Posts tagged ‘history’

September 5, 2026

Maybe We Should Interview Presidents Differently

by Steve Dana

Every four years America conducts the most expensive job interview in the world.

The 2028 presidential election may sound like it’s still a long way off. It isn’t. Once we get through the midterm elections this fall, the next presidential campaign will begin taking shape almost immediately. Candidates will start testing messages, courting donors, building organizations and introducing themselves to the American people. Before they spend the next two years telling us why they deserve the job, maybe this is a good time for us—the people doing the hiring—to decide what qualifications we’re looking for.

And I’m beginning to wonder whether we ask the right questions.

We ask presidential candidates where they stand on abortion, taxes, immigration, guns, climate change, foreign policy, Social Security and a hundred other issues. Republicans want to know whether the candidate is conservative enough. Democrats want to know whether theirs is progressive enough. Interest groups have scorecards. Donors have priorities. Activists have litmus tests.

But the person we elect will become the chief executive of the United States.

Maybe somewhere along the way we ought to ask:

What have you actually run?

That question seems almost embarrassingly simple.

Yet we have spent most of my lifetime electing professional politicians to an executive position unlike any other on earth.

Why This Matters

The President of the United States is responsible for an executive branch that spends trillions of dollars, employs millions of people directly and indirectly, negotiates with allies and adversaries, oversees the military, responds to disasters, enforces federal law and makes decisions that can affect American lives for generations.

This isn’t an honorary position.

It isn’t a reward for giving the best speech.

And it shouldn’t be the final promotion in a political career.

We ought to care whether the person asking for the job has demonstrated some ability to do the job.

Donald Trump, for all his faults, forced me to think differently about that.

I don’t believe America needs another Donald Trump.

I do believe America should learn something from having elected him.

The Professional Political Résumé

For most of modern history, we have treated government experience as one of the principal qualifications for the presidency.

A candidate served in the House.

Then the Senate.

Maybe became governor.

Perhaps served as vice president.

He accumulated twenty or thirty years in public life and eventually we were told that all that experience made him ready for the Oval Office.

Maybe.

But experience doing what?

Political professionals become very good at politics. They learn how to raise money, assemble coalitions, make speeches, win elections, work committees, negotiate legislation and satisfy constituencies.

Those are useful skills.

But they aren’t the same skills required to run the largest, most consequential  organizations in the world.

A senator doesn’t have to make payroll.

Congress can spend more money than it collects year after year and call the result a budget.

A business owner who tries that long enough gets introduced to his banker under less pleasant circumstances.

Political professionals spend enormous amounts of money, but almost none of it belongs to them. They make decisions affecting businesses they have never operated and employees they have never hired.

And when a government program fails?

Nobody goes broke.

Nobody loses the house.

Nobody tells the family that the business is gone because Dad made the wrong decision.

They hold a hearing.

Then they appropriate some more money.

That is a very different education from the education received by someone whose mistakes have consequences.

Failure Is Experience Too

One criticism of Donald Trump has always been that some of his business ventures failed.

That’s true.

But I’m not sure failure is always the disqualification we pretend it is.

I’ve been in business. Failure teaches things success never gets around to mentioning.

You hire the wrong person.

You misjudge the market.

You borrow too much.

You trust somebody you shouldn’t have trusted.

You make a deal that looked wonderful on paper and discover reality forgot to read the proposal.

Then you live with it.

Trump has had spectacular successes and spectacular failures. Whatever else we think of him, he has operated in an environment where decisions have consequences.

That matters.

I’d like presidential candidates to be able to answer a question we rarely ask:

Tell me about something you really screwed up. What did it cost you, and what did you learn?

I’d learn more from that answer than from another rehearsed speech about their vision for America.

The Pragmatist

Years ago I came across a piece falsely attributed to Charles Krauthammer arguing that Trump was neither really liberal nor conservative, but a pragmatist.

Krauthammer didn’t write it. The attribution was bogus.

