Posts

That’s Your Opinion | Part I

I) Here’s Your Challenge

You have a perspective on a particular issue that when it’s put into practice results in a world of pain and problems.

Yet, it’s something that falls in line with your preferences, so now you have a dilemma…

How do you champion your viewpoint without sounding either outrageously selfish or absurd?

Part of what makes this especially challenging is that you have to retool the very definition of all that’s right, good, moral and just. If you are to successfully position your viewpoint as something that is comparable to every other approach, despite its flaws and liabilities, you’ve got to introduce some new standards in order to make your platform look credible.

You have to be your own absolute.

But it’s really not that hard.

All you need to do is use one of several phrases that frame the debate in a way where you are perceived as someone who’s merely advocating an environment where everyone’s opinion is credible. Now you can not only win the debate, but you can also make every other opposing mindset look sinister because those who are on the outside looking in aren’t hearing your opponent challenge your logic. Rather, they’re hearing them as being against the very concepts of compassion and understanding.

You have a number of comments to choose from:

  • Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
  • Not everyone feels that way.
  • You can’t force your beliefs on me.
  • Separation of Church and State.

Every one of these phrases has one thing in common: It changes the way you’re now no longer heard as someone trying to justify themselves. Instead, you’re heard as someone being “forced” to subscribe to something you don’t agree with.

You are a victim of a totalitarian system, and now you can’t be criticized or corrected.

The focus is now neither on the subject matter nor on the flaws of your argument. Rather, it’s on the character of the person who’s daring to question the validity of your approach because of the way you’ve been able to characterize them as overbearing and intolerant.

The direct line of questioning that has the capacity to reveal the flaws of your argument…?

Silenced.

The challenge of having to account for the damage done by the approach you subscribe to?

Not your responsibility.

No one wants to be labeled intolerant or judgmental or homophobic or racist…

So, in the context of one, well timed comment, you can shift the attention away from what’s being discussed and instead focus on the apparent character flaws of those who disagree with you. And in no time at all, you create a level of intimidation to the point where no one wants to say anything at all.

II) Your Battleplan

You can’t drive on the wrong side of the road and justify it by saying you have the right to be happy. At some point, you have to be able to certify your way of thinking as credible according to what happens when your battleplan is put into action.

If you’re forcing people into the ditch or you’re causing head on collisions, then your opinion needs to be subordinated to a different approach that yields a better result.

What you think and how you feel is important. But when you establish yourself as your own bottom line in order to avoid taking responsibility for the organic outcome of those processes you have endorsed, you’re not a victim of anything other than your own poor decision making.

You can’t shoot yourself in the foot and then turn around and blame all your pain on the one who told you not to pull the trigger to begin with.

III) Basic Math

Imagine telling someone that 2 + 2 = 4 and they respond by saying, “You can’t force your beliefs on me!”

Think about it!

They’re not declaring themselves to be right nor are they insisting that you’re wrong.

In some ways, they’re not really adding anything to the conversation, but it’s not what they’re saying as much as it’s what they’re doing.

They’re creating a distraction.

We’re not talking about math anymore. Now you’re having to contend with being labeled a tyrant and until you’ve vindicated yourself, the idea that 2 + 2 = 4 is suspect due to the way you’ve been indicted as being cruel and opinionated.

Of course, since you’re the only witness for the defense, your testimony isn’t especially compelling. You can’t really defend yourself because everyone expects you to insist that you’re innocent.

Meanwhile…

The person who said, “You can’t force your beliefs on me” is able to create their own version of mathematics.

2 + 2 can equal whatever they want because, while the conversation began by discussing the sum of two integers, it was altered by insinuating that you’re hateful and mean. Now everyone’s feeling obligated to perceive you and your platform as being inappropriate and any notion of a genuinely accurate calculation is no longer a priority.

Given some time, this kind of dynamic can actually produce an anomaly where 2 + 2 can equal anything but 4 because of the way basic addition is now characterized as unenlightened and immoral.

IV) Am I My Brother’s Keeper?

When Cain killed his brother Abel, God confronted Cain by asking him, “Where is your brother?”

Cain’s got a problem.

He can’t answer the question directly because by doing so he would be incriminating himself. So, he does the equivalent to what we’ve been talking about by asserting the idea that he is being questioned by an Individual Who is domineering and demanding.

Cain responds by asking God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

In other words, “I’m not responsible for my brother, therefore I can’t know for certain where he is and for You to assume that I would know represents a level of presumption that is neither fair nor appropriate.”

Cain tries to set himself up as a victim. He’s basically telling God, “That’s Your opinion.”

But look at how God responds.

