Read Connor’s Letter


Dear Connor,

Is there an unrealistic belief that specific micro-social injustices exist? The short answer is: Of course.

Still, we are what we are. An important component of the overall reasoning behind the success of freedom requires we understand that the United States and, in fact, most free nations, create laws and social standards fundamentally as a commitment to fulfill the wants and needs of the majority. Sometimes, as a nation, we must make a choice between satisfying thousands rather than tens. Understandably, this does not always sit well with self-proclaimed social champions. Frankly, generally, their ideas are either not thought through or are consciously designed to make them acceptable to the largest number of people, regardless of their merit.

Often, people associated with this group-thought will express and take an unpopular stand on social issues that affect a micro-population and, thus, these platforms are to the detriment of the many. Such is the case on the bathroom issue. Instead of demanding single bathrooms that are gender neutral, this is the same group that wants to allow everyone to choose a public restroom. Moms and grandmoms are left horrified, worried about the increased risk of pedophilia. The bathroom/gender issue affects less than one percent of the population. There are many times more children and pedophiles that will be negatively impacted by this irrational idea. Pedophiles are an amazingly clever group of opportunists. Nevertheless, the argument continues.

Empathy is the basic building block for the progressive dogma. For the left, especially the progressive left, empathetic expressions — even if they don’t directly impact an individual — have a giant effect on their thought process. Small promises of empathetic policy pay big at the ballot box. This seemingly heroic idealism as a potential high-political maneuver began its emergence as a theory in the United States in the 1960s. It was perfected by Obama progressives and his administration during his campaigns and terms in office.

Empathy is a perfect strategy. It pays off on both sides. Not only does it add votes to the progressive tally, it also robs the right of votes. Therefore, it is especially important to bestow empathy on tiny groups of people that are truly insignificant from a mathematical standpoint. If you can’t keep a promise, it is meaningless in the larger scheme of things. Nevertheless, the accusations toward the other side can paint an awesome picture of a cold, calculating conservative party or individuals.

Beware: Power comes quickly with the implementation of larger empathetic projects. For the same reason that the government is the watchdog for corporate monopolies, the people must be guardians of the same for government programs. If citizens allow too many social programs, the government can easily become overreaching and in danger of becoming broke, weakened, or communistic.



See Connor’s Reply