But the thought stuck with me.

A pragmatist sees a problem and asks how to solve it.

Not: What is the Republican solution?

Not: What is the Democratic solution?

What works?

The bogus essay argued that immigration isn’t fundamentally a Republican or Democratic problem. Neither are trade, debt or economic decline. They are American problems requiring workable solutions.

That idea is bigger than Donald Trump.

In fact, I hope it eventually outlives him.

One of the frustrations of modern politics is that ideology too often dictates the permitted solution before anybody finishes defining the problem.

Democrats and Republicans have constituents they must satisfy.

And frequently those constituents are not the voters.

The political class develops priorities that frequently aren’t the priorities of the people paying the bills.

Then everybody retreats to their corner and calls the stalemate principle.

Maybe we could use more pragmatists.

The Art of the Deal

As painful as it may be for some people to admit, Trump’s The Art of the Deal contains another qualification we should think about when selecting presidents.

Negotiation.

Trump sees negotiations differently from most politicians.

He understands leverage.

He understands opening positions.

He understands that the first proposal doesn’t necessarily have to be the final proposal.

He understands that sometimes you begin by asking for something outrageous because doing so changes the boundaries of the conversation.

Some of Trump’s proposals sound preposterous.

Sometimes they probably are preposterous.

Trump is fully capable of saying something ridiculous without having formulated a master strategy beforehand.

But it is equally foolish to assume that every outrageous opening is proof that he hasn’t thought about what comes next.

An extreme opening position can establish an anchor.

It can force the opponent to react to your proposal instead of allowing you to react to his.

It can reveal what the other side really values.

And it can create room for an eventual agreement that would have looked impossible before the negotiation began.

Trump also understands something politicians frequently forget:

Sometimes no deal is better than a bad deal.

Government officials often enter negotiations under tremendous pressure to produce an agreement. If everyone knows you must return home waving a signed document, your opponent already possesses leverage.

A businessman learns that occasionally the most powerful word in a negotiation is no.

I don’t need the next president to have Trump’s personality.

But I’d like him to understand leverage.

The Trouble With Trump

None of this requires pretending Donald Trump doesn’t come with enough baggage to fill an airport carousel.

He can be crass.

He is vain.

His ego enters the room several minutes before the rest of him.

He turns disagreements into personal battles that never needed to happen.

He can insult somebody who might have helped him ten minutes later.

His discipline leaves something to be desired.

And sometimes his mouth obscures a perfectly legitimate argument.

Trump’s supporters occasionally make the mistake of believing that because his enemies exaggerate his faults, we have to pretend those faults don’t exist.

We don’t.

Trump can behave like a buffoon.

But he’s no dummy.

And confusing those two things can be a serious mistake.

The characteristics that make Trump difficult can sometimes make him effective.

His unpredictability creates chaos, but it can also prevent opponents from knowing exactly what he will do.

His ego creates unnecessary conflict, but it also makes him difficult to intimidate.

His willingness to violate political conventions can be embarrassing, but it also allows him to question assumptions that professional politicians stopped questioning years ago.

His stubbornness can prevent compromise.

It can also prevent surrender.

The trick for the future isn’t finding another Trump.

It is identifying which characteristics were valuable and finding them in somebody with better self-control.

The Candidate After Trump

The next round of interviews is about to begin. Suppose this time we interviewed presidential candidates differently.

What have you built?

What have you run?

How many people have depended upon your decisions for their livelihood?

Have you ever been responsible for a real budget you couldn’t simply increase?

Have you negotiated when your own money or reputation was at risk?

Have you ever hired somebody smarter than you?

Have you fired somebody you personally liked because they couldn’t do the job?

When did you abandon a plan because the facts showed it wasn’t working?

Tell us about your biggest failure.

Tell us what it cost you.

Tell us what you learned.

And perhaps most importantly:

Can you listen to experts without becoming captive to them?

A President needs experts.

Nobody understands everything from nuclear weapons to epidemiology to monetary policy to artificial intelligence.

