Yaron Brook From the Ayn Rand Institute Weighs in on Trump

How do we assess information reasonably and logically in a post-factual world? Yaron Brook with the Ayn Rand Institute joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday to discuss the latest fake news on President-elect Trump, a Trump presidency and how to logically access the relationship between Trump and Russia. Brook's latest book --- Equal Is Unfair --- takes on the issue of equality. The left would have us believe that equality means equality of outcome or opportunity. Brooks makes the case that it means equality of freedom, liberty, rights and justice.

"The whole idea of equality is a false God. It's a false God," Brooks said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: We'll have some idea, if government takes this report at all credible on Donald Trump. Because in that report, it says that Russia has made several deals on energy with Trump or Trump surrogates. I mean, again, where are we getting this? How is it happening? There's no reason to accept this information, and there's no reason to dismiss this information. It's just out now, and it is what it is. We have to use some logic.

But we'll see if anyone takes this seriously, seeing that Tillerson is having his confirmation hearing today. President of Exxon, let's see if the senator brings that up. If they don't, that speaks volumes about the credibility of this.

Yaron Brook is here from the Ayn Rand Institute. How are you, sir?

YARON: I'm good. How about you? Crazy times.

GLENN: Good.

Yeah, I know. We had some plans to talk about some other things that are important.

YARON: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: First, I want to get your thoughts on this -- this is -- you're a very logical reasoned man.

YARON: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: We are living in a time beyond reason and logic.

YARON: It is. Because reason and logic require facts. They require evidence. They require the ability to look at the world and know what's true and what's not or at least have an indication of what's true or what's not. We're living in an era of fake news, where you don't know where this is coming from, why this is being reported, who is reporting it. It's really hard to get your head around it, and with good reason.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question? I have a two-volume set -- I think it's actually in my office, I have a two-volume set from 1926. It's a reprint from the New York Historical Society.

YARON: Yep.

GLENN: And it's from the committee on the -- the committee looking into the conspiracies of the Revolutionary War. It was convened right after the Revolutionary War. They wanted to find out where all these rumors came from, where all this fake news came from. And it's probably 500 pages.

YARON: Yep. Sure. Sure.

GLENN: So fake news is not new. It's always been this way. It's just different.

YARON: Yeah. But it's never had the credibility it has today. I mean, people are taking it seriously in a way they never did before.

GLENN: Yes.

YARON: And generally, we don't discuss issues in a reasonable, logical way. This election, more than any other election, I think, was based so much on pure emotion.

GLENN: Yes.

YARON: And what we're seeing today is the media -- we're seeing our political leaders. We're seeing our intellectuals, from universities, promote emotion as the means towards knowledge, rather than thinking and reasoning and using logic. We don't teach our kids logic --

GLENN: So how would you logically look at this story and say, "This is how we begin to untangle this story?"

YARON: Well, I mean, you really have to look at, "What are the real sources? Without sources, it's really hard to untangle anything." But you also have to look at, "Okay. What are the incentives? What's going on here?"

And look, the Russians are bad guys. The Russians are bad guys. Putin is not a good guy.

And I think this -- there's some evidence to suggest -- there's a relationship between Putin and Trump. Something is going on. Trump is so adamantly defending Putin. Was throughout the campaign. Is now.

There's some relationship between Trump and Russia. We don't know what it is. You know, there's no reason to believe these particular allegations. But one has to be skeptical about what is going on, given how adamant Trump is, in defending anything Russian.

GLENN: Could it be -- could it be -- let's talk about Tillerson.

YARON: Yep.

GLENN: Tillerson is a deal-maker. Okay? What is our foreign policy? I don't know. We put a deal-maker in. And he's best at making deals, where?

YARON: Russia and the Middle East. And I think much of our foreign policy -- we are not going to be tough. With Tillerson there, we're not going to be tough on Russia. We're unlikely to be tough on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf --

GLENN: And you like Tillerson?

YARON: I like Tillerson.

Tillerson is an Atlas Shrugged fan. He's not a guy. He's obviously an incredibly competent CEO. He did a good job. I like CEOs. I like businessmen. I think they're great. Right?

But is he a foreign policy expert? Does he bring a principled view of foreign policy? I mean, maybe. I just don't know. I haven't heard anything to suggest he does.