He says, “What have you done?”

God’s Holy, so His Motives are beyond reproach. But the issue isn’t the purity of His Disposition, it’s the fact that Abel is dead and by refusing to submit to Cain’s line of questioning, God is able to maintain the true purpose of the conversation by focusing on what Cain has done and those things that have happened as a result.

Cain’s attempt to conceal both his way of thinking as well as his behavior by indirectly accusing God of having unreasonable expectations is the same methodology being deployed by people who would defend their viewpoint by saying…

That’s your opinion, you can’t force your beliefs on me, not everyone feels that way.

Even the separation of church and state is often nothing more than a veiled attempt to distract attention away from the consequences of a person’s behavior and instead make it all about the status of an individual’s emotional sensibilities.

I don’t care what the Bible says, I’m going to do whatever I want to do regardless of the problems it may cause and if you don’t agree with me, well…

That’s your opinion.

V) Conclusion

As believers we are often opposed by people who would attempt to shut down any meaningful dialogue by saying, “That’s your opinion.”

You want to be ready to process that response as something that is, at least potentially, not so much a contribution to the conversation, but as a tactic to tailor the conversation in a way where any Truth is compromised because of the way it’s now associated with an implied intolerance for the thoughts and feelings of others.

Should you find yourself in that situation, you want to take your cue from God’s Example and respond by simply asking the right questions.

Results and Outcomes as opposed to Feelings and Preferences.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you can’t force your beliefs on someone else. But you’re not being overbearing when you’re simply evaluating those things that result from when a person’s perspective is put into practice.

An “opinion,” according to the dictionary is, “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.” When God questioned Cain about Abel’s whereabouts, He wasn’t attempting to discern something that couldn’t be known for certain. There was no need to speculate. Cain’s response was an attempt to distract from those things that could be readily observed in order to perpetuate the idea that any notion of his being guilty of anything sinister was based on something wholly subjective.

And that’s the point.

When someone tries to navigate the dialogue in a way where everything remains relative in order to sustain the idea that there is no definitive right or wrong, you can counter that strategy by doing the very same thing God did with Cain: Replace subjective ideas with observable facts.

And not just some of the facts, but all of the information that’s relevant to the dialogue.

So, the next time you hear someone say, “That’s your opinion,” you can respond by saying, “No, these are observable facts” and then proceed to make your case. By bringing the focus of the debate back to what can be known and not merely felt, you’re able to prevent preferences from becoming principles and bad ideas from becoming accepted methodologies.

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part III

I) Intro

Thus far we’ve looked at how God does care about Politics and He expects us to be engaged. We looked at how the best candidates are going to be those whose platforms take the same approach as the one our Founders took when they defeated the most powerful empire on earth and built a political system founded on Biblical Absolutes.

In Part II we examined the difference between being smart and being wise in the way we process the headlines and the media that we consume.

This week we continue our discussion on being discerning when it comes to the way in which current events are presented by looking at a series of tactics that are sometimes used when you’re listening to someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they have something to hide.

II) Meet Saul Alinski

“Rules for Radicals” is a book authored by Saul Alinski, a “Community Organizer” that made a name for himself by developing a series of tactics designed to agitate and coerce decision makers to the point where they would be willing to make concessions that they wouldn’t consider otherwise.

It’s not wrong to be persistent or even shrewd in the way you obtain justice from an authority who is neither compassionate nor just (Matt 10:16; Lk 18:1-8).

But anything done in the absence of wisdom (Prov 9:10) translates to something evil.

  • Unity becomes Corruption (1 Cor 1:10)
  • Love becomes Neglect (Prov 19:18; Heb 12:7)
  • Compassion becomes a Subsidy (Prov 23:9; 26:4-8)
  • Peace becomes Indifference (Jud 1:19-26; Prov 6:10-11)
  • …and Change becomes Destruction (Ex 32:1; Jud 2:10-11; 1 Kings 12:28-30)

Saul Alinski aligned himself with noble causes, but his methods and his rhetoric betrayed an unhealthy commitment to the acquisition of power more so than the realization of principle.

You see that reflected in the dedication he wrote at the beginning of his book:

Alinski’s Rules…

Saul Alinski may have been spiritually bankrupt, but there’s no denying that his tactics proved to be very effective and continue to be effective to this day. If you’re going to defeat your enemy, you have to know how he works so you can know how to respond. But ideally, you want to have a platform in place that anticipates his strategies to the point where they’re rendered useless because of the way in which your content is structured and presented.