But experts advise.

Presidents decide.

The adviser can write another paper explaining why his theory should have worked.

The President has to live with what actually happened.

I’d like a President capable of listening carefully to the smartest people in the room and then asking:

That’s a fine theory. Does the damned thing work?

What We Should Keep

Our MAGA discussions have repeatedly led me to the same conclusion.

Trump and the ideas associated with him don’t have to remain permanently attached to one another.

Some of the ideas are bigger than the man.

So are some of the lessons about leadership.

Maybe presidential experience should include more than government service.

Maybe building something matters.

Maybe meeting payroll matters.

Maybe negotiating matters.

Maybe failure matters.

Maybe accountability matters.

Maybe having operated in the real world, where arithmetic eventually wins every argument, matters too.

And then let’s add the qualities we wish Trump possessed in greater quantity.

Humility.

Discipline.

Temperament.

The ability to hear criticism without treating it as betrayal.

The ability to admit error without believing the admission makes him weak.

Confidence without constant self-celebration.

Strength without needless cruelty.

Pragmatism without chaos.

Imagine a candidate with substantial executive experience, negotiating ability, an understanding of risk and accountability, the willingness to challenge stale assumptions—and enough humility and discipline not to make every issue about himself.

That sounds like somebody worth interviewing.

Every four years Americans are told we are choosing the most powerful leader in the world.

Maybe it’s time we stopped conducting the interview as though we’re selecting the chairman of a political club.

The presidency is an executive job.

We ought to start hiring accordingly.

FIND ME FOR LONG FORM PUNDITRY AT SUBSTACK AS WELL http://www.theteapartypundit.substack.com/

July 17, 2026

The Covenant Above the Tribe

by Steve Dana

Human beings are tribal by nature.

Read Steve’s work on Substack http://www.theteapartypundit.substack.com

That is not an insult. It is an observation. We are born into families, neighborhoods, languages, customs, churches, histories, and loyalties that we did not invent. Long before we learn political theory, we learn who “our people” are. We learn who is safe. We learn who is suspect. We learn who shares our values, our stories, our habits, and our assumptions about the world.

Tribal instinct is not always evil. It can produce loyalty, courage, sacrifice, duty, and love. A man who will not defend his family is not morally superior because he has risen above tribe. He is morally deficient because he has failed the first test of loyalty. The same is true of neighborhoods, churches, communities, and nations. Human beings need belonging.

But the same instinct that binds people together can also turn poisonous. The line between “I love my people” and “your people are in my way” is not as thick as civilized people like to imagine.

That is the problem America has always tried to solve.

Our country was not founded on the fantasy that human beings would stop forming factions. The Founders understood human nature better than most modern political operators do. They knew that individuals and groups would seek advantage. They knew that people would organize around interest, passion, resentment, wealth, religion, region, and identity. They knew that majorities could become oppressive and minorities could become desperate. They knew that power, once acquired, is rarely surrendered gracefully.

That is why America was built not merely as a democracy, but as a constitutional republic. Majority rule matters, but majority rule alone is not justice. A majority can be wrong. A majority can be vengeful. A majority can violate the rights of the minority. A majority can turn government into an instrument of punishment. A majority can convince itself that because it has the votes, it also has moral permission to do whatever it wants.

The Founders knew better.

The purpose of the American covenant was to place something higher than tribe, faction, party, race, religion, class, and temporary political victory. That higher thing was the idea that all citizens stand under the same Constitution, possess rights that government did not create, and owe allegiance to a common civic order. The American bargain was not that every person would be the same. It was not that ancestry, culture, religion, and family history would disappear. The bargain was that those identities would be subordinated to citizenship.

That is a demanding idea.

It asks human beings to do something they do not naturally do. It asks them to restrain their own tribe when their tribe has power. It asks them to protect the rights of people they do not like. It asks them to honor the law even when the law benefits their opponent. It asks them to accept election results they did not want. It asks them to teach their children that liberty is not merely personal freedom, but ordered freedom under a shared moral and constitutional discipline.

