The Legal System and Donald Trump

Human justice is a matter of perspective, and perfect justice is impossible in a world of imperfect human beings. Yet every ideal worth having, is also worth pursing. An imperfect pluralistic society should not be alarmed at a single high profile miscarriage of justice; instead citizens should warily examine the legal system in search of nascent patterns of bias.

An examination of the legal system should be a matter of common sense. Are the famous and powerful held to one standard of behavior, while ordinary people are held to an altogether different standard? Is one person treated with studied deference, while another individual is rushed to the courts for a similar infraction? Noticeable patterns are important: they either offer a glimpse of the past or they foretell the future.

One of the greatest dangers to a free people is a government that uses the legal system (and extra legal tactics) to fend off the alteration of the government by the People. Often these governments also choose to repress human liberty as a matter of course. Free citizens must therefore remain vigilant.

Today, many conservatives are eager to blame Donald Trump’s legal problems on a corrupt legal system. Reality is more complex. All of the former President’s legal woes are self-inflicted: most Americans eschew dodgy situations in department stores, avoid payoffs to porn stars, hesitate to embrace unproven electoral claims, and wouldn’t store boxes of sensitive government documents in their home without unambiguous permission. Yet these ongoing cases against the former president raise a serious question: would a high-profile Democrat be charged with similar crimes under similar circumstances? Many conservatives are firmly convinced the answer is no, and they suspect the former president’s political foes have singled him out for aggressive prosecution. The truth of this belief is uncertain, but its implications are frightening.

At least one high profile conservative commentator has advocated the short-sighted view that conservatives should adopt the partiality playbook he believes progressive legal minds are using against Donald Trump. The commentator appears to believe the legal system should be weaponized against democrat office holders who appear to break the law. This base recommendation is extremely unwise.

If a crime rarely merits a second look it would be rank partiality to aggressively prosecute a political opponent for violating the law; every law must apply equally to all Americans. An ordinary person must not be treated differently than someone who is famous, wealthy, and powerful. History has clearly established that any other standard is unwise (“To be partial is not right”). In fact, George Washington warned Americans about the dangers of partisan score-settling.

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

At this juncture in American history the smallest hint of legal partiality – regardless of its source or justification – should make all thoughtful Americans very uneasy.

Authentic freedom can be taken by force, or it can be lost incrementally. If civic minded Americans fail to guard against the slow erosion of our best ideals – particularly impartial justice – freedom in America will once again confront dark, old challenges.

During this Memorial Day weekend Americans who appreciate freedom and justice should reflect on the fact that those who have died for our country were not trying to ensure deferential treatment for any particular person or political party. Instead, they were dying for their brothers in arms, and the families they left at behind. Legal partiality does not honor the sacrifices so many have made, but rather tarnishes the country they served. All Americans should cast aside their differences and protect America’s greatest ideals – regardless of what person or political entity benefits or suffers from the even-handed application of the law.

Actions and Accountability In Oklahoma

Sometimes dying on the field of battle is heroic, and at other times it is just plain stupid. Good leaders understand the difference. Regrettably, many pro-life Republicans are either principled in the extreme, or they are stupid.

Last spring Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a law banning abortions in most cases. The new law allows abortions to protect the life of the mother; Oklahomans who survive rape and incest are left without recourse.

From a religious perspective it is odd to craft a law without an exception for incest: ancient Jewish law did not favorably address the prospect of a viable pregnancy via an incestuous relationship. Life mattered, but the reality of incest outweighed the humanity of the developing life. Oklahoma lawmakers should consider this example.

A rape exception would also be salubrious. Rape is the worst kind of physical assault short of murder; a woman (or man) surely has the God-given right to self defense. And if rape produces a pregnancy, one can logically argue this state of affairs is a biological continuation of the initial assault, and therefore the woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

Unfortunately, zealous Oklahoma Republicans decided to ignore these facts, and their blinkered political and moral vision could now cost them the race for governor. If Joy Hofmeister earns the governor’s chair, this outcome will provide conservative voters with the opportunity to engage in conscientious reflection; the confluence of morality, law, and practical politics can be difficult to navigate.

Sometimes principles require a heroic loss, and on other occasions non-essential preferences are held so tightly that battlefield victory leads to the ultimate defeat. Wise leaders, and the voters who lend them authority, must accurately and quickly separate principals from policy preferences.

Has A Revolution Started?

