The result of compromise is a policy of half-measures and partial acceptance; therefore, the inclinations of the Red should never compromise with the ideological proclivity of the Blue. Assertions between persons of one political philosophy to the other evidence the hopelessness of the Red or the Blue to find an actionable cause to cede any relief to the other.

Ideological divisiveness within a community is not unusual; indeed, such differences are common. Disagreements, no matter the argument, is divided into a three-part division—one part for, one part against, and one part disinterested. Within today’s Red versus Blue controversy, the intensity of aggravation betwixt those for whatever and those against whichever defines a continuum of belligerency.

Citizenry disinterest in the workings of government is the coup de grâce of a democratic republic. Indifference begets statutorily compliant corruption. The wastefulness of tax revenue. The legislation of legal ambiguity, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, all of which necessitates the creation of a multi-trillion dollar black money economy.

Liberal progressives may have read John Locke’s Natural Laws and Natural Rights, Baron de Montesquieu’s novel concept of separation of powers, and after Lord Acton’s insightful statement: “All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” They just don’t believe that these writings or the U.S. Constitution take precedence over the collective enticements of socialism.

The thesis to the progressive/socialist electoral success is to promise each voter fiscal surety, wide-ranging benefits, and free stuff. Why not! Since Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, this formula has elected progressives from both political parties. Then there was Donald Trump. New game, new rules, and different players.

The adjustment has been difficult for the anti-Trump persuaders. But now, out of nowhere, this coronavirus and its subsequent effect have created an opportunity for mischief. So those on the Blue team, thinking that the economies’ recovery might serve the interest of Trump are doing their very best to stop, hold back, and or divert the reopening of our economy.

Such is the state of affairs in the land of the free, home of the brave.

Before the ink dried on the constitution of 1789 by means wittingly and unwittingly, wholly legal, extralegal, conniving manipulation, deceitful ambiguity, or blatant widespread disinterest, all implemented by fraudulent inducement the republic as envisioned by Franklin, replenished by Lincoln, and managed by Coolidge no longer exist.

“Of the people, for the people, by the people,” has perished from this earth. But then, when citizens employ trust instead of askance, how else could this purely experimental idea of governing have evolved?

The inherent power of every branch of the federal, the state, county, city, compared to the power of the individual citizen, is convincingly immense. Who knew that the governments could shut down one’s means of livelihood and keep it shut until some arbitrary goal attained? That the citizen cannot evaluate personal or collective jeopardy, take acceptable precautions, and via the determination of self-reliance assume prescribed risk as inherent to living.

A woke itinerary, wonk experts, and at all levels, a coercive executive branch has replaced the merits of individualism, self-reliance, and personal liberty.

There is a dichotomy of behavior that is puzzling. An American will volunteer to risk life in some foreign destination but refuse to vote for representation. This same citizen has since 1789 freely sometimes enthusiastically traded personal liberty and freedom for the ruse of government’s promise of cradle to grave guarantees.

Within a democratic republic, the operating qualifications intrinsic to efficient governance rests entirely on a citizen’s engagement. Therefore, service to one’s government does not automate heroism. The ordinary obligation of serving one’s community or nation does not merit panegyric glorification. Such patronizing lowers the bar of exceptionalism as well as veracity.

Power for the sake of attaining power is boundless; it is a potent elixir that begets the need for more never less. Government grows in contrast liberty diminishes; stop feeding the beast.