Rules for Radicals

  1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
  3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
  8. “Keep the pressure on.”
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
  10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
  11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.”
  12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
  13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. “

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and how is to know where mythology leaves off and history beings – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer

In his book, Reveille for Radicals, Alinski said that all radicals like himself “want to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism…They hope for a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people.”1

This was the goal. It wasn’t the elimination of Racism or Poverty as much as it was acquiring the needed power to facilitate a Socialist approach to government.

There are many informed commentaries on the fallacies of Socialism that rightfully underscore everything from the lethal consequences of a Socialist doctrine to the economic chaos of artificial pricing.

But there’s one aspect of Socialism that often gets missed which reveals it as something that is diametrically opposed to Scripture.

A) Why Socialism Doesn’t Work

Socialists generally categorize a population under two headings:

  • the rich, who are corrupt and
  • the poor who are oppressed

Those who are not where they want to be financially are, in some cases, drawn to this paradigm because in the mind of the Socialist, among the poor you have only noble and hardworking individuals who have been unfairly victimized by a flawed system.

This is an attractive option for the person who has made some bad choices because if there are no fools and there no fiends among the “downtrodden,” then they cannot be held accountable for their actions and they bear no responsibility for their choices.

But Scripture is heavily populated with verses that contrast the success of those who are diligent and the difficulties faced by those who insist on being foolish.

Proverbs 24: 30-34 says:

I went past the field of a sluggard, past the vineyard of someone who has no sense; 31 thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. 32 I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—34 and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man. (Prov 24:30-34)

On the other hand, it says in Proverbs 10:4:

Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth. (Prov 10:4)

While there are situations that can be categorized as tragic and overwhelming, you also have scenarios that are intentionally exaggerated in order to make an irresponsible disposition appear reasonable:

A sluggard says, “There’s a lion in the road, a fierce lion roaming the streets!” 14 As a door turns on its hinges, so a sluggard turns on his bed. 15 A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth. (Prov 26:13-15)

Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap. (Ecc 11:4)

In the context of Socialism, there’s no acknowledgement of how poor decision making can contribute to any one of a number of difficult situations.

Victor Davis Hanson is a professor emeritus of Classics at California State University, Fresno, the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and visiting professor at Hillsdale College. He had this to say about the way in which more and more young Americans are gravitating to Socialism:

Many young people claim to be socialists but are instead simply angry that they were unable to afford a home, a new car, or other nice things, or start a family in their “woke” urban neighborhoods during a decade of muted economic growth (2008–17) and high unemployment. In college, they were not warned about the dangers of statism and collectivism, nor given the skills to look at the world empirically. The combination of nonmarketable degrees and skills with burdensome debt helped alter an entire generation’s customs, habits, and thinking.2

Compare the way in which the perspective of someone who has a very limited resume, yet feels entitled to those things that have to be earned and not simply obtained – how does that line up with God’s View as expressed in Proverbs 24:27?

 Put your outdoor work in order and get your fields ready; after that, build your house. (Prov 24:27)

Typically, a person’s situation is going to be characterized by things that constitute both personal flaws as well as challenging circumstances (Jn 16:33; Rom 3:23). To assert the idea that every difficulty you contend with is due to a systemic restriction and you bear no responsibility whatsoever for those choices that contributed to the problem – not only is that a nonsensical philosophy, but it also violates what God says in Galatians 6:7:

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. (Gal 6:7)

In short, Socialism cannot be discussed let alone deployed without minimizing the way in which God expects individuals to take responsibility for their actions (Rom 14:12). However convenient or challenging your environment may be, Scripture makes it clear that you have available to you every Resource that you need to rise above those things that would otherwise limit you or tear you down (2 Cor 9:8; Jas 1:13).

Whatever the evil may be that stands between you and your ambition – be it the most desperate desire to survive or a noble passion to succeed – because you are not alone (Matt 28:20) and He promises that all things work together for the good (Rom 8:28) – you cannot blame anything or anyone for having yielded to the temptation to stop striving (Jn 16:33) without accusing God of having stopped caring (Rom 8:32).

Socialism’s True Result
Josef Stalin liquidated twenty million people to create the collective basis for the Soviet Union. Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward cost China forty-five million dead. Pol Pot’s back-to-the-land experiment murdered well over one million in Cambodia. Various disasters in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe turned once-prosperous states into murderous, impoverished socialist dictatorships.3

It is God Who is in control and it is His Purpose and Power in and through a person that makes the difference both individually (Rom 12:1-2) and collectively (Ps 33:12; 84:11).

Still, the temptation to take the wheel from your Heavenly Father and insist that it’s your turn to drive is alluring despite the fact that it is toxic (Prov 14:12). This is why Socialism appeals despite the Truth it ignores and the lives it has taken.

