We need to conserve the American Dream. It motivates and shapes the American spirit.

All Americans should be able to decide their own potential. They must be able to achieve this through effort and dedication, regardless of where they were born.

In at least two areas we can use conservative principles to achieve our goal. We need to increase wages. And we need to create a healthy supply of move-in ready starter homes.

Last week, we examined the philosophy of Edmund Burke. He's the father of conservative thought. Burke stressed the value of tradition and experience in political decision-making. He advocated for evolutionary rather than revolutionary change. His skepticism of radical ideologies underscored a pragmatic approach. This approach balanced reform with preserving established systems.

But Burke was not averse to change.

In the face of the American Revolution he didn’t oppose progress. Burke understood that rigidly clinging to the status quo could lead to greater upheaval. In his view, balancing tradition with reform was vital to uphold core principles.

Note the stark irony in Burke’s situation. Burke sought to conserve the British Empire through practical change. Burke didn't intend allowing the American colonies self-governance as a concession. He saw it as a strategic move to preserve the larger structure of the empire. Burke saw that rigid, unjust traditional policies would only fuel rebellion. His approach was conservative at its core—an attempt to maintain the status quo by adapting it to new realities.

Burke's insights are particularly relevant to conserving the American Dream.

What do future generations of young Americans have to hope for, if not for the American Dream? It’s a symbol of a better life for all Americans, no matter their background.

Last October, The Wall Street Journal revealed just a third of Americans believe the American Dream is still alive. Ten years ago, more than half said yes. Stagnating wealth and shorter life expectancy weigh on our thoughts.

We need to save the vision. Preserve it. Conserve it. No matter your choice of words, Americans born from any walk of life should be able to decide their own potential.

Conservatism’s goal isn’t preserving the past. We owe nothing to previous generations. Conservatism’s goal is conserving the institution into the future. And part of the institution of America is the American Dream.

Conserving the American Dream

What is the American Dream? How can we conserve it?

The American Dream symbolizes equal opportunity to achieve success and prosperity. This success requires hard work, determination, and initiative. The vision often includes elements like financial security and home ownership.

The American Dream is of utmost importance in our national ethos and identity. It's intertwined with values like individualism and the pursuit of happiness. It's a motivator and a defining element of the American spirit.

It’s absolutely essential to conserve the opportunity for all Americans to succeed through their own means. In at least two areas we can address challenges to the American Dream. Those two areas are wages and housing.

The American Dream and Wages

From US Census Bureau data published in 2021, “In 2020, there were 37.2 million people in poverty.”

But we have a conundrum. If it were easy to end poverty we would already have done so.

We could mandate wage increases, but doing so threatens some businesses. Businesses need to grow revenue to pay higher wages.

Or we could address the problem by giving small businesses a tax incentive. This would grow revenue. Program guidelines would require them to pay higher wages to qualify. And we have an existing program to use.

A study titled Minimum Wages and Poverty: New Evidence from Dynamic Difference-in-Differences Estimates by the National Bureau of Economic Research offers insight. Dr. Richard Burkhauser and colleagues analyzed the impact of increasing the minimum wage. They identified:

The poor performance of past minimum wage increases in curbing poverty can be explained by two important factors. First, most working-age individuals … living in poor families are not employed and even fewer are steadily employed…. Second, minimum wage increases may cause adverse employment effects among some low-skilled workers.

Dr. Burkhauser found we need to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program:

In contrast to the minimum wage, expansions in … the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) may be more effective … to deliver income to the families (households) of the working poor than the minimum wage.

We could pair the small business tax incentives with EITC.

Conservatives created EITC with broad bipartisan support. It's a social program designed to benefit low- to moderate-income working individuals and families. The program particularly helps those with children. Studies find the program significantly increases workforce participation. It reduces poverty, stimulates the economy, and reduces income inequality. To qualify, individuals must meet income thresholds, have a valid Social Security number, and meet other criteria. This includes working a qualifying number of hours.

