Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Will Cain, S.E. Cupp talk brokered convention and the GOP race

March 14, 2012
Wilson

Writer

What would a brokered convention look like? And why does it favor Santorum and even Gingrich, but not Mitt Romney? Will Cain and S.E. Cupp joined Glenn on radio today to discuss the increasingly likely outcome to the GOP nomination race.

Full Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: You know, let me bring on Will and S. E. I mean, you see the people that have our point of view over at CNN. They are all dead inside, aren't they?

CAIN: No comment.

GLENN: Well, S. E. ‑‑

CAIN: At the promised land this morning.

GLENN: You were at the promised land this morning?

CAIN: No, you're in the promised land ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, we are.

CAIN: This morning. You're down there in God's country every day. I'm still up here.

GLENN: I'm telling you, come on down here. We have studios here. Just a lot more people that make sense down here. Is S. E. On the phone?

CUPP: I'm here, boss.

GLENN: Hi, how are you doing, S. E.?

CUPP: I'm great. How are you?

GLENN: Good. Now everybody at MSNBC, there's not even a ‑‑ there's not even a moderate conservative over there, is there?

CUPP: I mean, it's not an easy ‑‑ it's not an easy gig.

GLENN: Yeah.

CUPP: But someone has to do it, right?

GLENN: I know. I know.

CUPP: I feel like a brave soldier going in there every day.

GLENN: I want to talk to both of you about what happened last night. First, Will, what is ‑‑ what are the ramifications of a brokered convention and do you think this is what we're headed towards?

CAIN: I think it's a possibility. The ramifications of a brokered convention, though, I don't think really turn out that differently than the kind of course we're seeing paved here for this election which is I think the most likely outcome of a brokered convention is, also, that Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee for president.

GLENN: Why?

CAIN: Well, let me ‑‑ look, let's do this, Glenn, and I hope I'm not, you know, speaking to something that everybody already knows here but what is a brokered convention and how does it, how does it work? You know, as we have all these primary elections in these states, we see the popular vote come out and, for example, last night, you know, Rick Santorum wins the vote in Mississippi and Alabama but that translates into delegates that each of these states send to the convention and raise their hands and vote for one of these guys according to how the vote in their state and their district went. And most of these guys are bound for at least one vote at that convention to vote in reflection of how their state voted. But in succession of votes, should no one have the majority of the delegates at which the number is 1,144, these delegates become progressively unbound and then they can be persuaded, they can be horse‑traded, they can be arm‑bent to switching their votes to other guys. But if we go to a brokered convention and Mitt Romney has let's say 1,000 or 900 or 1100 and Rick Santorum has, I don't know, five or 600, I don't see the scenario where you can talk 500 or 600 delegates into switching to Rick Santorum. It's possible, it's just improbable.

PAT: But there's no path really here. Do you see any path, Will, for Newt Gingrich to win this thing because he seems to be counting on a brokered convention.

CAIN: He's 100% counting on it. I was on with one of his surrogates this morning, and he admits it, this is what we're doing. Our sole strategy left is to deny Mitt Romney his path to nomination. By the way, Santorum camp is being candid now. They realize they have a very probable path to getting 1,144 delegates. They have to have something like 70% of delegates from hereon out.

PAT: Santorum does? That's almost impossible.

CAIN: Deny Romney getting the 1,144 and push this thing to a convention and see what happens on the floor.

PAT: So you're saying that's pretty much everybody's goal?

GLENN: So then wait. So why would you ‑‑

CAIN: Except for Romney.

GLENN: Except for Romney? Well, you got that one.

PAT: Who's your guy, right? You're a Romney guy?

CAIN: Me?

PAT: Yeah.

CAIN: I'm ‑‑ I don't know. I don't have guys. I don't do this guys thing. What I do is I look at each one of these guys and say ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, stop it, stop it. Stop it.

CAIN: I'm a conservative ‑‑

GLENN: Tell me who you'd vote for ‑‑ don't. Don't. I have the power to terminate you right now. Don't. Don't do it. Just tell me who you're voting for if you have a gun to your head and you had to vote today.

CAIN: Romney.

GLENN: Romney is your guy? Okay, good.

STU: Don't you love how we get treated here? Will's trying to answer this question honestly.

GLENN: We all are like that. Look, I don't think anybody ‑‑ I don't know anybody.

GLENN: Who's for Romney that's really, it was like, "Oh, my gosh, Romney's my guy." I get it. I get it.

STU: Romney mania hasn't taken over you're saying.

GLENN: It hasn't. It hasn't. So I get it. But, you know, you think ‑‑ and I've watched you enough. You think that he's the best guy for the economy, et cetera, et cetera.

CAIN: Exactly.

GLENN: S. E., let me go to you for a second. Is Santorum your guy?

CUPP: Yeah, if I had to vote today, I would vote for Santorum.

GLENN: Thank you for answering that question.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Now let me ‑‑ now let me ask you this. I think ‑‑

CUPP: My only goal, boss, my only goal at this job is to make you like me more than you like Will Cain.

GLENN: Oh, that's done.

CAIN: You got that covered, S.E.

GLENN: That was done before we hired Will. That was done before we hired Will. But I want you to know I could turn on you like that and be on Will's side at any moment.

