Horizon — 2021
Hello,
Welcome to the new year. Although not a completely unprecedented state of affairs, the past year has certainly been a monumental one. The new year presents continued divisiveness amidst a transfer of power to a dominant democrat leadership. Climbing over the mountain that was 2020 brings a new perspective of reality on 2021’s horizon. Government and ideology have successfully penetrated the social fabric and has effectively ripped it. Straight in half to be exact. The deconstruction of institutions triggered uncertainty in even the formerly most oblivious. Those who wish to be informed are now subject to the sermons delivered by partisan pastors. Truth seemingly buried, leaving congregants farther from it than before. Economic uncertainty fills the air, smelling reminiscent of 2008 and the latter reactions in Washington. As citizens, we ponder the lessons learned and how to apply them in the future. The system, although flawed, is not the lone enemy we face. The state of culture itself requires attention. We must sew the torn social fabric before we confront the final frontier — the system itself. This does not mean the goal is to agree on how to fix the social, financial, state institutions, and overall government. That is both impossible and an unhealthy solution. It means the ability to engage in dialogue to facilitate debate and achieve its end goal — truth. The idea is to step away from our newfound tribally fueled ideologic regurgitation. Understand the objective — it is not to win but to maintain freedom through truth. To get there you must know that the prior mentioned realities developed right in plain sight. Our representative leadership relies on the mass’s behavior of “rational ignorance,” the theory that the perceived benefit of knowledge does not outweigh the cost of spending the time to acquire that knowledge. This is not a criticism, but a reality. While we choose not to use our time to absorb the knowledge prerequisite to being an educated voter, those leaders chase self-serving agendas. In that process they take advantage by using rhetoric to identify with our tribalistic patterns causing citizens to forget about policy and take an ideological position for the latest news cycle.
What I plan this to be, is for one, an intellectual exercise. What is the motive of a person with a position who does not let it stand in scrutiny? I do not believe that person would be convincingly interested in truth rather than to be “correct.” To quote the late and great Justice Antonin Scalia, “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” Although this quote directly refers to a legal judge — it is also symbolic in the journey to truth in general. A level of objectivity is necessary along with the boldness to admit when a conclusion is met in deviation from the initial vision. I also intend to be a voice in opposition to the echo-chambers present amongst almost all mediums of communication. I believe it is necessary due to my opinion that the next four years will result in the erosion in pathways to truth or at minimum be a threat. With full left-wing control of government, culture, Hollywood, and mainstream media the echo-chamber will only be exasperated. Largely reminiscent of the reported “scandal-less” and heavily applauded Obama era. The need for contrarian and true conventional American thinking becomes increasingly critical as elected representation continues to self-serve at the expense of its own constituents. Liberal representation abandons classical liberal thought to pursue symbolic radical rhetoric to rally its base while in the process twisting formerly established modes of thinking. Effective in its purpose of emotional arousal but lacks the policy to create long lasting positive change. The product is the expansion of government or the attempt to expand. Simultaneously, “conservatives” disregard its roots by either standing idle or contribute to the state expansion, accepted distancing from federalism, and failure to put conventional conservative economic principles in place. In this series of expressions, I recognize my biases from a personal philosophy influenced by mostly libertarianism and what I feel is conventional conservative thought. I stand slightly disgusted at the actions of peers who choose to idolize politicians and subject them to evangelical-like praise versus applying a critical approach. These are public servants, not public saviors. To conduct analysis, I will always choose the scientific approach to come to conclusions if I am to meet one. The methods will typically be derived from a background consisting of a professional career in a financial institution with academic experience in economics, finance, and current graduate school studies of management/economics. Please, upon reading feel free to debate, criticize, or agree with me. Any discourse is highly encouraged as well as important.
Thank you for reading,
Noah Miller