Conservative President Reagan (R) saw EITC as a way to help families without increasing their dependency on direct welfare. One of Reagan’s highest priorities in his second term was passing the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Along with cutting taxes, the act significantly expanded EITC. Expanding EITC was Reagan’s most significant domestic policy achievement. He said EITC was “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

EITC is not a silver bullet. EITC is a social program. Instead of people getting enough money from their jobs, taxpayers give money to the government. The government then uses it to pay those who qualify. The ideal scenario is for workers to earn enough to support their families without additional aid.

Key takeaways from the proposal:

We should incentivize small businesses to pay workers higher wages as an alternative to a social program.

* Companies should receive a tax credit if they pay wages that allow workers to be self-sufficient. This incentive would make these companies more competitive. And it would reduce the need for taxpayer-funded social programs.

* Companies failing to meet this wage threshold would not qualify for the tax credit. This lack of competitive edge could lead to business failure. As a result, many businesses would offer livable wages.

You can read or listen to the entire proposal in the piece titled “Earned Income Tax Credit and Small Business Taxes”. It's available here:

The American Dream and Home Ownership

Home ownership is a central component of the American Dream. It represents stability, financial security, and a personal stake in the community. Further, home ownership is the decisive element of generational financial stability.

In recent years, established markets have skewed the home ownership market. They've turned housing into an investment opportunity. In 2022 investors purchased between 25% and 35% of all homes. Individuals investing in the housing market reduce housing available for first time homebuyers.

Further, housing supply has not kept up with population growth. In other words, since 1970 the supply of housing is going down.

Homeowners have the right to do as they wish with their property. However, reduced housing availability threatens the American Dream for millions. We need to address housing supply to conserve the American Dream.

We need to take a conservative approach and reduce home construction regulatory barriers. We must ease zoning laws, streamline the permit process, and cut bureaucratic hurdles. Home builders build larger, more expensive homes in part to overcome these challenges. These larger homes are difficult for first-time homebuyers to purchase. We need more starter homes.

And we need to make small changes to existing programs to increase starter home supply. To achieve this goal we need to incentivize business competition. The winner of the competition would build starter homes. This approach must aim to preserve the American Dream's aspect of home ownership.

Our benchmark: America needs a healthy supply of move-in ready homes for first-time homebuyers. Those homes should cost less than $150,000.

An idea to incentivize home builders to build smaller homes in both rural and urban America is to use the nation’s existing Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. Adapting the SBIR model to the construction industry will boost innovation in starter homes. It will reward the most innovative designs. It will further reward the use of readily available materials. This incremental change to the SBIR program will increase the supply of small homes.

You can read or listen to more about this idea in the piece titled “Small, Affordable Homes.”:

We need to conserve the American Dream. It motivates and shapes the American spirit.

All Americans should be able to decide their own potential. Regardless of where they were born, they must be able to achieve this through effort and dedication.

In at least two areas we can use conservative principles to achieve our goal. We need to increase wages. And we need to create a healthy supply of move-in ready starter homes.

Sticking to rigid, unjust traditional policies may not fuel rebellion. But doing nothing could be even worse, erasing a core tenet of what it means to be American.

May God bless the United States of America.

What is American conservatism?

Edmund Burke is the father of philosophical conservatism. His ideas laid the foundation for conservative philosophy, particularly in the United States. He advocated preserving established institutions and societal norms, balanced by a cautious approach to reform and adaptation.

Born January 12, 1729, Burke was an Irish statesman and philosopher. His ideas and writings through the American and French Revolutions significantly influenced the development of conservative thought in both America and Europe.

Burke’s principles:

* Respect for Tradition and Established Institutions

Burke believed that traditions and institutions develop organically over generations and embody the collective wisdom of society. He argued that these traditions should be respected and preserved, as they provide stability and continuity.

Respect for tradition underpins many of his other principles, such as skepticism of radical change and the importance of gradual reform. This principle has had a lasting impact on conservative thought, emphasizing the value of continuity, respect for historical context, and the cautious evolution of societal norms and structures.

American conservatism's adherence to originalism in judicial interpretation reflects Burke's respect for historical traditions. The conservative focus on protecting Constitutional rights like the right to bear arms reflects Burke’s principle of safeguarding established freedoms. The preference for states' rights over federal authority aligns with Burke's skepticism of centralized power, which advocates for a balanced, decentralized governance structure.

* Prudence and Caution in Change

Burke advocated for cautious, gradual change rather than abrupt or revolutionary transformations.