That is America at its best.

But America at its worst is what happens when the covenant weakens and the tribes take over.

Political partisans understand this better than they admit. When they are in the majority, they speak the language of mandate, democracy, progress, justice, and the will of the people. When they are in the minority, they speak the language of rights, restraint, fairness, oppression, and abuse of power. The same people who celebrate majority power when it serves them often discover constitutional limits the moment power changes hands.

That is not unique to one party. It is not unique to American politics. It is human nature.

The group in power wants to use power. The group out of power wants to limit power. The majority says, “We won.” The minority says, “You are going too far.” When the tables turn, the speeches change, but the instinct remains.

This is why the struggle between majority and minority power must never be dismissed as merely academic. It is the living tension at the center of every government. In neighborhoods, gangs, legislatures, school boards, city councils, churches, nations, and civilizations, the side with power sets the terms. The side without power looks for ways to survive, resist, organize, and eventually replace the ruling coalition.

That is the nature of power.

The danger becomes greater in a multicultural society, because people do not organize only around policy. They organize around identity, memory, grievance, and fear. A group that cannot form a majority on its own may join with other groups that share little except a common opponent. These coalitions can be powerful. They can also be fragile, cynical, and dangerous.

A coalition built around shared principles can strengthen a republic.

A coalition built around shared resentment can destroy one.

This is where America’s modern challenge becomes so serious. We often talk as if our racial and cultural divisions are unique to us. They are not. Tribal conflict is one of the oldest facts of human history.

The world is full of examples. Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Indonesian peoples may all be called “Asian” from a distance, but they are not interchangeable peoples with one shared memory. Many carry histories of conquest, occupation, contempt, humiliation, and war. In the Middle East, Sunni and Shiite Muslims have fought for centuries over faith, legitimacy, power, and blood. In Europe, Protestants and Catholics killed each other in the name of God, nation, crown, and doctrine. Jews have been persecuted across civilizations by people who claimed moral and religious authority. In Africa, tribal and ethnic conflicts have often produced cruelty that outsiders barely understand. Around the world, majorities have used power against minorities, and minorities have dreamed of the day when power would shift.

America did not invent tribal conflict.

America’s claim was that it had found a way to rise above it.

Not perfectly. Not always. Not without hypocrisy. Not without sin. Not without slavery, discrimination, exclusion, injustice, and failure. But the claim still mattered. The American idea said there was a standard above tribe by which even America itself could be judged. That is why the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution remain so powerful. They did not merely describe what America already was. They declared what America was obligated to become.

That obligation is the covenant.

A covenant is more than a contract. A contract says, “I will do this if you do that.” A covenant says, “We are bound together by something higher than immediate advantage.” The American covenant says that we are not merely competing tribes living under one flag. We are citizens of one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Those words are easy to recite. They are hard to live.

They require the old majority to understand that historic dominance does not grant permanent ownership of the country. They require rising minorities to understand that past mistreatment does not justify future revenge. They require immigrants to understand that coming to America means more than gaining access to jobs, schools, benefits, safety, and opportunity. It means entering a civic inheritance that demands loyalty, gratitude, duty, and participation. They require native-born citizens to understand that citizenship is not automatic virtue. A person can be born here and still despise the covenant. A person can come from somewhere else and embrace it with reverence.

That last point matters.

This argument is not a defense of bloodline America. It is a defense of covenant America.

A Hispanic citizen who loves the Constitution is more American in spirit than a white citizen who hates it. A black pastor who teaches family, duty, faith, and ordered liberty is more faithful to the American covenant than a wealthy elite who funds contempt for the country while enjoying every benefit it provides. An immigrant who comes here determined to become an American is a blessing to the nation. A native-born citizen who teaches children that America is nothing more than oppression is a danger to the nation.

The dividing line cannot simply be race, ethnicity, birthplace, or ancestry.