A flash flood dramatically changes the natural world where it occurs. The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization had a similar impact on the social and political environment in the United States.

For the first time in roughly 50 years skeptical-but-moderate voters will ask pro-life politicians to wisely articulate their views on abortion; generic talking points will not suffice. Pro-choice politicians will likewise be held accountable for their support of late-term abortions and abortion access for minors. The losers in this battle for accountability will be the activists and party apparatchiks.

Neither pro-choice nor pro-life activists will be able to claim a thorough victory in this new political world; both sides will occasionally look like heartless, mindless, ideologues. In general, this social and political disruption will undermine the careers of a few politicians, change the political composition of a few state legislatures, and unsettle the balance of power in Congress.

In addition, recent political events have added some spice to an otherwise stifling summer. Kansas voters refused to overturn the state Supreme Court’s pronouncement that a right to abortion exists in the state constitution. Unofficial results suggest the goals of pro-life Kansans were thwarted by a combination of Democrats, unaffiliated voters, and a quiet bloc of Kansas Republicans. Shortly thereafter the Indiana legislature passed a law that bans many abortions; the law also undermined the stereotype that most pro-life legislators are ignorant or crazy. Reports indicate the law established a 10 week abortion ban, but also features exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, physical health of the mother, and fatal fetal abnormalities.

The long-term fallout from the Dobbs decision cannot be predicted with any certainty. Will men become more responsible for their sexual choices? Will women become more selective about their intimate relationships? Will voters demand more public assistance for pregnant women and families with children? Only God knows. Yet the rapid waters of change will surely alter America’s political and social fabric. The process will be interesting to watch.

A Legal Mess

Today the White House signed a new law that is unfriendly to gun owners. The changes do not represent a cataclysmic event, but they clearly undermine a fundamental freedom.

The new law was sold to the public as a good faith compromise designed to close loopholes and make it harder for evil or deranged teens to buy a firearm. Since loopholes are always slightly dubious, and juvenile criminality and insanity are certainly relevant to firearm ownership, these concepts were not without merit. Unfortunately, the wise men and women of Washington DC couldn’t pass up a prime opportunity to muddy the legal waters.

Two points deserve attention. First, Congress placed serious dating relationships on the same legal footing as marriage. Prior to this law, a married person who committed an act of domestic violence could be barred from purchasing a firearm; today boyfriends and girlfriends can earn the same fate. The problem is obvious: when does someone become a “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” for the purposes of this law? Congress’s guidance was incomplete at best: “The term ‘dating relationship’ means a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.” The law notes that a relationship’s “length…nature…and the frequency and type of interaction” will guide the determination of a person’s relationship status. Luckily for some, “casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization” are not dating relationships under the law.

Second, the law redefines who must apply for a Federal Firearm License (FFL) so they can legally sell firearms (it is can be expensive to file the requite form). Before this bill was signed into law, a person was required to possess an FFL if they had a “principal objective of livelihood and profit.” Now an individual must be a licensed dealer if the “intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection.” Moving forward it may be illegal for an unlicensed American to sell part of a firearms collection to fund unrelated activities such as retirement, a child’s wedding, or expensive property repairs.

Americans have been told the aforementioned legal changes are about safety, but improvident passages make it clear that wealthy, selfish-righteous politicians (many of whom claim to be progressive) are eager to increase the power of federal government – even if it means treating free citizens like children. In true parental fashion juries and judges will now delve into the private lives of Americans in an attempt to ascertain the nature of a given relationship. Similarly, the private, good-faith sale of legally owned firearms is now the business of the federal government. All Americans who value their independence should be concerned about the mindset this law reveals. Primary elections are here, and the general election is less than six months away: We People must hold members of Congress accountable for their poor lawmaking choices.

When Is A Problem Serious?

In 1970 the Apollo 13 mission verbalized a serious problem with the immortal words “Houston, we’ve had a problem here.” Everyday life is rarely so clear. Is there a substantial problem when a fisherman finds an unnerving hole in his boat, and land is barely in sight? Or is the problem truly serious when the fisherman realizes he can’t bail fast enough to keep the boat afloat? Americans must soon confront this question.

Comparatively few Americans noticed when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released an internal report that addressed the best ways to protect the department from rogue employees with extremist views and violent tendencies. Laudable motives aside, thoughtful Americans have questions about the report.