CUPP: Don't worry. I am on my toes. I am on my toes.

GLENN: So the ‑‑ the Santorum strategy, I mean, he said yesterday ‑‑ and he really talked me right back into the ‑‑ onto the bandwagon and that is every time we've gone with a mushy moderate, we lose. Bob Dole ‑‑

CUPP: John McCain.

PAT: John McCain.

GLENN: Gerald Ford. We lose. You need somebody who is really standing up. So what is his strategy if ‑‑ the way Will explained the, you know, the convention, he's not going to be able to pull that off.

CUPP: Well, like Will said, it's improbable but not impossible. And I think, I think you're right that every year we buy into a largely media‑driven narrative that, you know, the far right is dead, social issues don't matter, we're all going to come to the center and we need moderates. It's just not the way we vote. We don't vote ‑‑ we don't elect moderates in this party. We want someone who is a visceral. We want someone who when we leave the voting booth we feel good about ourselves. We feel like we stood up for something, you know, bigger than a guy, stood up for a cause, and Mitt Romney's problem right now is that he has yet to define for us what that cause it. Santorum's cause is clear. He is a social conservative, he is a staunch social conservative, he is a Christian and so we get his message. And he is hoping certainly that that message over the next, you know, few months before the convention really resonates with the rest of the country.

GLENN: So ‑‑

CUPP: And this idea of inevitability and moderation sort of falls by the wayside.

GLENN: So Will, what is it that the pound of flesh that they are expecting to get from Romney, tell me what you think Gingrich and Santorum, if they don't think that they can win it, what is it that they would be trying to trade Romney for?

CAIN: That's a great question. I think for Gingrich, answering on his behalf, I don't think there's any answer beyond he has a personal animus to Mitt Romney at this point. For Santorum I think he does, I think he ‑‑

GLENN: So wait. Wait, wait. So couldn't Santorum, if that really is his motivation, couldn't Gingrich say I'm giving all my delegates to Santorum and close that gap for Santorum?

CAIN: You can't give your delegates. What he could do is he could drop out of the race.

STU: Yeah, yeah.

CAIN: Thus unbinding his delegates and then persuade them to go Santorum's way, which I'm not convinced, you know, he would be, he would be sending 100% of his delegates over to Santorum. But there is just no logical outcome for Newt Gingrich.

GLENN: Well, you're just saying that because you're in the bag for Newt Gingrich.

CAIN: Exactly. Exactly. I'm almost like a paid speaker for him at this point, all right? No, for Santorum, though, I think he thinks he can win.

GLENN: I think he does, too.

CAIN: I think he still, however improbable the chance is, a possibility he comes out of that convention with the win. What does he hope to get out of it? You know, I don't know. Does he think there's a vice presidential ticket there for him? I think that's doubtful. You know, I don't know what he sees in it. I think he thinks he can win.

GLENN: Okay. One last question, S. E. or Will, whoever knows this. Have you heard the tale now that Romney is looking at, you know, his people are looking at a possible vice presidential running mate of the governor of Puerto Rico.

CUPP: You know, I did hear that. We actually did deep stakes last night on the Real News and, you know, Governor Fortuno I've met a bunch of times, he's a fantastic guy, by the way, he did endorse Romney. And I have heard that that is a consideration but I've heard, you know, six months ago, boss, you and I shared an elevator and we talked about how Rubio was locked up and then three months ago Chris Christie was locked up. I mean, these kinds of rumors trickle out and ‑‑

GLENN: But I will tell you this, I will tell you this: The governor of Puerto Rico, does anybody even know if that's constitutional, but the governor of Puerto Rico would be a game‑changer. I think.

CUPP: Absolutely. Absolutely. He's smart, he is Republican, he's young, he's revitalized that territory in many ways. I mean, if you want to talk about how great Puerto Rico is, bring in Governor Pataki. He's got a house there and loves it, loves it there. He will tell you all about the things that Governor Fortuno has done.

GLENN: Yeah. The unfortunate part of that is you have to talk to governor Pataki.

STU: Do you want ‑‑ no one ever is going to like you. You realize that?

GLENN: I realize that. They don't already. Especially Will. Yes, Will.

CAIN: Yeah, I'd give you this one historical parallel of the game‑changing ability of your VP pick. I know nothing but the governor of Puerto Rico. S.E. knows about him. That's good somebody does here. But I will say this, in '76 the last time there was talk of a brokered convention when Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan approached the convention with neither having the number of delegates needed to win the nomination, Ford had a slight lead in both, Reagan picked the senator from Pennsylvania, I think his name was Schweiker or something who was seen as a moderate or liberal. He did that to balance out his ticket because he was seen as a staunch conservative, and it made some of his supporters defect from him, thus giving the nomination to Ford. So last time we had one of these, you know, these airtight conventions, possibly brokered, the VP pick carried a lot of weight.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Yeah, Gingrich is apparently tossing around the idea of Rick Perry as a VP, just trying to get that out there so hopefully he can lock up that ‑‑

GLENN: Not going to happen. It's just not going to happen.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. Thanks, guys, appreciate it.

CUPP: Thanks.

CAIN: Thank you.

GLENN: Tonight Real News on GBTV.com.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.