Look, Donald Trump is a pragmatist. As far as I can tell, there's no principle driving a Trump administration.

And the people he surrounded himself with are mostly pragmatists. On a case-by-case basis, they might make the right choice. They might make the wrong choice. But there's no principle.

What is America's -- and granted, there hasn't been a principle on foreign policy in the United States for a very, very long time.

GLENN: Right.

YARON: But this is taking pragmatism to the next level because it's -- you know, usually people apologize for not having principles. These guys embrace the fact that --

GLENN: Well, it's not -- to me, we've always said -- or people have always said, we just -- I wish somebody would run this country as a business.

You're now going to see it run as a business. And we don't have the CEO of the United States of America. That's not how this job works.

YARON: It shouldn't. We're going to see how it works as CEO of America. I've come to call Donald Trump the central planner in chief. Because that's how he's acting. He's acting as a central planner.

I'm going to fly and talk to Carrier. I'm going to go and talk to the CEO of Ford. I'm going to be the CEO of CEOs. I'm going to tell the business world -- I'm going to tell markets how they should run, how they should function, as if I'm the CEO of the marketplace. But that's central planning. And we know -- and we know, if anything the 20th century has taught us, central plank does not work.

GLENN: Doesn't work.

YARON: And it used to be what Democrats were proud of. Their central planners. And Republicans pretended at least not to be central planners. They were for free markets. Now that distinction is gone.

GLENN: Yeah. Only after -- only after Hoover. Because Hoover was the last guy we had was very much Donald Trump. He was a central planner. He was a builder.

YARON: Well, yes. I mean, Hoover was the last businessman to be president. He gave us Smoot-Hawley, which was tariffs that drove us into the Great Depression.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

YARON: He increased taxes. He didn't decrease taxes. He was a terrible, terrible president.

You know, this trend, to a large extent, accelerated under Hoover. But it really goes back to Wilson --

GLENN: Yes. You don't have to tell me.

YARON: I mean, Wilson is the first president to be a central planner.

Yeah, to bring it to the United States.

GLENN: You're plowing an old field. Let's plow a new one here.

The G.O.P. and what they're going to do with Obamacare, we have had -- we have had years for this moment.

YARON: It's unbelievable to me. Six years, right? Since Obamacare was passed. They've been talking about repeal, replace, repeal, replace.

Okay. So where's your plan? Right? You've had six years to put together a plan. The plan is not that hard. We've seen outlines of this plan in the Wall Street Journal, everywhere. There is a plan out there. Find it. Put it together. It might be flawed. It might not be the perfect plan. But don't come out as babbling idiots, and we've got a plan. Maybe. We'll see.

You know, it might take six months. It might take three years. Who knows.

I mean, this is really Republicans living up to the stupid party label, what they're doing with Obamacare right now.

Now, on top of that, there are suggestions that they want to keep real important parts of Obamacare.

GLENN: Yeah.

YARON: Preexisting conditions. If you load preexisting conditions onto insurance companies, they're not insurance companies anymore.

GLENN: Right.

YARON: They're just Social Security-type companies. And they're subsidiaries of the government, and the Democrats love this.

Obamacare was always planned to fail. The whole purpose of Obamacare was to fail. But to fail as a -- as -- as we trade markets. We trade marketplaces. We let you have your private insurance. That doesn't work.

So we have to have single-payer universal health care run by the government. If Republicans play into that by keeping preexisting conditions or by doing other things that are basically destroying insurance markets, they're just playing into the hands of the --

GLENN: What you're saying right now is one of my biggest fears, is that people look at whatever is going to come out of the G.O.P. now as a conservative, small government, constitutional answer.

YARON: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: And I'm not seeing those yet. I hope to. But I'm not seeing -- especially when it comes to Obamacare. When they fail or God forbid, make things worse --

YARON: This is it.

GLENN: -- then everybody will say, "It's time to go all the way. Let's go Marxist."

YARON: No, I mean, this is the lesson that everybody learned from the George Bush years. Right?

GLENN: Yes.

YARON: If this is what small government conservatives are, then we don't want anything to do with that. And we got Obama, and we got everything that Obama represents. If this is what defending America means, going to Iraq and screwing it up, then we're going to get an Obama to clean up the mess.