How will the government ensure employees receive a fair hearing if they are reported as possible extremist? What “publicly available information” pertaining to employees will be analyzed? What habits and/or behaviors will be deemed extreme? And most importantly, what mechanisms will ensure that the search for domestic extremists within DHS will be even-handed, unbiased, and thoroughly informed about various causes and beliefs?

The possibility of politically motivated violence is concerning, but it is equally disconcerting that Americans usually discover misinformation, disinformation, and extremist views among their political opponents, but rarely spot the same transgressions among their allies. This self-evident bias makes it dangerous to trust a government agency (staffed by fallible humans) with the task of ferreting out unreliable information and ideological extremism. American history is rife with examples that prove this point.

Throughout The 20th century various states and the federal government justified the depredation of fundamental liberties by citing the health, safety, and welfare of the people. Americans who opposed the government’s policies or challenged the government’s narrative were accused of peddling radicalism and lies. Superficial comity triumphed over the freedom to think, believe, express, and associate. Non-conformists, socialists, communists, disfavored minorities, civil rights activists, and free speech advocates often had their freedoms curtailed (if not eliminated).

Naturally, the lessons of history were not lost on President Biden and his team: two months ago the administration announced the creation of a new Disinformation Governance Board within the Department of Homeland Security. Reports noted the Board would focus its efforts on Russian disinformation, and misinformation related to the United States’ border with Mexico. While these plans were eventually put on hold, the Vice President was recently placed in charge of a task force that was designed to address online harassment. This is a laudable goal, but a disturbing sign.

The tasks of identifying and thwarting domestic extremism and online harassment make a generic promise of “bad weather” seem specific. There can be no doubt that regulating online harassment or correcting disinformation could present short-term benefits; yet it is equally true that these goals will also strengthen the government at the expense of the People and their rights.

If Americans allow the federal government to become America’s disinformation and harassment police, regulations and penalties will have a chilling effect on essential freedoms, and government surveillance of private activities will increase. In short, true freedom will slowly die – strangled by the government.

America stands at a dangerous crossroads. The Department of Homeland Security regularly monitors potential threats that were once the responsibility of state and local law enforcement agencies (e.g. rowdy abortion protesters). Soon, opportunistic and optimistic politicians will contend that the department must have all the tools necessary to prevent another Capitol Hill riot. Unfortunately, this vague “bad weather” approach to law enforcement is likely to widen and deepen the department’s vast powers. If these powers are politicized, freedom in America will be in grave jeopardy.

America’s future is uncertain; the US government is stretched beyond its financial means, society is riven by disagreements, and the people’s representatives in Congress have become experts at side-stepping their constitutional responsibilities. Moreover, on the rare occasion members of congress decide to act, they are late to the game – often mowing the football field while the game is in progress.

In light of these circumstances it is hard to discern how fast America’s boat is taking on water. As a result, Americans from every societal group should carefully plan for all possible outcomes. It is exceedingly difficult to solve big problems and reach a place of safety after it becomes apparent that the boat of liberty is in deep trouble.

The Problem With Principles

Joan Crawford famously observed that “Love is a fire. But whether it is going to warm your hearth or burn down your house, you can never tell.” Principles – particularly in the political arena – are much the same.

Millions of people around the world have principles that guide their ideas about what a given government should or should not do. However, problems arise when these core beliefs face unflinching opposition. In such instances individuals are presented with three basic choices: hold fast to their beliefs, modify their ideas, or wholly jettison their convictions. Unfortunately these choices are weighed against the backdrop of uncertainty, and each path will have unknown consequences. In a system where sovereignty ultimate rests with the voting citizens, a series of poor choices can empower leaders who court violent social unrest, economic malaise, and reckless wars.

Countries, resistance movements, and individuals all face the quandary of the unknown. Right now Ukrainians are fighting for the life of their country – and no one is certain how their fight will end. A misstep could doom a generation of Ukrainians (and perhaps others) to political servitude. Unfortunately, the wrong choice rarely wears a label. Over two decades ago Ukraine exchanged their nuclear weapons for “security assurances” from the US, Great Britain, and Russia; perhaps this move triggered the geopolitical dominoes that Americans see falling today.