And this is why you want to be aware of what’s going on and what’s being said. This is why you want to Pop the Hood, Keep Your Balance and Kick the Tires. It’s also why you want to be aware of the some of the more frequently used tactics deployed by those who have something to hide more than they have something to say.

This is where Saul Alinski comes in. His book, Rules for Radicals details 13 tactics that can be used to get your way by virtue of the manner in which they extort, embarrass and manipulate your opponent.

In today’s discussion, we’re going to build on some of Alinski’s rules, not for the sake of glorifying them but for the sake of exposing them. And then we’re going to get more detailed in how Alinski’s approach is manifested in the media according to five easy to remember and recognize tactics we’re going to call the Progressive Pentagon.

Here we go…

III) The Progressive Pentagon

There are five tactics you can be listening for when you’re being told by someone that they have a point, when in fact they’ve got something to hide.

I call it the “Perspective Pentagon” because, taken together, they serve as the way in which the Left both defends its stance and attacks its opponents.

It’s bogus, but it’s brilliant.

Here’s the five tactics we’re going to look at:

  • They spend more time talking about labels, mobs and crowds than they do a name, a person and a choice.
  • They spend more time attacking their opponent’s character than they do discussing their opponent’s content
  • They spend more time pretending to be hurt than they do proving that they’re right.
  • They spend more time trying to appear honest than they do telling the truth.
  • They spend more time defending bad decisions and demonizing personal responsibility than they do applauding wise choices and holding people accountable for their actions.

Let’s start by looking at “Mobs…”

A) Mobs
They spend more time talking about labels, mobs and crowds than they do a name, a person and a choice.
God Knows…

“Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance, for the Lord is a God who knows, and by him deeds are weighed.” (1 Sam 2:3)

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7)

…then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive and act; deal with everyone according to all they do, since you know their hearts (for you alone know every human heart), (1 Kings 8:39)

I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (Rev 2:23)

You can conceal a person’s lack of judgment by presenting them as part of a supposedly virtuous group.

You can do the same thing, only in reverse, by making a sinister collective appear innocent by associating them with an honorable person or intention.

Both approaches are part of a heinous tactic that seeks to assign whole demographics a specific morality, regardless of the individuals who do or do not qualify…

…and it’s often used by that person who has something to hide.

1) God Doesn’t Look at Your Appearance

God doesn’t look at your appearance, He looks at your heart. So, however you would try to elevate or justify yourself by insisting that your membership in a particular tribe, company or movement is sufficient to validate your status as a moral individual, those efforts will not only fall short in the sight of God, they also tend to fail in the marketplace as well (Pro 1:32, 3:35; 10:10; Gal 6:7-8).

Jews in the time of Christ saw themselves as justified before God because of their last name (Dt 14:1-2). As a result, they felt comfortable being critical of others, despite the fact that they were just as guilty before God as those they were criticizing. Paul takes all of that apart in Romans 2:17-29. He summarizes everything beginning in verse 28:

A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. (Rom 2:28-29)

It’s not about a label, a mob or a crowd. Ultimately, the credibility of your platform is going to be measured according to the character and conduct of the individual in question and not the assumed morality of the collective.

B) Character
They spend more time assaulting their opponent’s character than they do discussing the content of their opponent’s platform.

In his book, Rules for Radicals, Alinski documents Rule #13 as: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” What you’re doing here is identifying a particular individual as the one who’s “responsible” for whatever the problem may be. Once you have your target, you focus all of your attack on them as opposed to anyone else who may bear some responsibility. That’s how you “freeze” them. And the one thing you want to keep in mind when selecting your target is that they must qualify as an intuitive personification of the problem you’re trying to solve. You make them the “poster child” for your cause and by giving your campaign a face and a specific behavior or quality to despise, you give your platform emotional momentum that draws people in because of the way they want to be perceived as compassionate and justifiably indignant.

1) A Nazarene and a Son of Mary

Jesus of Nazareth…

His hometown wasn’t especially noteworthy and some saw that as one more reason to doubt His Authenticity as the Messiah.

Even when Nathanael was skeptical. When first told about Jesus, Nathanael said:

“Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked. “Come and see,” said Philip. (Jn 1:46)

In addition, Jesus was never referred to as “Joseph’s son.” Rather, He was always referred to as “Mary’s son…”

Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mk 6:3)

Reason being is that, in the mind of His detractors, He was an illegitimate child which made Him all the less likely to be “Divine.”

Christ’s critics spent more time attempting to discredit Him than they did actually listening to Him. And the more people that were drawn to His Message, the more the Pharisees resolved to attack His Character, even to the point where they made Him out to be an enemy of the state.