The dividing line must be allegiance.

Do you believe in the American covenant or not?

That is the central question.

For much of our history, immigrants came to America with a clear understanding. They came from places where opportunity was limited, governments were corrupt, religious liberty was fragile, class barriers were hard, poverty was inherited, and political power belonged to someone else. America was not perfect, but it offered something rare: a chance.

The older immigrant bargain was simple: come here, work hard, become American, and your children can rise.

Those immigrants did not always abandon their food, language, churches, customs, or family traditions. Nor should they have been expected to. But the public expectation was clear. Heritage was permitted. Citizenship was primary. The hyphen might describe ancestry, but it was not supposed to outrank America.

Something changed.

Over the last several decades, the older language of assimilation weakened. The melting pot gave way to a different model, one that often placed ethnic identity, grievance, and ancestral recovery at the center of public life. America’s institutions became less confident in teaching newcomers why becoming American was an honor. At the same time, our schools, universities, media, and political movements increasingly taught native-born children to view their country not as a flawed but noble inheritance, but as a source of shame.

That has consequences.

The first-generation immigrant often compares America to the country he left. He remembers the corruption, poverty, fear, violence, limitation, or hopelessness. He is grateful. He works. He sacrifices. He tells his children that America gave the family a future.

The second-generation child may compare America not to the country his parents escaped, but to an abstract moral ideal presented in a classroom. He may be taught that America’s failures define it more than its achievements. He may inherit the fruits of assimilation while being taught to despise the tree that bore them.

That is a civic tragedy.

It is also politically useful.

A grateful citizen is hard to manipulate. A resentful identity group is easier to organize. Political operatives understand this. They know how to cultivate suspicion between groups. They know how to turn history into grievance and grievance into turnout. They know that several minority groups with little in common can be assembled into a majority if they can be persuaded to oppose the same enemy. They know that people who might not share values can still share resentment.

That is not nation-building.  That is faction-building.

And faction-building is not enough to sustain a republic.

A republic requires citizens who can say, “My group may benefit from this policy, but it is still wrong.” It requires citizens who can say, “My party has the votes, but the Constitution still restrains us.” It requires citizens who can say, “My ancestors suffered, but I am not entitled to punish my neighbors for sins they did not commit.” It requires citizens who can say, “My family came from another country, but my loyalty now belongs here.” It requires citizens who can say, “My country has failed, but I still love it enough to repair it rather than curse it.”

Love of country is not blindness.

Patriotism does not require pretending America has never done wrong. In fact, real patriotism requires the courage to tell the truth about national failures. But there is a difference between correction and contempt. There is a difference between loving your country enough to improve it and hating your country enough to dismantle it.

A child who is taught only America’s sins will not inherit America’s virtues.

A newcomer who is welcomed into benefits but not into the covenant will not necessarily become a citizen in the moral sense.

A political party that treats people as demographic inventory will not build national unity.

A majority that uses power for revenge will teach the next minority to seek revenge when its turn comes.

That is the cycle we must break.

The answer is not for one tribe to defeat all the others. That would merely prove the danger. If the old majority seeks only restoration of dominance, it has misunderstood America. If rising minorities seek only payback, they have also misunderstood America. If immigrants come only for material benefit without allegiance, they have misunderstood America. If native-born citizens inherit liberty without duty, they have misunderstood America.

America cannot survive as a spoils system among competing tribes.

It can only survive as a covenant people.

That means we must recover a language of citizenship that is firmer, clearer, and more honest than the language we use now. We should not be afraid to say that immigration requires assimilation. Not cultural erasure, but civic assimilation. We should not be afraid to say that English matters, common history matters, constitutional literacy matters, public order matters, borders matter, voting matters, military and civic service matter, and gratitude matters.

We should not be afraid to say that rights come with duties.

We should not be afraid to say that America is worth loving.

That may be the most radical statement left in public life: America is worth loving.

Not because she is flawless. She is not.