Future unknowns can also impair the decision making of resistance movements. In the early 1930’s Russia’s communist leader, Joseph Stalin, forced collectivization and modernization on millions of individuals in Russia’s political orbit. Yet many people in Ukraine and Kazakhstan found these policies deeply unappealing, and therefore opposed them. Ultimately the Russian government allowed millions to die (frequently of starvation) because they refused to acquiesce to the demands of the government. If the victims of this political holocaust had possessed a clearer understanding of authoritarian socialism, and foreseen the suffering they would face, they could have pursued a different course of action.

Today principles must still be balanced against their possible consequences. A poorly considered assemblage of foreign policy principles can lead to international blunders that sabotage America’s brand, and thwart US interests for decades thereafter. Domestic matters are no different. In 2020 the effectiveness of peaceful social justice protests were blunted by the movement’s comparative silence when some individuals rioted or looted. Likewise, the capitol hill riot on January 6, 2021, undermined the conservative wing of the Republican party, short-circuited a discussion about election reforms, and opened the door for greater federal surveillance across American society.

In America’s present political context the greatest danger appears to lie in the inability of American voters, opinion makers, and political leaders to dispassionately consider their political principles in the context of the world around them. All potential outcomes must be weighed. Lower taxes are not more important than national solvency, and a pristine environment is not more important than individual freedoms.

Voters must initiate and guide a mature discussion about the importance of combining heartfelt principles with diligent reflection about the unforeseen consequences each principled decision could initiate. If firm principles are instead coupled with fear and political emotion, even the best principles could burn down America’s house. And let’s be honest – politicians in both parties love playing with matches.

Is US Constitution Now The Pirate’s Code?

About three weeks ago a slim majority on the Supreme Court upheld the executive branch’s vaccine requirement for most healthcare professionals. In light of this unfortunate development a legitimate question arises: is the United States governed by the Constitution or the Pirate’s Code?

Nowhere in the US Constitution is the federal government given the authority to impose health care mandates on individual citizens. And contrary to what the President and five Supreme Court justices believe, the Chief Executive cannot dismiss part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights with a wave of his imperial hand.

Over 200 years ago disease outbreaks were fairly common, and local and state governments were tasked with protecting the health and safety of their communities. The men who wrote the Constitution saw no reason to change this long-standing practice, and they were intimately aware that cultural and regional differences manifested themselves through a diverse array of community expectations. In addition, America’s founding generation was leery of concentrated political power. Consequently, the Constitution was supplemented with a Bill of Rights that handcuffed the federal government, and carefully protected the governing authority of each state and people.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Yet for decades meddlesome federal leaders have sought moral, social, political, and medical victories through one-size-fits-all federal policies that are often untethered from the Constitution. The federal war on drugs – enacted without an authorizing constitutional amendment – is an excellent example of this impulse. Unfortunately, the judicial branch has failed to consistently defend the Constitution against witlessly broad claims of legislative and executive power.

The Supreme Court wisely (although not without dissent) blocked the Biden administration’s effort to make large businesses follow federal testing and vaccine rules. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s decision to sign off on the President’s vaccine mandate for healthcare professionals was a body blow to America’s constitutional system of government.

The contest before us is not one of reckless doctors and nurses facing off against caring, science-oriented government officials. Instead, the contest is a philosophical one – what type of government should America have, and how far should the federal government’s powers reach?

President Biden is comfortable with an imperial presidency: he consciously side-stepped Congress (much like Mr. Trump did in regards border wall funding), and instructed an executive agency to elbow its way into the private lives of health care professionals. The personal decisions of certain Americans are now the President’s business. Mr. Biden might be excused if he was addressing federal prisoners or members of the military, but he isn’t. Private citizens have a greater expectation of privacy. The President’s assertion of executive power presents America with an unanswered question. What might a future President attempt to justify in a time of crisis?

When the Constitution was written the President and Congress were neither granted the power to protect citizens from their own bad decisions, nor given the authority to protect whole communities from the unintended consequences that could follow the poor decision(s) of specific individuals in each community. For decades states and localities frequently addressed moral lapses, poor decision making, and similar community problems. But now a majority on the Supreme Court, and likely a majority of Americans, have decided a malleable Constitution is optimal; the Constitution is now a set of suggestions, a document akin to the Pirate’s Code. America’s future is hard to discern, the waters are murky, and the country’s finest hour is not on the horizon.

More Division Less Unity?

In mid 2020 Mr. Biden spoke of hope and unity, but last week the President offered Americans enmity; in era that cries out for a greater sense of brotherhood, America’s highest elected leader watered the seeds self-righteous division.