IV) Conclusion

In Part IV we’re going to conclude our series by wrapping up the remainder of the “Progressive Pentagon” as well as take apart some examples where you can hear these tactics being deployed.

In the end, it’s not about winning elections or being overly cynical as much as it’s about being aware and being wise when it comes to the way in which we process current events.

To read “A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part IV,” click here. To read Part II, click here.


  1. Sanford Horwitt, Let Them Call Me a Rebel: Saul Alinski, His Life and Legacy (New York: Vintage Books, 1992); Saul Alinski, Reveille for Radicals, p25, books.google .com
  2. Hoover Institution, “Our Socialist Future?”, Victor Davis Hanson, https://www.hoover.org/research/our-socialist-future-0, accessed February 16, 2022
  3. Andreas Kluth, “Why Germany Will Never Be Europe’s Leader,” Bloomberg Opinion, April 29, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-30/coronavirus-crisis-why-germany-will-never-be-europe-s-leader; Jennifer Rankin and Daniel Boffey, “Tensions Mount between EU Members Ahead of Budget Talks,” The Guardian, February 19, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/19/tensions-mount-between-eu-members-ahead-of-budget-talks; Alberto Alesina and Francesco Giavazzi, “Will Coronavirus Kill the European Union?,” City Journal, March 27, 2020, https://www.city-journal.org/covid-19-european-union.

Did They Practice?

snareI taught for five years at the Armed Forces School of Music. You can provide a student with the instrument, the curriculum, the encouragement and every resource and facility they could possibly need or want…

But did they practice?

Today’s Socialist / Activist wants to insist that every student is a studio quality musician. They believe that if the government provides a Concert Grand Marimba or Yamaha kit, the sounds coming from those two mediums is going to be exceptional.

But that’s not the case, because the hardharger in question doesn’t know the difference between the Musser Grip or Matched Grip and couldn’t tell you what it is to prep and kick a big band.

They didn’t practice.

So, the government takes another step and adjusts the definition and the standard of a “studio musician.” Now you don’t have to worry about the metronome or the key you’re in. Just hit something and you’re going to be applauded.

Still doesn’t sound good. They didn’t practice.

So then they say the audience needs to adjust their musical sensibilities and criticizes anyone who doesn’t give a standing ovation for what amounts to a performance that is fundamentally lacking. Excellence is demonized and anyone who has worked and prepared is categorized as corrupt and guilty of having somehow exploited others in order to get to a place where they can deliver a quality performance.

And then it gets even worse.

That Socialist now comes back to you and me and insist that we change the way we grade and the way we teach. They introduce an “approved” curriculum in the name of “equality” and “compassion.”

But what if they don’t practice?

Here’s what happens…

You have a paradigm in place now that processes everyone according to their “group identity.” However they practiced doesn’t really matter – it’s not what an individual strives to achieve or fails to do. Rather, all absolutes are now dictated by the Socialist – they “achieve” equality by changing the Standard by which excellence is gauged.

And, inevitably, that Standard includes Truth and even God Himself.

In this country, the issue is rarely whether or not you have “opportunity.” Saying college is impossible is not true. I can testify in that my father went to prison my senior year in High School – there was no money for higher education. But I was able to complete my degree while serving in the USMC. It’s not whether or not you “can,” as much as it’s about whether or not you “will.” And that doesn’t mean it’s easy, but to twist what’s difficult into a form of systemic oppression is to adopt a disposition that is as cowardly as it is nonsensical especially when every systemic criteria you would point to as being responsible for an individual’s situation is inevitably revealed as an emotionally packaged strategy to distract from the one question that Socialists in this country will not tolerate…

Did they practice?

Why?

imagesHere’s a quote from Representative Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

“I’m not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” Ocasio-Cortez said during an event honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. on Monday.

Here’s my question…

Why?

Why are the people she’s referring to not employed? Why do they not have health care?

Why?

Of those who she’s addressing…

  • How many graduated High School?
  • How many when to college and secured a marketable degree?
  • How many handled their money well?
  • How many struggled with alcohol or drugs?

Some who are homeless served in the military. Of those who served…

  • How many were discharged honorably?
  • How many had a realistic plan for life after the military? Did they have a marketable skill when they got out? Did they have plans to attend college? How many just got out because they didn’t want to stay in?
  • How many took advantage of the college benefits that were available to them while they served?

There are people who are truly destitute and you don’t want to be indifferent to their situation. That’s charity.