So, yes, the backlash against Republicans when they do really, really stupid things is what -- is part of what destroys this country. And there's nothing to suggest that this administration is going to be significantly different. We'll see. We'll see.

GLENN: Have you seen anything that surprises you, that you say, "Wow, this is good?"

YARON: You know, some of the appointments were -- are not bad, right? Labor secretary. I forget the guy's name. But seems like a good guy. He gets minimum wage. He gets some of these issues on the right way.

GLENN: Yeah.

YARON: You know, Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services, I thought was a good choice. Price actually has a plan to replace Obamacare, you know, with free market reforms. Why not just embrace that, right?

GLENN: Right.

YARON: He's the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

But for some reason, the House and the Senate -- and this is partially because Republicans are such cowards, they can't actually embrace a free market solution to anything.

The one thing we will get -- and we can guarantee this, right? -- is a tax cut. Republicans are good at cutting taxes, right? They don't cut spending, so the consequences: The next president has to raise taxes in order to close the deficit gap or pretend to close the deficit gap, but we'll get tax cuts. And that's a good thing. Right? I'm not going to demean tax cuts. But if you don't cut spending, it doesn't matter.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. So one last thing here. Yaron Brook, from the Ayn Rand Institute. And one of the best critical thinkers in America.

YARON: Appreciate that. Thank you.

GLENN: When we're looking at all of the things that we're about to see, what is the -- what is the flag that you would raise up and say, "We have to do this one thing?" Is it -- is it a policy? Is it we have to get a handle on our -- our uniting with each other, on fake news, on -- what?

YARON: See. I don't buy into this uniting stuff. We're not going to be united. We're split in this country. We're split 50/50. We don't agree. And I don't have a problem with the fact that we don't agree. There are clearly different points of view out there. I think some of us are, and most people are wrong. But that's the reality. There's disagreement. And I, for example, have always loved gridlock in Washington. I like disagreement in Washington because then they don't --

GLENN: When I say uniting, I mean not tearing each other -- not dehumanizing one another.

YARON: I mean, that would be nice, but --

GLENN: Being able to live next to each other and say, "Boy, I really disagree with him, but."

YARON: It's going to be difficult. I think what we need to rediscover to unite us and do a lot of things is, what is America? I think we've lost that. I think in that sense, Obama has won. We have become another European country. In many respects, the American spirit, what made us uniquely American, what are the foundation ideas -- the foundational concepts of what America stands for?

The founding -- the true founding principles of this country, that -- that is not in the debate. Nobody talks about it.

And this presidential -- you know, one was more than ever. Donald Trump never mentions the Founders. He never really talks about the Constitution. It's not important to him, right? Those are principles.

God forbid we should have principles. We need to rediscover what we are. What is American exceptionalism? People throw that out all the time. And they claim, "Oh, we're pro-American. We love America."

But Donald Trump has raised that question up: What does it means to be pro-America? What does America first actually mean? And unless you understand what America is -- America is not a geographical place. It's an idea.

GLENN: It's an idea.

YARON: And the question is: What is that idea? I think very few Americans today know what that idea is. I think that's reflected in our politics. That's reflected in our dialogue. Very few people know what the principles that this country was founded on are and what made us the greatest nation in human history.

GLENN: Let's have you back, and let's do an hour of just that.

YARON: Yeah. What is America?

GLENN: What is America? Would you do that?

YARON: That would be fabulous. Love that.

GLENN: Okay. Yaron, thank you very much.

STU: And, Yaron, the book is Equal Is Unfair.

YARON: Equal Is Unfair.

GLENN: I am sorry. I was not even told you had a book.

YARON: Well, I handed you a book not that long ago. A nice autograph.

GLENN: Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. Okay. Horrible.

YARON: But the book is called Equal Is Unfair. It's available everywhere. And it takes on one of these big issues: What does it mean when the Founders say all men are created equal? Does it mean what the left suggests, equality of outcome or even equality of opportunity? And I argue no. It just means equality of freedom, equality of liberty, equality of rights, equality before the law, the law properly understood. And the whole idea of equality is a false God. It's a false God.

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.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

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.