President’s Biden’s Georgia speech on voting rights could have been written by Donald Trump’s alter ego. The speech was infused with at least one abominable assumption. The President implied that individuals who supported controversial election laws were were motivated by a toxic cocktail of authoritarianism and racism. In other words, many Americans are polite fascists.

Their endgame? To turn the will of the voters into a mere suggestion—something states can respect or ignore. Jim Crow 2.0 is about two insidious things: voter suppression and election subversion. It’s no longer about who gets to vote; it’s about making it harder to vote. It’s about who gets to count the vote and whether your vote counts at all. It’s not hyperbole; this is a fact. Look, this matters to all of us. The goal of the former president and his allies is to disenfranchise anyone who votes against them. Simple as that. The facts won’t matter; your vote won’t matter. They’ll just decide what they want and then do it.

The President has decided to play by Mr. Trump’s rules, Mr. Biden has decided to cast aside all pretense and openly suppose the worst of his fellow Americans. The President, along side Mr. Trump, is now one of America’s chief bridge-burners. Some Americans may think this assessment harsh, but it isn’t. Mr. Biden was clear – he believes history will place his opponents in the same category as slave owners, rebels, and segregationists.

So, I ask every elected official in America: How do you want to be remembered? At consequential moments in history, they present a choice: Do you want to be the si—on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?

America needs to follow a more enlightened path, a path blazed by Martin Luther King Jr. Mr. King fervently believed in equality, but he also firmly believed that justice could only arrive if Americans chose to bridge cultural, racial, social, political, and religious divides.

The marvelous new militancy…must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.

It is certainly true that in many respects Martin Luther King Jr. was a politically progressive man, and he probably would have backed the voting changes President Biden champions. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe a that man who stressed dignity and peace would have resorted to demagoguery and judgmental partisanship to achieve his goals.

The march towards full equality has been arduous, and it now seems America’s biggest challenge isn’t legal equality, but something much more elusive. Individual citizens must “transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood” through the small acts of kindness and respect that help strangers become fast friends. Unfortunately, this good work doesn’t appear to be part of the legacy President Joe Biden hopes to create.

Thots From 2021

• The election of President Joe Biden was an error in judgment that will sting for at least four years. However, the rioters who stormed the US Capitol building on January 6^th 2021 inflicted lasting damage on the cause of freedom, and simultaneously armed self-righteous statists with a public relations cudgel that will be used for years to come.
• President Biden apparently believes that Russia’s natural gas pipeline will bring substantial benefits to the United States and Western Europe. Perhaps these benefits will even include “peace in our time.”
• When a legally armed citizen is shot and killed by a confused law enforcement officer it might be time to reevaluate law enforcement training; law abiding gun owners deserve this morsel of respect.
• Surprise! Politicians who support COVID-19 lock-downs actively undermine each individual’s right to choose their own vaccine status.
• The popularity of nuclear power was on the rise in 2021. But if truth be told, nuclear energy is green energy in much the same way electric cars produce zero emissions.
• Last month the government announced it might take a generation (or two) to release the research datum for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Either vaccine skeptics have a fair reason to be suspicious, or government inefficiency and ineptitude are systemic. If the latter is true, thoughtful Americans should reconsider the prudence of delegating any more authority to the federal government.
• Months of substantial migration across the southern border by non-resident aliens suggests a majority of Americans are willing to accept a semi-secure southern border. If this is true, the immigration debate will gradually turn to the circumstances that entitle a migrant to seek asylum in the United States.
• Transgender athletes will forever revolutionize high-level female sports. Is it time for more families to forego organized athletics in favor of casual recreation leagues?
• The COVID-19 pandemic is not an anomaly: establishment politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, will always work together to bury future generations in debt.
• The Federal Reserve’s support of the US economy during the pandemic may have come at a cost: higher inflation for the foreseeable future. If so, the political ramification could be generational.
• For prudent parents the days of buying your child or teenager a dangerous item for Christmas are over. It is now fashionable to charge one or more parents with a crime because their child committed a felony. So Ralphy won’t get his BB gun, Anne will have to forgo her first set of woodworking tools (felony-by-hammer is not unheard of), and Jose won’t get a dangerous jalopy for his sixteenth birthday.
• Covid-19 vaccines appear helpful, but they also seem incapable of ending the pandemic. Unfortunately this harsh reality obscures the bigger question: are draconian lock-downs and sweeping vaccine mandates signs that America is gradually drifting towards statism?