He believed that society’s established institutions and practices evolved and embedded us with the collective wisdom of past experiences. He did not oppose change outright. Instead, he argued for an incremental approach, allowing society to adapt and manage unintended consequences.

For example, conservatives typically advocate for market-based solutions in healthcare, such as Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and private health insurance options. This approach reflects a belief in established market mechanisms and a cautious approach to government intervention.

* Skepticism of Radicalism and Utopian Ideals

Burke was skeptical of radical political ideologies and utopian schemes, warning against the dangers of overthrowing established systems in pursuit of ideological goals.

In response to what many Americans saw as police brutality and the subsequent “Defund the Police” movement, conservatives saw a radical and utopian ideal that risked destabilizing an essential institution that, on the whole, protects individual Americans and their businesses.

* Practical Approach to Politics

Burke was pragmatic. He believed we should base political decisions on practical experience and specific circumstances rather than abstract principles or ideological dogmas.

Burke’s pragmatic views transcended political party thinking. In his 1770 Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, Burke wrote that a political party was (paraphrased for modern language) a group of people working together to advance the national interest based on their agreed-upon principles.

He advocated for pragmatic approaches. Many conservatives approach environmental policy by focusing on practical solutions that balance economic growth with environmental protection.

Now for some early American context. In the face of the American Revolution, Burke didn’t argue against progress. Burke sought to address the practical and political missteps of the British government and expressed that England should pursue conciliatory measures with the colonies. Burke was not against change.

For example, Burke was against the taxation of the American colonies. His advocacy for the colonies’ right to self-taxation demonstrated his respect for societal autonomy and skepticism of overarching authority. He gave two speeches, the second in March of 1775, advocating for the right of the American colonies to tax themselves and guide their affairs. Burke believed allowing the colonies to govern themselves would encourage them to remain united with England.

King George rejected this notion.

The American Revolution began a month later, on April 19, 1775, at the North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts. On that day, the first American colonists fired on British troops, referred to as “Redcoats,” because of their red coats.

Along with Burke’s conservatism, another philosophical movement came into play in early America.

Burke’s conservatism drew from European society. European conservatism sought to preserve monarchies, aristocracy, and traditional social hierarchies, viewing them as stabilizing societal forces.

The American foundation had no aristocracy. As a result, the American foundation oriented towards a different philosophy. In a democratic republic where no monarchy or entrenched aristocracy existed, the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and the protection of private property led societal thought.

Enter John Locke’s Enlightenment liberalism, the foundation of American documents. Locke’s philosophy became the strong outline of the US Constitution.

In Two Treatises of Government, Locke’s broad ideas include:

* We believe we all have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

* Government exists as a social contract wherein representatives serve with the consent of the governed.

* To prevent tyranny, we divide government power to include a system of checks and balances among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The structure of our constitutional democratic republic, which flows from our Constitution’s structure, flows from Locke’s theories.

In the American context, Burke’s views contrasted and complemented Locke’s.

In combination, American principles weave threads of both Edmund Burke’s conservatism and John Locke’s liberalism. Burkean conservatives and enlightenment liberals don’t agree on all matters. Burke’s emphasis on preserving traditions and cautious reform countered Locke’s advocacy for radical individualism.

However, there is much common ground. So much common ground that today in America conservatism and individualism are nearly synonymous.

Burkean conservatives protect and promote individual freedoms, particularly those influenced by John Locke’s liberalism. Burkean conservatives advocate for limited government and divided power, a philosophy outlined by Locke. Burkean conservatives argue that individuals should take responsibility for their own lives, successes, and failures, rather than relying on government assistance or intervention. This principle is consistent with Locke’s views of the natural right of individuals to own themselves and the product of their labor.

Burke’s pragmatism and Locke’s revolutionary vision created a rich, complex foundation for American political thought. The two philosophies underscore our unique political evolution, where respect for historical institutions coexists with a commitment to individual liberty and democratic governance.

Stated another way:

American conservatism seeks first to conserve the American ideals of enlightenment liberalism.

American conservativism intends to preserve the principles of the American foundation, particularly the emphasis on individual liberty, limited government, and the protection of private property.