But there are people who are homeless because of a host of truly bad decisions and they are now reaping what they have sown. And while they still may merit some assistance, to put them in the same category as those who are genuinely struggling because of some tragic circumstance, is neither wise nor practical. That’s a subsidy.

The mantra being proclaimed by Ortez is typical of the mindset that seeks to demonize anyone who’s even remotely successful as corrupt and apathetic to the needs of those who are poverty stricken. They are the Progressive Left and the Socialists who ignorantly insist that Capitalism is “immoral.”

Winston Churchill once said:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Socialism isn’t the redistribution of wealth. Rather, it’s the redistribution of authority.

Prager University has a great piece on this entitled “Capitalism vs Socialism.” While they approach it from a different angle, it’s the same message in that the individual no longer has the freedom to determine the degree of their own success. They now answer to a governmental throttle that dictates who does what and to what extent.

Gone are the days when you can dream and accomplish whatever you like. Now, you surrender all of those options and possibilities to a legislature that defines your needs and your wants. You no longer have the authority to choose, that choice is now being made for you all in the name of ensuring that no one gets ahead and thereby making someone else feel like they’re getting left behind.

For some, this is good news. They’ve squandered the opportunities they’ve been given and want to blame a “system” for the situation they’re in. What better way to advance themselves without having to take responsibility for their actions?

But it’s a toxic fume they’re inhaling because it’s capitalism that provides the best way to elevate one’s self beyond the restrictions of poverty and this is demonstrated, not only in our own society but throughout the world. And not only do you see this evidenced in India and China, but you also see it in the way mere financial aid has accomplished virtually nothing. Poverty is best eliminated in the context of sustained economic growth as opposed to perpetual contributions that rarely translate to anything beyond a temporary respite as opposed to a permanent fix.

Still, AOC, and those who think like her, continue to preach the doctrine of socialism. Even the idea of a Universal Basic Income is being entertained by some as way to “address” the problem of economic disparity and those who seem forever destined to remain in the grip of poverty and want.

Again…

“Why…?

Why are these people in the situation they’re in? Rather than limit one’s assessment of their situation to their bank account and the contents of their refrigerator, should a sensible analysis of their predicament not include the decisions they’ve made and let that determine the extent to which they’re assisted?

If capitalism has been the single most effective way to eliminate poverty in our country and throughout the world, then should it not be a philosophical starting point for the way we address the poor in this country.

I would say, “Yes.”

And I would say that you begin the whole process of determining a person’s need for assistance by asking them why they aren’t employed, why were they fired, why they didn’t take advantage of the programs they had access to?

Why?

Bruce Gust is nine year veteran of the USMC. Upon graduation from High School, his father was incarcerated for tax evasion. There was no money for college. However, he was able to earn a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration by attending night school, taking one or two courses at a time during his enlistment. After his discharge, he made his living as a professional musician with his career culminating in a record deal that gave him the opportunity to hear his efforts played on the radio across the country. After coming off the road, however, he was compelled to reinvent himself in a way that would allow him the means to support his new bride and growing family. He did so by teaching himself how to build web applications. 

His story is not especially glamorous, but it’s evidence that this country is not antagonistic to those who lack the means to afford a college education or to successfully evolve from a professional standpoint when circumstances make it necessary to do so. It’s because of his own experiences combined with his knowledge of American history that he’s determined to believe that you don’t evaluate a system according to the way it’s abused, anymore than you assume a person is a victim of circumstances without first considering the path that has forged by their own decisions. 

A Tale of Two Gyms

tripod-turnstileThere once were two gyms.

Both of them had great facilities, but at one point, Todd, the owner of one of the gyms, decided he wanted to create a situation that would help those who were overweight and out of shape by creating a turnstile that deducted a portion of the muscle-building, calorie=burning result from everyone that had just worked out and made it available to those who hadn’t exercised.

It really was revolutionary! Those who couldn’t afford a gym membership or had been injured and couldn’t workout could now simply walk through this turnstile and experience a change in their body as a certain number of calories were automatically burned and a muscle group of their choice was improved. They didn’t have to put forth any effort – all they had to do was simply walk through the turnstile and just like that, their bodies were adjusted as though they had just perspired and trained for a full 90 minutes.

It was a huge success! Suddenly people who had been struggling with a weight problem were able to see a difference in the way their clothes fit and those who had never had any real muscle tone to speak of were seeing a difference in their strength and endurance.

Meanwhile, Nathan, the owner of the other gym, continued to do business as usual. Some of his customers changed their membership and went over to Todd’s facility, but Nate didn’t seem to be overly concerned. It was as though he was waiting for something.