Not because every generation has lived up to her promises. It has not.

Not because every leader has been honorable. Many have not been.

America is worth loving because the covenant is worth preserving. A nation founded on the claim that rights come from God, that government exists by consent, that citizens are equal before the law, that speech and worship are free, that power must be limited, and that justice belongs to all is a nation with a moral architecture rare in human history.

If we lose that, we will not replace it with utopia.

We will replace it with tribes.

And tribes know what to do with power.

This brings us back to the practical lesson: the people who show up get to have their way.

A constitutional majority will not appear by magic. A civic majority must be formed, taught, organized, and mobilized. People who believe in the American covenant must stop assuming that their values will govern automatically because they are decent, quiet, hardworking, and normal. Quiet people are not in charge. Organized people are.

The future is being shaped in school board meetings, city council chambers, county offices, state legislatures, curriculum committees, party caucuses, churches, neighborhood groups, and primary elections. The people who attend those meetings, ask questions, run for seats, fund candidates, teach children, write arguments, and build institutions are the people who steer the country.

Absence is surrender.

If citizens who love America stay home, citizens who want to transform America will not pause out of courtesy. They will govern. They will write curriculum. They will staff agencies. They will nominate candidates. They will interpret laws. They will shape language. They will define justice. They will decide what children are taught to love and what they are taught to hate.

That is not a complaint. It is a reality.

In a republic, power goes to those who participate.

So the call is not merely to resentment. Resentment is easy. The call is to responsibility.

If we believe America is a covenant, we must teach the covenant.

If we believe citizenship matters, we must practice citizenship.

If we believe immigrants should become Americans, we must be confident enough to tell them what that means.

If we believe our children should love their country, we must give them reasons to love it.

If we believe power must be restrained, we must restrain our own side when our own side wins.

If we believe liberty and justice are for all, we must defend them even for people outside our tribe.

That is the hard patriotism America requires now.

The temptation of the age is to retreat into tribe. Every group can justify doing so. Every group has wounds. Every group has fears. Every group can tell stories of mistreatment. Every group can point to another group and say, “They would do it to us if they had the chance.”

Maybe they would.

That is precisely why the covenant matters.

The covenant is not needed because human beings are naturally fair. It is needed because we are not. It is not needed because majorities are always wise. It is needed because they are not. It is not needed because minorities are always noble. It is needed because they are human too. It is not needed because power corrupts only our enemies. It is needed because power tempts everyone.

America’s survival depends on whether enough of us still believe there is something higher than winning.

Higher than party.

Higher than race.

Higher than ancestry.

Higher than grievance.

Higher than revenge.

Higher than the temporary satisfaction of seeing our opponents humiliated.

That higher thing is the American covenant.

One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Not one tribe over another.

Not one faction above the law.

Not one coalition entitled to rule forever.

Not one grievance given permission to become tyranny.

One nation.

That is the promise.

That is the duty.

That is the inheritance.

And if we want to keep it, we had better start acting like citizens again.

March 22, 2026

The Freedom to Stand for Something

by Steve Dana

THERE IS A QUIET SHIFT TAKING PLACE IN OUR COUNTRY

It doesn’t arrive with headlines or breaking news. It doesn’t come with sirens or speeches. It shows up in smaller ways—in how we speak to one another, in how we honor our commitments, in how we think about right and wrong.

It shows up in what we are willing to tolerate.  And perhaps more importantly… in what we are no longer willing to stand for.

So let me ask a simple question.  “What happens to a free society when its people no longer believe in the value of self-restraint?”

A SYSTEM BUILT ON CHARACTER

When the founders designed this country, they did something remarkable. They created a system of government built not on control, but on trust.  But that trust was not blind.  It rested on an assumption—one so obvious to them they didn’t feel the need to spell it out in detail.  They assumed the people would be guided by a moral compass. 

Not because the government forced them to be.  But because they believed it was the right way to live.