The Future – Free Markets or Government Manipulation?

Across all times and places humans are inherently alike: painless gains and choices without responsibility are always popular. Leaders across the world have figured out the golden formula: sell the idea and put the disquieting details in a footnote. 

Over the last two decades it has become is increasingly popular for politicians to argue that the specter of human-initiated global warning requires deep government manipulation of the economy; inconvenient details and large scale practical problems are regularly ignored. Meddlesome politicians have no desire to admit that temperature observations have only reached tenth-of-a-degree accuracy in the last 60 years. It is also unusual to hear politicians discuss the technological difficulties of storing specific amounts of renewable energy under highly adverse weather conditions (e.g. extreme heat or cold). The silence is damning – and a good indication that disconnected scientists, self-interested corporations, unrealistic interest groups, and unconcerned government administrators are poised to guide America into a disagreeable future. 

Early last summer Ithaca, a progressive city in upstate New York, “passed legislation saying that newly constructed buildings and buildings being renovated are not allowed to rely on natural gas and propane”. Admittedly it is unclear if this mandate applies to restaurants and kitchen stove hookups. But even if cooking is exempt, Ithaca’s message is clear: fewer choices are an essential part of a brighter tomorrow. Freedom is the problem. 

Conversely, America’s economy has been built on the principle that buyers and sellers have a right to freely exchange money for the goods and services they desire. If a widget is too expensive, a potential buyer can either seek a replacement item, or forgo the item altogether. As this process evolves, communication between innumerable buyers and sellers highlights a fundamental economic truth: the supply of an item, and the general public’s interest in it, will help establish its price (e.g. dirt is cheap and diamonds are expensive). The price of energy from fossil fuels is no different. 

Over time the world’s supply of fossil fuels will slowly dwindle, yet short-term demand will remain virtually unchanged. As a result, the price of each new unit of fuel will increase as consumers bid for shrinking fuel resources. But as the price of traditional fuels moves upward, it will become easier to profit from selling less-traditional sources of energy (e.g. wind, solar, ethanol, fuel cells); aggressive investment in these sources of energy will then ensue. In short, a free marketplace would eventually abandon fossil fuels. 

The straightforward problem is this: the Biden administration and many members of congress fear imminent global warming. These individuals (and many other groups) are therefore determined to replace natural free-market forces with heavy-handed government rule-making and other forms of market manipulation (e.g. taxes, tariffs and possibly a de-facto fossil fuel ban). During the 2020 presidential election cycle President Biden articulated the goal of lowering the United States’ building-derived carbon footprint by 50% over the next 15 years. The magnitude of this goal requires imagination. 

Reliable estimates show that in 2020 roughly 50% of residential electricity was directly linked to fossil fuels, while another 20% percent was purchased from retail sources that rely heavily on fossil fuels. Commercial energy use (i.e. lighting and heating a business) was similar: retail sources provide half of all commercial electricity, while another 38% was derived directly from fossil fuels.

The President and his advisors believe a greener future is attainable by demolishing “barriers” and offering “incentives.” But the incredible scope of this vision suggests a future administration will go farther. If the proverbial carrot (government incentives) does not produce the desired outcome reluctant Americans will be introduced to the stick. This isn’t alarmist – it is precisely what has occurred with the COVID-19 vaccines. 

Less than a year ago Americans were encouraged to get the jab when it was available; the government even made the process easy and free. But now unrealized expectations have led the Biden administration to force many of its employees to get vaccinated as a condition of their continued employment. Worse yet, the administration hopes to use an employer mandate to force thousands of privately employed Americans to choose between a vaccination they don’t want, and a job they really need. If draconian mandates are necessary to beat COVID-19, they will surely be an essential part of saving the planet from global warming.

Absent a public awakening Ithaca’s experiment will be gradually become America’s experiment. Each day interest groups, the media, and politicians try to sell Americans the idea of a green future. This vision of the future might be grand if it emphasized free markets, a neutral impact on the US budget, and voluntary participation. Unfortunately, environmental activists and craven politicians are unlikely to produce such a future.

“Innovative” solutions will purposefully make energy more expensive for all Americans, a variety of costly measures will require additional government borrowing, new mandates will undermine each individual’s ability to choose the energy source that is right for them, and all Americans will become more dependent on the government and on-grid electricity. 

What could go wrong?