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

GOP Pollster Frank Luntz: ‘Alabama Is a Symptom of What’s Happening Around the Country’

December 12, 2017
Staff

WRITER

He may be a pollster, but Frank Luntz isn’t prepared to call today’s special election in Alabama.

Luntz has been working to show the perspective of GOP voters in Alabama during the controversial election; the state will elect a senator today to fill Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ vacated seat. During a recent panel event covered by Vice News, Luntz moderated 12 conservative voters in Alabama as they discussed the allegations against GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore.

On today’s show, Glenn talked with Luntz about how Alabama voters are responding to the national focus on their election and analyzed their reasons for supporting Moore.

Here’s an excerpt from the interview.

Glenn: So, Frank tell me what you found in Alabama.

Frank: So, we found a very polarized and extremely excited, tense, passionate electorate that desperately wants to send a message to Washington — and to my greatest surprise: That message is coming just as hard to the Republican establishment as it is to the Democrats. There is as much criticism of the Republican leadership in Congress as there was their Democratic opponents. And this is among Republicans. That tells me that Alabama is a symptom of what’s happening across the country.

Glenn: And what’s happening across the country?

Frank: I think that people are just as fed up today as they were one year ago. I think that they’re disappointed with the rate of change in Washington — that the swamp has not been drained. And I think that they’re ready to say, ‘I’ve had it and I’m going to vote even more people out in the next election.’

Thankfully all the speculation will be over once this race is called, but that won't be the end of the drama.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So if I had to -- if I could talk to only one person to try to figure out what America was thinking, that one person would be Frank Luntz. He runs Luntz Global, and you can find out all about it at FocuswithFrank.com. But he does things for businesses and politicians and everything else. When you're really trying to get a beat on what people are feeling, Frank is really good with his focus groups. And he's just been in Alabama. Welcome to the program, Frank Luntz. How are you?

FRANK: You're always the kindest person on the radio. I don't know if your listeners have ever met you before. But you've always been the kindest guy. And I'm not sure if that's your image. But --

GLENN: Yes, you do, Frank. If anybody knows my image, you would know my image.

STU: I thought you knew the people, Frank. You don't know that's not his image?

GLENN: That's clearly not my image.

(laughter)

So, Frank, tell me what you found in Alabama.

FRANK: So we found a very polarized and extremely excited, intense, passionate electorate that desperately wants to send a message to Washington. And to my greatest surprise, that message is coming just as hard to the Republican establishment, as it is to the Democrats.

There is as much criticism of the Republican leadership in Congress as there was their Democratic opponent. And this is among Republicans. And that tells me that Alabama is a symptom of what's happening across the country.

GLENN: And what's happening across the country?

FRANK: I think people are just as fed up today as they are one year ago. I think they're disappointed with the rate of change in Washington that the swamp has not been drained, and I think that they're ready to say, I've had it. And I'm going to vote even more people out in the next election.

GLENN: So, Frank, the -- the idea that Alabama has to vote for somebody who is accused of improprieties and possibly worse, 20 years ago, and a guy who is abortion on demand, it's really, truly the lesser of two evils. And, you know, for God-fearing people, you know, abortion is more evil than somebody doing something 20 years ago.

Do I have that right or wrong?

FRANK: You have it right. But I'd be careful. Because that's not -- they will not let themselves be caught saying that. What they're saying that it is all evil, that it all needs to change, and that is the guy, Roy Moore, in their minds, this is the guy who they think is most likely to shake the hell out of Washington, DC.

GLENN: So what do they feel about his -- the accusations?

FRANK: They don't think they're true. They don't think that they're real. They think that is woman who have been paid by --

GLENN: Gloria Allred or the left or whoever.

FRANK: Or even what's his name?

GLENN: Soros?

FRANK: Soros and the Democrats. They think that America is under attack, is under siege. And they desperately want to send a message, enough is enough. And they want to do it in an emotional way.

GLENN: So what do you think this means, Frank, assuming that Roy Moore wins? Do you think he's going to win?

FRANK: I can't -- you know, I've never -- in my professional life, I've never held back a -- a projection. I've always felt that I should speak up because that's my job, as a poster is to know what's going to happen. I can't do it this time. Glenn, I just don't know. I don't believe any of the polls. I think someone is going to look really foolish when the election is over.

GLENN: Yeah, I've never seen -- have you seen a 20-point spread in polls?

FRANK: Never. And there was a spread during Clinton. But the spread during Clinton is a ten-point spread. It means that an awful lot of people are lying to pollsters right now. And that's because they're afraid of the pressure. This essence of political correctness, which is the thing that I urge you to address -- I urge you on your shows going forward to talk about it, because it is poisoning our students' minds. It is poisoning the public debate, that we can no longer say what we truly believe of our fear that it will hurt us, professionally or personally.

GLENN: But how do you -- you know, Frank, I would love to have you on for an extended period of time, because I think you can teach us so much. And I mean the audience in America. How do you have that conversation when millennials are saying that, you know, there should be safe zones, there should be limits on speech.

FRANK: Right. But those are by their definitions, safe zones. So that you're not allowed to ask the question, why does a murderer in California who shouldn't even be in this country, why does that person get let off? You can't have a conversation about border security. But on the same token, Glenn, you also can't say, why is there such negativity in this tweeting? Why can't we tweet each other with respect as we are criticizing each other for beliefs that we don't share?

I think that the coarseness of our culture has been so -- so destroyed by social media, that the ability to talk to each other in a tough, but respectful way, is gone.