They had seen the alternative. They understood that when people cannot govern themselves, someone else eventually steps in to do it for them.  And that someone else is rarely gentle.

NO STATE RELIGION… BUT NOT A MORAL VACUUM

There is something else the founders understood, and it is often misunderstood today.  They rejected the idea of a state religion. But they did not reject the importance of religion itself.  In fact, they believed just the opposite.

They believed faith—particularly the moral teachings that had shaped their culture—was too important to be controlled by government.  So, they made a deliberate choice:  They would separate church from state… But they would not separate morality from society.

They assumed that the ethical framework shaped largely by the Christian tradition would continue to live in the people—in their homes, in their communities, and in their daily decisions.  Government would not enforce it.  The people would carry it. 

That was the design.

FREEDOM REQUIRES SOMETHING FROM US

We like to talk about freedom as if it is something we possess.  Something we inherited.  Something we can hold onto simply by defending it from outside threats.  But freedom is not self-sustaining.  It requires something from us.  It requires discipline.  It requires restraint.  It requires millions of quiet decisions made every day by ordinary people: 

  • To tell the truth.
  • To keep our word.
  • To respect others.
  • To choose responsibility over convenience.

These are not acts of government.  They are acts of character.  And without them, no system—no matter how well designed—can endure.

THE DRIFT WE ARE EXPERIENCING

Today, we are watching what happens when that foundation begins to weaken.  We are more connected than ever before, yet we trust each other less.  We have more laws than any generation in history, yet compliance feels increasingly optional.  We talk constantly about rights, but far less about responsibility.  And when something goes wrong, we are more likely to ask: “Can I get away with it?” Rather than:  “Is it right?”

That is not a small shift. It is a fundamental one. Because when internal restraint declines, external control begins to rise. 

  • More regulation. 
  • More oversight.
  • More enforcement.

Not because it is desired—but because something must replace what has been lost.

THE WRONG CONVERSATION

In times like these, we are tempted to look outward.  To blame institutions. To blame leaders.  To blame other cultures or belief systems.

And while there are certainly real challenges in the world around us, that is not where this story begins.  A society does not lose its moral footing because of outsiders.  It loses it when those inside no longer believe in what they once stood for.  That is the harder truth.  And it is the one we must face if we are serious about preserving what we have been given.

STANDING FOR SOMETHING – NOT JUST AGAINST SOMETHING

We are very good these days at telling each other what we oppose.  We argue.  We criticize.  We dismantle.  But we are less certain about what we are building.  And that is where the danger lies.  Because if we do not stand for something positive, something enduring, something rooted in principle, something else will fill the void.  Something louder.  Something more rigid.  Something less forgiving.

History has shown us that again and again.

EDUCATION:  WHERE THE FUTURE IS DECIDED

If a moral and ethical society is not enforced by government… then where does it come from?  The answer is simple.  It is taught.  It is passed down.  It is reinforced over time.

And that makes education—not just schooling, but education in the broadest sense, the most important institution in a free society. Because every generation must be taught what the previous generation believed.  Not forced. Not coerced.   But taught.

We do not need to hand every child a Bible and require belief.  That was never the model.  But we do need to teach the lessons that sustained a free people:

  • That truth matters
  • That promises matter
  • That life has value
  • That self-control is strength, not weakness
  • That freedom is tied to responsibility

These are not just religious ideas.  They are civilizational ones.  And if we stop teaching them, we should not be surprised when they disappear.

A SOCIETY THAT TEACHES NOTHING, STANDS FOR NOTHING

We have, in many ways, stepped back from teaching moral clarity.  Partly out of a desire to avoid offense.  Partly out of a belief that values should be entirely personal.  But the result is not neutrality, it is confusion.  And confusion does not build strong societies.  It weakens them.