America owes allegiance to no man. There is no monarchy to preserve. There is no king. America is an ideal. Servants of the nation swear their oath to support and defend the Constitution. Therefore, American conservatism must seek to preserve the institution of the Constitution and not even a political party.

Pulling on the thread further, we can conclude that American conservatism must seek to preserve the people’s natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Representatives must strive to serve the nation’s interests instead of purely their interests, and must maintain a balance of power to protect the people from both the tyranny of the government and the tyranny of the majority.

What is American conservatism?

American conservatism represents the combined philosophies of Edmund Burke and John Locke. It incorporates respect for tradition, prudential governance, and individual liberty. It is a philosophy that values the wisdom of the past, seeks cautious progress in the present, and seeks a vision for a stable, prosperous future.

As we look ahead, American conservatives face the challenge of adapting these enduring principles to the evolving needs of a diverse and dynamic society.

The future trajectory of American conservatism lies in its ability to balance its foundational ideals with the realities of this changing world. It must navigate the complexities of modern governance while upholding the principles of limited government, individual rights, and respect for established institutions.

May God bless the United States of America.

Our last three articles/podcasts established conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border.

In devising legal conditions supporting these activities, we created unambiguous indications that other movements across the border are illegal.

We need to stop the illegal movement of goods and people across the border. When there are legal options to move goods and people, there’s a high likelihood that other movements are illegal. These illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.

How would we address these illegal movements?

Over the last month, we’ve considered effective and humane strategies to solidify our borders against illegal entry.

First, we looked at the history of naturalization and immigration and national immigration policy.

We have a long history of attempting to navigate the complex issue of immigration and border security. President Washington signed a law guiding naturalization and immigration, and we are still dealing with the issue today.

Over time, the nation’s immigration policies have trended towards the equal treatment of all attempting to immigrate. The US has not opened its borders to all, but immigration has changed from a skin color-based system to a system intended to attract skilled labor.

There’s another trend in the history. No Congress or President has supported open borders.

We are against open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement. What can we do about it?

We considered our first option to address our southern border: sending the US military to act against smugglers and illegal immigrants. That option wasn’t tenable for legal and practical reasons. You can catch up here:

Next, we needed more context. We considered the difference between an immigrant and a refugee and why the difference is significant. Immigrants choose to relocate to another country. Refugees flee their home country due to persecution, war, or violence. The immigrant and refugee differences present a multifaceted issue. While we have illegal immigration, much of the border crisis involves refugees.

On the one hand, we need robust border security to manage unlawful entry. On the other, the US ratified a refugee treaty, committing to protecting and providing assistance to those who qualify as refugees under international law.

And we need to take some of the refugee burden off our US border states.

The map clearly shows this issue isn’t a blue-state or red-state issue. It’s a geography issue.

To achieve our multifaceted goal of managing the refugee situation at the border, we need to increase the Department of Homeland Security’s capacity to manage the refugee situation at the southern border. We need to augment this capacity to take some of the burden off US border states. By leveraging the Department of Defense’s support of civil authorities role, we can improve medical assistance, logistical support, and disaster relief on the border.

Further, we can support our border states by distributing refugees more equitably nationwide.

If you missed it, here’s a link:

Third, we considered approaches we could use to address the underlying reasons for the refugee movement to the southern border. No matter the effort we make to enhance security measures at the US southern border, if we don’t stop the flow of refugees to the border, we will continue to have security challenges.

We must intervene with partnerships, building cooperative relationships with regional countries to address challenges jointly. We must develop and implement solutions that address economic challenges, reduce violence, and support political stability to achieve progress. Challenges in the region are deep-rooted and complex and require a long-term commitment from the US and its partners. Short-term measures are insufficient to create lasting change.

Focusing on economic development and security assistance will reduce the appeal of illegal activities and protect economic gains. When combined with respecting the sovereignty and self-determination of our southern neighbors, both efforts support political stability, laying the groundwork for further partnership to build strong, resilient societies in Central and South America.

We need to consider a Plan Colombia approach that we can adapt to other countries while avoiding excessive militarization or human rights concerns. Further, this adapted Plan Colombia approach must include regional cooperation among Latin American countries, not just bilateral partnerships with the US. Initiatives that foster collaboration on cross-border issues can address trafficking, migration, and economic integration.