After about a month some of Todd’s members were noticing a problem. Some of those who were walking through the turnstile because they couldn’t train were heading down to the “Gut Bomb” restaurant down the road immediately afterwards and consuming an exorbitant number of calories. And them some of those who could workout were simply choosing not to and instead just walking through the turnstile. Those that were still motivated and disciplined were just as consistent as they had been before, but they were getting frustrated to see the fruit of their labor being distributed to a group of people, some of whom were not putting forth any effort on their own and were instead just benefiting from the efforts of others.

“Todd, we’ve made a decision,” said Rick, one of the members speaking for a small group that had assembled in front of Todd’s office.

“Great,” said Todd. “What’s on your mind?”

“We’re headed over to Nate’s gym.”

“Why would you do that?” said Todd. “You guys have been coming here for years.”

‘It’s your turnstile, man,” said Rebecca, of the other members. “We’re tired of training as hard as we do only for that work to be divvied up and distributed to some who either don’t work at all or are taking advantage of the fact that they can workout for 10 minutes and walk through your turnstile and, just like that, they’ve exercised for over an hour and a half. It’s not fair and we’re done.”

“But some of these people need help,” pleaded Todd.

“Then help them, “said Rick. “But help them with your resources. Don’t force upon your members a situation that assumes everyone is working as hard as everyone else, because they’re not.”

For a moment, Todd looked skeptical. “I don’t know if I agree with that,” he said.

“Well, you’re not the one on the treadmill. You’re not the one working out and cranking out all the reps,” said Rick.

“Have you been paying attention to your Group Fitness Classes,” asked Rebecca, another one of the members that had congregated around Todd’s office.

“What do you mean?” asked Todd.

Rebecca paused, as though she was having a hard time believing that Todd hadn’t noticed.

“You used to have 20-30 people in your classes at any given time. Now you’re lucky to have five or six. Does that not tell you something?”

Todd was getting a little indignant. “Well, what should it tell me?” he asked.

Rick paused for a minute, recognizing that the tone of the conversation was getting ready to become more heated than it needed to be.

“Todd,” said Rick in a very measured tone. “Look. We love you, we love your facility, but we’re weary of having to support others who, in some cases are unwilling to support themselves. It’s not a question of being open to helping someone as much as its being willing to subsidize someone’s bad habits.”

Todd was still not convinced there was a valid point being made.

“I really don’t know how you could feel that way,” he said.

“Well,” said Rick, “it’s pretty easy. I get done with a workout and I watch some of the beneficiaries of the work that I’ve just done on their behalf walk through your turnstile and then head on down to the ‘Gut Bomb.’ You don’t value what you haven’t earned. Consequently, they have no problem believing that they can outrun their fork. So, while I’m watching what I eat, they’re just eating what’s in front of them and pretty much destroying all the good that was done for them by others in the gym just a moment ago.”

Rebecca chimed in. “And Todd, I’ve seen it too. I know you want to help people, but you’ve got to be smart in the way you help them and not just generous.”

“What’s that supposed to mean?” asked Rick.

“Saying you want help implies that you’re making an effort and you’re needing assistance,” said Rebecca. “But you can get in line with those who are genuinely working to improve their situation and, while you look identical on paper, there are some who are actually working out on their own and watching their diet and there’s some who are expecting you to do everything for them.”

“Well,” said Rick, “I’ve got to tell you that I’m really surprised, folks. To me, you all sound very selfish and…I don’t know what to say.”

“Todd, let me ask you something,” said Rick. “How often have you worked out yourself since you installed those turnstiles?”

For a moment, there was an awkward silence in the room.

As the group started to make their way out of Todd’s office, Rick lingered and stuck his hand out to shake Todd’s hand.

“No hard feelings, Todd” said Rick.

Todd shook Rick’s hand but didn’t say anything.

Outside Todd joined Rebecca and the others and made their over to Nate’s gym. As they walked in, they were greeted by the customary sound of weights being moved around and the muffled din of hype music being played over a speaker in the corner.

“Hey, guys! Can I help you?” said Nate.

“I believe you can!” said Rick. “But, first I was wondering if we could sit down and talk with you for a little bit. I think I speak for everyone here – we’ve got a couple of questions.”

“Let me guess. You’re coming over from Todd’s place, aren’t you?” asked Nate.

Rick looked at him with a bit of an incredulous look on his face. “How did you…?”

“I’ve had several people come over with some concerns. Do y’all want to come in the conference room?” asked Nate.

One of the group members gestured to Rick and told him that he could speak for the group. It was obvious the others were interested in looking around. Rebecca, on the other hand, remained.

“I’d like to be a part of this conversation,” she said.