It's not that it's going. It's gone.

STU: Frank, you and I have seen each other at some really low points. We've seen each other, where I've come to you, Frank, help me. I have no hope left.

Have you found -- have you found hope in all of the polling?

FRANK: No. Not at all. I'm in the worst place I've ever been in my professional life internally. I don't really want to have this conversation with a million people. But no. I don't.

Because I understand the Trump voter, who is desperate to save his or her country.

GLENN: Yeah.

FRANK: I understand the feeling of African-Americans who don't want to go back to the 1950s and '60s, because that was a bad time for them in this country. I understand those who came from other countries legally, but they're being demonized by the illegal population. I get millennials, who are nervous about where the country is headed. They see the fires and they see the hurricanes and they see the weather, and they wonder what's going on.

I hear all of this. And I appreciate it. But the truth is, most people don't. They see what they want to see, and they disregard the rest.

GLENN: Is there a way in this world of social media, is there a way to come back together? Is there a message that will bring us together? Because I feel exactly the same way, Frank. I really, truly believe that the vast majority of people feel this way. They're tired of this. They don't want to live like this. They don't want to be at each other's throats.

FRANK: Well, two things, one is -- this is a plug. But not really. I want to hear from those people. And if they go to Luntz Global, which is my website, they can sign up for the focus groups that you talk about, they can sign up and their voices can be heard, and there won't be any shouting. And there won't be any disrespect.

They'll get a chance to be heard, and they'll get a chance to learn from others. But the other thing is, I want them to see this Vice News HBO clip. And all you have to do is go on YouTube, type in Alabama, and my name. And they'll see the entire seven and a half minutes. Some of it should shock you. Should shock them. By how --

GLENN: What shock -- tell me about it.

FRANK: -- explicit they are.

A simple question, a 14-year-old, one of the people said his grandmother was married when she was 13 and she had two kids by the time she was 15, that there are a lot of people who would be proud that their daughter of that age was dating a district attorney.

I -- I don't get that. That doesn't compute to me. And I don't care if that's 2017 or you're referring to 20 or 30 years ago, it ain't right. It just isn't.

And --

GLENN: But, you know, that's the one thing -- I keep coming back, Frank, to Jerry Lee Lewis, he married his 13-year-old cousin. And nobody in the South had a problem with that.

FRANK: Well, they did have a problem with it. You know this.

GLENN: No, no, no. They had a problem with it in England, and that's what really tore everything apart.

FRANK: Well, he would have been -- I think he would have been as big as Elvis.

GLENN: I do too.

FRANK: That man was one of the greatest piano players. And by the way, he played here in LA three weeks ago. And even in his 80s, the man is brilliant. But he never had the career that he could have had because outside his home area, Americans found that too much to take.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. Outside of his home area. But his home area -- and this is really kind of -- you know, the same kind of area that Roy Moore is from. I mean, it's different, especially back then.

FRANK: But does that make it okay?

GLENN: No.

FRANK: There was segregation back then. Does that make it okay?

GLENN: No.

FRANK: So that's the issue that I have. I know we cannot judge. I've been through this with so many people with these conversations. We cannot judge values and morals by today's standards, looking back 40 years ago. Because we think differently. And we act differently. But that said, I don't feel like we've learned what we should have learned. I don't feel like we have that same commonality that existed in this country years ago. I think there's so much more that divides us than unites us, and we're looking for those divisions. We're seeking to tear ourselves apart. And that's frightening to me.

GLENN: What is the biggest thing we have in common?

FRANK: Well, biggest thing is appreciation for the country. But I will tell you right now that one out of five Americans isn't patriotic anymore. One out of five Americans does not feel that this is the greatest country on the earth, does not feel that our system is the best system. And that's different. That was the one thing that united us 25 years ago. Under Reagan's administration, we all thought that even with our imperfections, we were still the best. That exceptionalism is gone in one out of five Americans.

GLENN: And out of those one out of five Americans, what do they think is the best?

FRANK: They just believe --

GLENN: Anything better?

FRANK: No. They won't give anything better, but they refuse to accept American exceptionalism. By the way, they do tend to vote Democrat a lot more than they vote Republican. But I don't want to bring partisanship into this. When you can't even agree on your country's values, then we're in deep trouble.

GLENN: Have you tested the Bill of Rights?

FRANK: Yes.

GLENN: How are those testing? Those principles?

FRANK: It's really weird. It's like, have you tested mom and apple pie?

GLENN: Right. Right.

FRANK: Well, the first problem is that Americans don't even know what the Bill of Rights are. They don't know the three systems of government. We have more people in this country who believe that UFOs believe than that believe Social Security will exist when they retire. We have more people in this country that can name the home of the Simpsons than where Abraham Lincoln was born. More people can name more Kardashians, than can name members of the Supreme Court.

All of that scared the living hell of me because we know our pop culture absolutely to the last detail and we know nothing about our Founding Fathers.

GLENN: Frank Luntz. He is the founder and chairman of Luntz Global. I urge you to go with -- go to FocuswithFrank.com. And sign up for some of his testing. He is -- he is one of the best listeners.

He is truly empathetic. And can hear beyond the words. I think he is -- quite honestly, I think he is a solution to many of the things that ail us, if more people will speak honestly and more people like Frank will listen.

Please go to FocuswithFrank.com. And sign up to be part of his focus groups. FocuswithFrank.com. Frank Luntz, always a pleasure and a privilege to have you on the program. Thank you, sir.

FRANK: Thank you.

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.