A region with economic opportunity and security will encourage refugees to stay rather than move to the US southern border.

You can read or listen to the details here:

In sum, we have considered the history and context of the situation and walked our way through an often-called-for approach, sending the US military to the border, and found it not practical. However, just because one option isn’t suitable, we keep going.

We established how to support the systematic and efficient legal processing of immigrants and refugees in a way that supports our border states by distributing refugees more equitably nationwide. This legal and systematic approach is both orderly and humane.

We established how to set conditions that would result in fewer refugees traveling to the border. It’s a long-term commitment that won’t show results immediately. However, our partnership with Colombia demonstrated the approach is achievable.

There’s still a missing piece.

Despite our efforts to make refugee processing legal, orderly, and humane and our efforts to reduce refugees fleeing their home countries, we will still have illegal entry into the US. And we will still have illicit transit of weapons out of the US that support violence in Central and South America.

Because we set conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border, we created unambiguous indications that other movement across the border is illegal.

And we need to stop the illegal movement of goods and people across the border. There’s a high likelihood these illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.

To address these illegal movements, we must consider improving security along the border.

Tightening security along the border requires enhanced security measures, political will, and continual commitment.

Of course, we need enhanced border security and surveillance. We need more border patrol law enforcement officials, and they need state-of-the-art equipment. Border patrol officials, already doing great work, need outstanding training and resources to excel at their jobs.

We need officials to engage with border communities in policy development and implementation. We must educate communities about legal immigration to reduce misinformation.

We need enhanced physical and electronic security measures. We need redundant systems operating in different electromagnetic spectrums, such as Doppler radar and infrared, to supplement physical security barriers. We need persistent electronic surveillance systems. We need people to respond to alarms in a prompt timeline. We need enhanced human and systems intelligence. (Specific technological capability details omitted due to their sensitive nature.)

But we need to do more if we are serious about securing the border. When the incentive to smuggle goods and people is lucrative, criminals will find ways to defeat law enforcement.

American citizens smuggling weapons across the border defeat walls with hidden compartments in vehicles. They disassemble weapons and ship them in pieces, only to be reassembled south of the border. Drug smugglers dig tunnels, pay bribes, and leave caches for partners to find. Human trafficking guides, or coyotes, hide their victims in vehicle compartments and the terrain of unmonitored areas. They watch border patrol officials and find any patterns they can exploit.

We need political will to commit long-term to border security.

Solutions to some of these problems are going to be politically unpopular.

Let’s give an example. If we are serious about reducing weapons smuggling, we need to consider stricter gun control laws. US weapons destabilize and increase violence in Latin America. Violence in Latin America causes refugees to flee Latin America and move to the US. Therefore, US weapons leaving the US result in refugee movement across the southern border. In addition to stopping the flow of refugees to the border, we need to take care of our own business and stop the flow of weapons headed south.

In 1792, Congress passed a law that every citizen would arm themselves to provide national protection. Every household had to account for their weapons. In the early days of the nation, we had stricter gun control laws than today.

However, if we are serious about reducing refugees fleeing violent acts committed in Central America with US weapons, we need to find the political will to stop the movement of weapons across the US border. If gun registration isn’t a politically acceptable answer, we need to find an answer that is acceptable.

Just one example. It’s an easy example to cite and a tricky problem to address. It highlights that border security isn’t just about enhancing security measures. It involves political will, policy, community engagement, and international relations.

How would we stop the illegal movement of goods and people across the border?

We need systematic and efficient legal processing of immigrants and refugees alike at the border in a way that supports our border states by distributing refugees more equitably nationwide. This legal and systematic approach must be orderly and humane.

We must set conditions that would result in fewer refugees traveling to the border. It’s a long-term commitment that won’t show results immediately. But history demonstrates the approach is achievable.

Because we set conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border, we created unambiguous indications that other movement across the border is illegal. There’s a high likelihood these illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.

A significant piece of the puzzle is the border itself. There, we need enhanced security measures, political will, and continual commitment.

Solutions to some of these problems are going to be politically unpopular. Border security isn’t just about enhancing security measures. It involves political will, policy, community engagement, and international relations. But we must find acceptable answers if we are committed to US border security.