“C’mon in,” said Nate, as the three of them started over to the glass enclosed conference room. As they sat down, Nate closed the door.

“Do you know Todd at all?” asked Rick.

“We were college roommates,” said Nate.

“Was he talking about his turnstiles back then?” asked Rebecca, sarcastically.

Nate hesitated for a moment. “Todd’s a good man with a big heart,” said Nate. “But he and I differ as far as how to best help people get fit.”

“How do you mean?” asked Rick.

“Fitness isn’t something that you can give someone. Being out of shape isn’t an ailment that you can remedy with a gift certificate or a free jar of protein powder. Ultimately, it’s an extension of a person’s sense of discipline,” said Nate.

“So, you don’t agree with his turnstiles?” asked Rick.

“I don’t agree with the notion that you’re helping someone by suggesting that you can present them with something that can’t be given,” said Nate.

“That’s one of the most sensible things I’ve heard in a while,” said Rebecca. “And I think I understand what you’re saying, but explain it. What do you mean?”

“Fitness is more than just your appearance or your ability to perform,” said Nate. “Like any other kind of success, it has as its basis a mindset that’s resolved to make wise choices and, in some cases, some sacrifices that aren’t especially convenient. While I can provide you a facility and teach you some training techniques and dietary practices, I can’t give you either the resolve or the ambition you need to put those disciplines into practice.”

“But what do you say to someone like Todd who’s determined to give people who can’t afford a gym membership the chance to be fit?” asked Rick.

“Well,” said Nate, “there’s a difference between an opportunity and an outcome. I can’t give you a college degree without an education, just like I can’t give you the status of being an accomplished musician if you’ve never practiced. Todd’s not wrong in wanting to give people the chance to succeed, but there’s a difference between giving them a chance and giving them the result.”

“Well,” said Rebecca, “I would add that you can’t give away something that’s not yours.”

Rick smiled.

“No, I’m serious,” said Rebecca. “Todd’s whole system was based on the efforts of others. There were some that walked through those turnstiles that had no intention of working out or keeping their diet intact. It’s not that they ‘couldn’t,’ as much as they ‘wouldn’t. And, frankly, that’s why I’m here. I got tired of paying into a system that wasn’t helping people as much as it was subsidizing a bad work ethic.”

“You’re preaching to the choir,” said Nate. “Todd and I talked about this a lot. If you want to know the truth, it’s why we didn’t go into business together. I give people who can’t afford their membership dues a break on the amount. Sometimes, I even let them come in for free. But I don’t try to give them something they have to earn.”

“Because they don’t value it, right?” asked Rick.

“It’s more than that,” said Nate. “You can still enjoy something you don’t especially appreciate. I can enjoy the taste of a meal that I didn’t make. But if I want to eat that meal again, I’m either going to be completely dependent on whoever it is that made that meal, or…”

“You have to learn how to make it yourself,” said Rick.

“Exactly,” said Nate. “And I’m not going to learn how to make it myself as long as there’s an option to simply let others do it for me. That doesn’t make me a bad person, necessarily, it’s just human nature to default to the lowest common denominator and the path of least resistance.”

“And Rebecca, I agree with you,” continued Nate. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Todd’s a good man. But when you put yourself in a situation where you decide who gets the handout and who has to provide the handout, you’re placing yourself in a spot that’s vulnerable to corruption and compromise. What Todd is doing is attempting to deploy a Socialist approach to physical fitness and it’s just like Margret Thatcher said, only a little different – it will work until you run out of somebody else’s sweat and muscle. Todd has to be judge and jury, as far as determining who’s deserving, and he also has to ensure that he has resources to distribute. Those turnstiles will cease to make a difference if he doesn’t have motivated members continuing to supply him with the workout capital he wants to give to other people.”

“And when he runs out…” started Rick.

“When he runs out, not only is his little charity done, but his business is going to be bordering on collapse as well,” said Nate. “And the extent to which he wants to pursue this will determine the sort of tactics he’ll use to keep people feeding into the system and, ultimately, keeping him in business.”

“That sounds shady,” said Rebecca.

“Well, if it’s not shady, it certainly isn’t smart,” said Nate.

The three of them sat in a contemplative silence for a minute.

“Well,” said Rebecca. “I’m going to go and engage a capitalistic approach to physical fitness and go work out! Only I’ll be training knowing that I don’t have to give anything up for a turnstile afterwards!”

“Please do,” said Nate as the three of them got up and started heading for the door. “And as long as we’re talking about capitalism, don’t forget to come by my office so I can sign you up as a paying member. I wouldn’t want you to feel neglected!”

Rebecca smiled. “No, we wouldn’t want that…”