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

Should Those Who Are #NeverTrump Finally Yield?

September 21, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Glenn read an opinion piece on air Wednesday that he likened to The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, a masterpiece of satire described as wildly comic, deadly serious and strikingly original.

"I want to take you to a modern-day Screwtape Letter written by Erick Erickson today," Glenn said. "If you're opposed to Donald Trump, I want you to listen to this. And if you're opposed to, you know, not voting for Donald Trump --- I know you're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton, nor am I --- but I want you to listen to this."

Erickson's op-ed showed his thoughtful analysis of the two candidates. His conclusion? We definitely have a savior, but which one will it be?

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these thought-provoking questions:

• Why does Erick Erickson think he's in a no-win position?

• How would a Hillary Clinton presidency be completely anti-American?

• What caused Erickson to actively reconsider his opposition to Trump?

• If God chose Abraham, Samson and David to lead, should we choose Trump?

• What did Erickson decide after reconsidering?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: So it's very interesting. I read an op-ed piece today by Erick Erickson that I want to talk about. Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump. And if you're opposed to Donald Trump, I want you to listen to this. And if you're opposed to, you know, not voting for Donald Trump -- I know you're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton, nor am I. But I want you to listen to this.

Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump. Now, the point on this that I want to make has nothing to do with Donald Trump, but the conversation that came from this article had something to do with something much, much bigger than Donald Trump.

Listen to this: Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump by Erick Erickson.

The polling has drawn even closer. More and more people wonder if those of us who are Never Trump should finally yield, knowing that we can now beat Hillary Clinton.

I'm in an odd position. I'm mindful that should Trump win, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to people like Donald Trump.

Likewise, I know if Trump loses, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to people like Donald Trump. And Trump supporters will blame people like me for his lost. So I suppose I should say that I'm not in an odd position: I'm in a no-win position.

With Donald Trump's rise in the polls and increasingly competitive nature of the race, it is time to reconsider my opposition to Trump. After all, I view Hillary Clinton's candidacy as anti-American.

I realize that saying Hillary Clinton's candidacy in my view is anti-American offends some or comes off as hyperbole, but I think her candidacy is fundamentally an anathema to and is fundamentally in opposition to the basic historic American values. I believe the Founders of this country recognized individual liberty as negative liberty. It wasn't what individuals could do if the government could help them make this country great. Rather, it was what individuals could do if the government left them alone.

Hillary Clinton's vision of a Leviathan nanny state runs counter to all of those ideals. She would expand the government, engage the government in social experimentation, and she would advance the agenda of the sexual revolution against the church.

I am under no delusions: With Clinton as president, the church in this country will be in for difficult times. The siege from the outside, the forces of Mordor, will be fully on the march.

That's -- anybody disagree with that? Because I agree with that 100 percent.

JEFFY: So far.

GLENN: With Hillary Clinton, the Supreme Court will fall into the hands of the left for a generation at least. The devastation -- listen to this -- the devastation to our social fabric will know no end. Trading in the idea of negative liberty, Clinton and a left-wing Supreme Court will pursue expansionist federal policies and concepts of positive liberty, which will advance the individual prurient interests of deviance against the church in the way Founders could not have anticipated and no rational person would think wise. But Clinton as president will mean the insane have taken over the asylum.

Anybody disagree with any of that?

Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote, quote, what was once stigmatized --

JEFFY: That's what I mean.

GLENN: Anybody take a guess who she is.

JEFFY: You cannot disagree with Himmelfarb.

PAT: No, you can't.

GLENN: You can guess who she is.

PAT: We don't have to guess. Glenn, we've talked about that --

JEFFY: Glenn.

GLENN: She wrote a very important book that you all should read.

Anyway, what was once stigmatized as deviant behavior is now tolerated and even sanctioned. What was once regarded as abnormal has been normalized.

As deviancy is normalized, so what was normal now becomes deviant. The kind of family that has been regarded for centuries as natural and moral, the bourgeoisie family, as it is now called, is now seen as pathological.

PAT: We've been saying that so long, we call it Himmelfarbian.

JEFFY: Right. Yeah, we are part of the Himmelfarbians.

GLENN: The Clinton presidency will lock that in.

Is there any disagreement with that?

PAT: True. No, that's --

GLENN: What they've done -- by the way, she wrote a book about the Hitler era. And I can't remember the name of it. But look it up. Very famous book.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And she is -- she was taking it apart and saying, "Here's how it happened, and here's how it can happen again." And that is describing that society and our society.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Yeah. Go ahead tell the Himmelfarb society about the fact that she wrote a book about Nazi Germany. Good idea. We know --

PAT: Don't talk --

GLENN: Okay. In addition to that, the increasingly illiberal left will further capitulate in the forces of evil, choosing to surrender to radical Islamists blowing themselves up as a new normal.

By the way, this is Erick Erickson writing, I think we all need to take a step back and reconsider. Especially if you are a Never Trumper, we have to look at the facts. Fix reason firmly in her seat.

In short, I see the election of Hillary Clinton as the antithesis of all of my values and ideas on what fosters sound civil society in this country. Furthermore, I think she should be in jail.

Anybody disagree?

PAT: No.

GLENN: At least with Trump, he writes --

PAT: I mean, she might get a trial first.