May God bless the United States of America.

The ideal path to managing the challenges at the US border is proactively addressing the conditions leading to the influx of refugees.

What approaches could we use to address the underlying reasons for the refugee movement to the southern border?

Two Roosevelts left indelible marks on US policy in Central and South America.

In the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, President Theodore Roosevelt (R) outlined a new assertive interventionist policy towards Latin America. He called for the US to intervene with an international police presence to correct instability and chronic wrongdoing by our southern neighbors.

Roosevelt’s doctrine led to a series of military interventions and occupations collectively known as the Banana Wars. To protect US business interests and attempt to restore political and economic stability in the region, the US invaded Cuba in 1906, 1912, and 1917. We invaded Nicaragua in 1909 and 1912, Mexico in 1914 and 1916, Haiti in 1915, and the Dominican Republic in 1916. Many of these invasions became occupations into the 1930s.

The US fought several of these conflicts over US business interests and control of banana plantations. All told, the US occupied six southern neighbors over 30 years. Major General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in the Banana Wars, was the most highly decorated US Marine Corps officer of the time. Following his retirement, he described himself as a “racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

In December 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) declared the US would no longer participate in armed intervention to attempt to govern other nations. FDR’s policy became known as the Good Neighbor Policy. The policy improved trade relations with Latin American countries and helped form an alliance among Western Hemisphere nations during World War II.

There’s no causal statement one could make that FDR’s policy improved the long-term stability of Latin American and South American nations. Attributing the long-term stability of an entire region to one policy is overly simplistic. However, we can conclude that the Teddy Roosevelt Corollary damaged relations and promoted instability. Its imperialistic and patronizing approach disrupted local governance, supported authoritarian regimes, and created uncertainty and conflict.

Fast forward to today.

The ideal path to improving the situation at the US border is not to try and do what we are already doing, just better. Even if we make staggering improvements and initially reduce undocumented movement across the border by half, but we don’t make long-term improvements, what would we have accomplished?

The ideal path to managing the challenges at the US border is proactively addressing the conditions leading to the influx of refugees.

Enhancing security measures at the US southern border doesn’t address the decisive issue: the continuous movement of refugees toward the border. No matter the effort we make to enhance security measures at the US southern border, if we don’t stop the flow of refugees to the border, we will continue to have security challenges.

What’s the best way to reduce this flow of refugees across the US southern border? We need to reduce the demand for refugees from Central and South America to flee their homes.

In sum, to address border security, we need to tackle the root causes prompting refugee migration in the Americas.

We need a comprehensive approach examining economic instability, violence, and political turmoil in the Americas. Latin America is diverse. A multi-dimensional approach is essential. This approach should comprehensively tackle economic, social, and security challenges while being tailored to each country’s unique needs and conditions.

As was the case during Teddy and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s time, we have various options.

* We could do nothing and try to stop the flow of refugees across the border.

We could focus on border control without addressing the root causes of migration. While it might offer short-term success, more is needed to resolve the reasons refugees flee. Worse, this option may lead to a recurring or escalating crisis as the fundamental issues remain unaddressed.

* We could intervene with force.

Military force can bring immediate but temporary solutions. This approach risks destabilization, potential backlash against perceived imperialism, and long-term consequences that may worsen the initial problems.

Neither of these options seems fruitful.

* We could intervene with partnerships.

We could build cooperative relationships with regional countries to address the challenges jointly. The ultimate goal would be to achieve long-term solutions by addressing the root causes of instability and striving towards sustainable regional improvement. There’s a potential role for international and regional organizations, such as the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and other regional entities, to coordinate and support efforts to stabilize the region.

The most sustainable approach seems to be the third option - intervening with partnerships. To achieve progress, we must develop and implement solutions addressing economic challenges, reducing violence, and supporting political stability.

First, we need to address economic challenges in the region.

The United States implemented the Marshall Plan after World War II. The Marshall Plan is the shining example of an international policy that effectively addressed economic instability, violence, and political turmoil.

Following World War II, Europe was devastated. Our European partners faced economic ruin, political instability, and social upheaval. The risk of economic collapse and the potential spread of communism were significant concerns for the United States. Further, the US desired strong trade partners from allies it had in Europe.

