debate can be uncomfortable and often feels like a contest David Bohm, a noted quantum physicist, promoted the concept of “dialogue”, where we explore ideas collaboratively, test our assumptions, and deepen knowledge without the anxiety of winning or losing.
Why do we shy away from digging deeper? One reason is fear of conflict: many of us have seen discussions devolve into personal attacks, so we play it safe. Another reason is intellectual complacency: we’d rather not risk discovering flaws in our views. Lastly, there’s misused politeness, which mistakes real civility for glib phrases that shut down rather than open up conversation.
The price we pay for this avoidance is high. We lose learning opportunities: each differing opinion might reveal a nuance we’d never considered. We also limit our persuasion skills: by skirting tough discussions, we never sharpen our arguments or broaden our perspective. And ultimately, we erode meaningful discourse: if everyone tosses out canned phrases, we end up with shallow chats that change no one’s mind.
How can we do better? Start with curiosity. Instead of letting “agree to disagree”* close the book, try “Can you walk me through how you arrived at that idea?” or “What sources have influenced you?” Next, show vulnerability. If you see weak spots in your reasoning, admit it. People often respect honesty more than bluster. Also, focus on evidence over ego. The goal isn’t to “win” a debate but to test ideas and see which hold up. Fourth, aim for a shared purpose, such as discovering truth or gaining insight, rather than notching a rhetorical victory. Finally, maintain civility without retreating. There’s a difference between being polite and hiding behind polite language to avoid genuine thinking.
Walter Williams showed that candor and reason go hand in hand He approached tough issues with data, straightforward argument, and an unflinching willingness to engage. We can follow that lead by resisting our reflex to say, *“I respect your opinion but…”* as a means of escape. Instead, we should embrace each other’s perspectives with earnestness, debate substance, and open-mindedness.
Yes, real disagreements can be messy. But they’re also catalysts for growth. If we allow ourselves to face challenges and be challenged, we’ll likely discover better ideas, correct flawed assumptions, and push discussions and our own understanding to new heights.
Whose Property Is It, Anyway?
When Public Use Begins to Look Like Private Loss
by Michael A. Hancock
Property rights have always occupied a sacred space in the American ethos They are enshrined in the Constitution, championed by the Founders, and reaffirmed by each successive generation’s reverence for liberty. We treat property not as some fluid commodity at the mercy of governmental whim, but as a hallmark of individual sovereignty. Yet, despite our unanimous esteem for these rights, an unsettling question remains: *Whose property is it, anyway?*
Baked into this question are profound moral, legal, and philosophical underpinnings. On one side stands the individual whose claim to personal effects, real estate, or even intellectual creations is buttressed by nothing less than the bedrock principle of private ownership. The Fifth Amendment codifies that the state may not confiscate property “for public use” without “just compensation.” This language presumes a healthy suspicion of government overreach, a suspicion that rings as true today as when the ink on the Constitution was barely dry. Yet the Constitution leaves open the thorny question of what exactly constitutes “public use” and who decides what is “just.”
Meanwhile, on the other side, we have the obligations of society at large We share roads, schools, and emergency services. We require a public framework where commerce can thrive, criminals are deterred, and the vulnerable are protected. Government raises revenue for this vast infrastructure chiefly through taxation a necessity in a world where no one wants to see potholes turn highways into obstacle courses or to see the first responders lacking resources in the face of disasters. This is where the delicate social contract asserts itself: in principle, we pay taxes not because we enjoy parting with our hard-earned dollars, but because civilization relies on these shared investments for common goods.
Still, the idea that taxes are legitimate does not grant the government carte blanche. Egregious or ill-conceived levies can stifle economic vitality, punish homeowners, and subvert the very concept of ownership. Colorado’s recent experience brings this point to sharp relief. When voters repealed the Gallagher Amendment a measure in place since the early 1980s to hold the line on residential property taxes homeowners soon found themselves bearing the brunt of an average 40% property tax increase. As bills climb, mortgage payments follow. For many, that means real danger of losing their homes, effectively turning an
aspirational social contract into something that feels more like *coercive appropriation*.
In an especially worrisome twist, Colorado’s HB23-1190, the so-called “Affordable Housing Right of First Refusal,” loomed on the 2023 legislative horizon. This bill fueled suspicions that the state was inching toward direct control or even quasi-confiscation of private property. It takes little imagination to see why such policies evoke distrust: taxation is no longer perceived as a shared civic duty when it threatens to undermine the sanctity of a person’s home
Hence, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The legitimate right to tax must always operate under strict scrutiny, checked by fairness and transparency. When property taxes balloon to the point of forcing citizens to give up homes in which they have invested decades of sweat and savings, the social contract begins to fray. At that juncture, “public use” can start looking like a euphemism for a too-powerful state, and “just compensation” can be dismissed as an empty promise.
The remedy calls for judicious reforms be it reinstating caps that clamp down on runaway tax hikes or granting more robust exemptions for seniors on fixed incomes. Yet, any alterations must still account for the fundamental need to fund the public sphere we rely upon daily. Striking this balance demands vigilance and level headed leadership: a government that doesn’t let the pendulum swing too far toward intrusive taxation, but also ensures we do not starve the very programs that sustain our communities.
In sum, the question “Whose property is it anyway?” offers no easy yes-or-no solution. Instead, it is a perpetual negotiation a testament to the competing yet symbiotic ideals of individual liberty and collective responsibility. We must remember the timeless wisdom embedded in the Constitution: it neither grants the government free rein over private ownership, nor does it ignore the importance of pooling our resources for the common good. It imposes checks and balances that apply as much to tax policy as they do to every other aspect of American governance.
In the end, property rights stand as both a moral principle and a practical necessity. Our founders knew that property ownership feeds personal independence an essential ingredient for human flourishing. We also know taxes fund the highways, classrooms, and protective services that make that flourishing possible on a societal scale. Maintaining this delicate equilibrium is less an achievement of a single moment than an enduring conversation with our own democratic ideals. And if we’re serious about forging a just society, we should welcome the scrutiny for it is only by asking these questions that we hold firm to liberty and keep the spirit of our constitutional promises alive