GLENN: She should get a trial.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: At least with Trump, we might -- might get a better Supreme Court. We might get better cabinet picks. In fact, in terms of my view of the country, the odds are pretty great that my side has a greater chance of prevailing with Trump than with Clinton.

I don't agree with that. But that's interesting.

What --

PAT: And that's the argument we hear all the time.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Supreme Court.

GLENN: He believes that.

What most would identify as my side would have control of the executive branch and the powers of appointment and regulation that come with it. Oh, I see what he's saying.

What he deems his side would because they would control all three branches.

PAT: Yes. Right.

GLENN: So I should at least here and now as the race draws close, reconsider my opposition to Trump.

The truth is, with the headlines about the Clinton's emails, terrorist attacks, Obama administration's advancement of transgenderism in the military, I have been actively reconsidering my opposition to Trump. I've done it in conversations with friends, in prayer, in quiet time, dedicated to considering the future.

So did he reconsider, and did he change his point of view? In a second.

Real quick, Himmelfarb is not the woman I was thinking of. I was thinking of another woman with a funny name, and I can't remember her name. Himmelfarb, we looked it up in the middle of the break, is Bill Kristol's mom, which no idea.

But, anyway, so Erick Erickson says, "We really need to -- as this race comes this close -- to reconsider the opposition to Trump if you are a Never Trumper."

I'm a Never Clinton guy, and I'm a Never Trumper. And so far, everything that he has written about Hillary Clinton I believe is absolutely true. She is -- she is poison -- poison to the republic.

Here's what he writes: In doing so, I have to admit that while I view Hillary Clinton's campaign as anti-American, I view Donald Trump's campaign as un-American.

Now, listen to this.

The American spirit eschews the idea of a strongman in Washington fixing all of our problems. We're supposed to be against the imposition of values set by Washington. Instead, we should embrace our heterogeneity as people. Not only does Donald Trump not do that, but his views pervert the liberal order of things, as much as Clintonian illiberalism. Clinton offers a tyranny of the minority. Trump offers a tyranny of the majority.

Clinton offers neither safety nor freedom, and Trump offers safety at the expense of freedom. While I see Clinton as having no virtue, I see Donald Trump corrupting the virtuous and fostering hatred, racism, and dangerous strains of nationalism. More importantly, while I think Hillary Clinton will do long-term damage to the country, I believe that Donald Trump -- writes Erick Erickson -- will do far more damage to the church, and that is my priority.

A Clinton administration may see the church besieged from the outside, but a Trump administration will see the church poisoned from within. I see it happening even now.

This past Friday, I debated the merits of Trump and sat next to a Christian who argued that because God chose sinners -- I can't -- this argument, I hear all the time -- we should choose Trump. She argued that a bunch of other presidents were terrible, immoral people, and we should be okay with Trump. She argued that God chose Abraham, Samson, and David, so we should choose Trump.

I don't recall John F. Kennedy writing books, bragging about his affairs. I don't recall Bill Clinton telling a television audience that he wanted to have sex with his daughter. How far a Christian must fall to justify the low morals of a man by tearing down the reputation of others, is sometimes exaggerated manners?

I do recall God choosing Abraham, Samson, and David, and all of them repenting for their sins. That repentance stands in studied contrast to Donald Trump, who has three times said that he has never had to ask for forgiveness. And he only recently said his advance of the church, if elected, would be the only thing that gets him into heaven.

When I see Christians defining deviancy down to justify political decisions, I see a real problem for the church. When I see Christians saying that we have the license to choose bad men because God chooses bad men, I see the sparks of apostasy.

Many of my friends have turned themselves over to the anger of Trump displays. I see my friends on Twitter in meltdown tweeting profanity to others, spending their time on radio attacking friends by name for refusing to yield. That's not healthy.

Not only is it not healthy, it reeks of desperation. This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of God our Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress and keep one's self unstained by the world, James said.

Trump has openly championed funding an organization that would murder the would-be orphan and sell his organs, while he cheated widows and single moms of their money. And more and more Christians are championing these stains while staining themselves. The level of fear many of my friends have towards what a Clinton administration may bring has turned to desperation and desire for a protector.

But we already have one. Neither in life nor death, angels or rulers, nor present things nor to come, nor powers, nor height, depth, nor anything else in all of creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God and Christ Jesus.

So many pastors who email me and beg me to reconsider and so many others who write do so because they think this is the last chance to get the nation right. They think we'll turn a corner after which we cannot turn back. While I can see they might be right, what I see is a level of desperation, causing them to place their trust in one strong man instead of God and in truth. I do not concede that they're right, but I have concluded, we are already past the point of redemption when the best either party can do is offer up Clinton or Trump.

We are beyond the point of looking to five black-robed masters to save us from ourselves. When we put up Clinton or Trump, the seriousness and virtue of the voter is in the grave already, and my Christian brethren for Trump yearn for an idolized path that neither never existed and in the future that is not theirs but rather God's to shape.

Christians looking for a strong man to protect the church instead of the strongest man to conquer death is a terrible thing to see. Many Christian leaders are engaging in trying to blame patriotism to Christianity. They seemingly argue that if the nation falls, the church falls. And for the church to rise, the country must rise.

But Christ has already risen. The true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

He goes -- he goes on. And I believe this is so well reasoned and so well thought out. Now, you may not agree with it. But it is at least a cogent argument and a statement of principles.

Featured Image: Erick Erickson

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.