Because when young people are not given a framework for understanding right and wrong, they will live in a value-free world.  They will adopt whatever framework is loudest, most persuasive, or most convenient.  And that framework may not support the kind of society we hope to sustain.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CONTROL

Let’s be clear about something.  Teaching moral and ethical behavior is not about control.  It is not about forcing belief.  It is not about placing a burden on the individual.  It is about preserving the very thing that makes freedom possible.

Because when people choose to live by a moral code, they reduce the need for external control.  They make room for freedom.  They create trust.  They build stability.

That is not oppression.  That is the foundation of a healthy society.

THE CHOICE BEFORE US

We are at a point in time where we have a choice.  We can continue down the path of moral uncertainty, where everything is negotiable and nothing is anchored.  Or we can make a conscious decision to stand for something.

To teach it.  To model it.  To live it.

Not because we are forced to.  But because we believe it is right.

THE STANDARD WE SET

In the end, the question is not whether our system still works.  It is whether we are willing to meet the standard it requires.  A moral and ethical society cannot be legislated into existence.  It must be chosen.  Individually.  Daily.  Imperfectly, Yes—but sincerely.

AND THAT IS THE REAL TEST

We can debate policy.  We can argue about culture.  We can analyze trends and point to problems.  But none of it will matter if we lose sight of the foundation beneath it all.  A free society does not survive because it is protected.  It survives because it is practiced, every day.  By people who understand that freedom is not the absence of restraint… But the ability to choose what is right.

November 9, 2025

When Righteousness Becomes Violence

by Steve Dana

Lessons from Mao’s Cultural Revolution

Tell me if this sounds familiar. At the height of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, China’s universities stopped being places of learning. They became factories of ideological conformity.

Teachers and administrators who didn’t embrace the Communist revolution were branded “rightists.” Students were told to find them, expose them, and punish them. Many obeyed with religious zeal, convinced that loyalty to Mao outweighed every other moral duty.

The Rise of the Red Guards

From this fanaticism emerged the Red Guards — militant bands of teenagers unleashed upon society. With Mao’s blessing, they stormed through cities and villages declaring themselves defenders of revolutionary purity.

They tore down monuments, burned books, and desecrated temples. Teachers were beaten. Children informed on their parents. Neighbors became accusers and victims all at once. It wasn’t random chaos — it was the logical outcome of what they’d been taught.

The Redefinition of Morality

Disagreement itself was redefined. To question the Party was not merely to be wrong; it was to be inhuman. And once an idea is labeled inhuman, violence against it becomes not only acceptable, but righteous.

The act of silencing or destroying an opponent was no longer seen as cruelty — it was seen as virtue. The moral compass had been inverted so completely that brutality felt like heroism.

Fear replaced trust. Education gave way to indoctrination. Intellectual independence disappeared under the threat of public denunciation. Families disintegrated as children betrayed parents to prove loyalty to the revolution. By the time it ended, millions were dead, and the cultural memory of a nation lay in ruins.

A Pattern That Echoes Through Time

The lesson is dark, but it echoes through history:
When youth are weaponized by ideology…
When universities teach obedience instead of curiosity…
When disagreement becomes criminal…
Violence stops being taboo. It becomes justice.

Mao understood something terrifying: it’s easier to control a society by igniting passion from below than by enforcing power from above. Once the young believe their violence is virtuous, the revolution will devour its own.

What We Must Remember

The Cultural Revolution warns us what happens when certainty replaces curiosity and purity tests replace reasoned debate. The worst atrocities are not committed by those who know they are evil — but by those convinced they are righteous.

A Call to Vigilance

We must stay vigilant. Defend the spaces where disagreement is possible. Protect the right to question without fear. Resist the seductive clarity of ideologies that divide the world into saints and sinners.

Teach the next generation to think — not to march. To question their own certainty. To see even their enemies as human beings worthy of dignity.

History’s graves are filled with people who thought their cause justified cruelty. The question for our time is simple: Will we have the wisdom and courage to stop it before it consumes us?

I wrote the commentary on this document, but I didn’t write the original message at the top. I don’t know who did but thought it was important to share with my thoughts added.