At the beginning of the Marshall Plan, Will Clayton recognized the plan benefited America on the grounds of business interests. Newsweek described Clayton as “the principal architect of American post-war foreign economic policy.” Clayton founded the largest cotton brokerage firm in the world. Speaking of the Marshall Plan, he stated:

Let us admit right off that our objective has as its background the needs and interests of the people of the United States. We need markets--big markets--in which to buy and sell. - Will Clayton 1947 telegram to George C. Marshall

Democrats and Republicans alike have called for a Marshall Plan for Central America. Of course, post-WWII Europe and Central America are not the same. Many oppose a taxpayer-funded Marshall Plan applied to Central and South America because the conditions for the two regions are not similar enough to see dramatic benefits. They claim governance institutions in Central America are weak, and widespread violence further weakens the region’s stability.

Despite this opposition, efforts to address economic challenges in the region are already underway. Different presidential administrations take varied approaches. In an effort to reduce refugee migration, President Trump (R) froze $550M in taxpayer-funded aid for Central America that Congress authorized in 2017 and 2018, and an additional $450M in aid in 2019 when refugees kept moving to the southern US border. This year, Vice President Harris’ (D) Call to Action for Northern Central America announced she had organized $4.2B in private sector funding for Central America. The Harris-led initiative involves commitments from the private sector rather than direct funding from the US taxpayer. It’s an interesting model wherein investment from the private sector helps fund the achievement of public goals (such as addressing the root causes of migration).

Both approaches face significant challenges in leadership and the political landscape. In the short term, accountability with taxpayer dollars is appropriate. Any taxpayer-supported program must have robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of interventions, allowing for improvements over time. Further, raising private investments to increase partner capacity also protects against the misuse of taxpayer funds. In the long term, systemic changes such as improving governance, education, and economic development may take a decade or more to develop.

Any funding approach needs to address fundamental economic push factors of migration, such as poverty and lack of employment opportunities. Tailored economic policies and initiatives should create jobs, promote entrepreneurial ventures, and stabilize local economies. We must implement educational programs and vocational training to equip individuals with the skills to succeed in their local economies. We must support initiatives promoting transparency, accountability, and protecting human rights.

Improving long-term economic conditions in Central and South America should reduce refugee migration as the countries have more economic resilience.

In addition to improving economic conditions in the long term, we need to help reduce violence in the region.

A component of reducing violence is building robust institutions. Federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts serve to protect Americans. Ioan Grillo, author of Blood Gun Money: How America Arms Gangs and Cartels, outlines a contrast between the US and Latin America:

But it is not those guns in civilian hands that make the difference between the United States and Latin America—it is institutions. Most Americans are not safe from a cartel storming their home to kidnap them because they have an AR-15. They are safe because the police and federal agencies have been hammering organized crime for decades. In Mexico, you see what a cartel hit squad looks like, and it is not something that you can stop on your own if they come for you, even if you have a bunch of guns.

In addition to providing support for Latin America for economic programs, we need to provide support and expertise for federal and local law enforcement programs to enable the people of Latin America to protect themselves.

Plan Colombia is a strong example of successful law enforcement and economic assistance. Significant funding for the Plan Colombia program started in 2000 with bipartisan support. The program focused on counternarcotics and counterterrorism. From 2000 to 2021, the US provided Colombia $12B in security and economic development aid, with very positive results. In 2015 alone, US exports to Colombia exceeded $15B. According to the US Global Leadership Coalition, homicides in Colombia were cut in half, while kidnappings and terrorist attacks declined by 90%. The US is now Colombia’s largest trade partner.

Rather than a Marshall Plan approach to Latin America, we need to consider a Plan Colombia approach that we can adapt to other countries while avoiding excessive militarization or human rights concerns. Further, this adapted Plan Colombia approach must include regional cooperation among Latin American countries, not just bilateral partnerships with the US. Initiatives that foster collaboration on cross-border issues can address trafficking, migration, and economic integration.

As a military force example, Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) advocates for US military force against the cartels. Crenshaw is himself a former Navy SEAL wounded in action during his third deployment to Afghanistan. Opponents state Crenshaw’s recommendations violate the sovereignty of, and threaten war with, our neighbors. In an interview with Grillo last week, Crenshaw identified that military intervention didn’t necessitate unilateral action by US forces and instead could include partnership and training with other national military forces. This option is tenable if partner nations reach out for training and assistance.

There’s another component of reducing violence in Latin America: US weapons.

Drug cartels pay Americans to smuggle weapons out of the US. Three relevant quotes from Grillo in Blood Gun Money:

Of the 16,343 firearms that Mexico submitted to the ATF [the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives] for tracing in 2018, 70.4 percent were definitively confirmed to have been made or sold in the United States.

Between 2014 and 2017, almost half, or 45 percent, of the firearms that Honduras submitted to the ATF for tracing were confirmed to be made or sold in the United States.

Honduras [is the] home of the biggest number of refugees arriving at the southern U.S. border.

US weapons destabilize and increase violence in Latin America. Violence in Latin America causes refugees to flee Latin America and move to the US. Therefore, US weapons leaving the US result in refugee movement across the southern border.

In addition to stopping the flow of refugees to the border, we need to take care of our own business and stop the flow of weapons headed south.

Economic development and security assistance work together. Economic development reduces the appeal of illegal activities. Security assistance protects economic gains. When combined with respecting the sovereignty and self-determination of our southern neighbors, both efforts support political stability, laying the groundwork for further partnership to build strong, resilient societies in Central and South America.

A region with economic opportunity and security will encourage refugees to stay rather than move to the US southern border.

What approaches could we use to address the underlying reasons for the refugee movement to the southern border?

No matter the effort we make to enhance security measures at the US southern border, if we don’t stop the flow of refugees to the border, we will continue to have security challenges.

We must intervene with partnerships, building cooperative relationships with regional countries to address challenges jointly. We must develop and implement solutions that address economic challenges, reduce violence, and support political stability to achieve progress. Challenges in the region are deep-rooted and complex and require a long-term commitment from the US and its partners. Short-term measures are insufficient to create lasting change.

Focusing on economic development and security assistance will reduce the appeal of illegal activities and protect economic gains. When combined with respecting the sovereignty and self-determination of our southern neighbors, both efforts support political stability, laying the groundwork for further partnership to build strong, resilient societies in Central and South America.

A region with economic opportunity and security will encourage refugees to stay rather than move to the US southern border.

May God bless the United States of America.

Are the people crossing the southern border refugees? What can we do about that?

There’s some additional context we didn’t address last week. What’s the difference between an immigrant and a refugee, and why is the difference significant?

Immigrants choose to relocate to another country. They move voluntarily, seeking better living conditions, economic opportunities, and family reunification. Immediate threats to their safety do not drive their move. To achieve the ability to relocate, they apply for visas or residency permits. They must meet specific criteria the destination country sets, including financial stability, employment, family ties, or skills. Immigrants have no international legal protections.

Refugees flee their home country due to persecution, war, or violence. Escaping threats to their lives or freedom compels them to leave. International law protects refugees. This law obligates host countries to provide certain rights and not return them to a country where they face severe threats to their life or freedom. They receive assistance from governments, international organizations, and nonprofits in their resettlement process, including help with housing, language training, employment, and access to social services.

The United States Senate approved the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees with no senators objecting under Record Vote No: 317 on October 4, 1968. The United States declared two grievances when it ratified the treaty, one related to taxation of the refugees and the other associated with Social Security.

President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) ratified the treaty on November 1, 1968.

The 96th Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980 to further codify our commitment to refugee law. President Jimmy Carter (D) signed the act into law on March 17, 1980. This law authorized the President, in consultation with Congress, to set an annual ceiling on the number of refugees admitted to the US. It further led to the creation of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the US Department of Health and Human Services to oversee the implementation of refugee resettlement programs.

We have some illegal immigration at the southern border. But mostly, we have a refugee challenge.

Many individuals from Central and South America who come to the US border flee their countries due to violence, threats from gangs, political instability, or persecution. The US accepts some of these individuals as refugees. While many seek asylum, the US doesn’t grant all asylum seekers refugee status. The refugee determination process involves individual case assessments, and outcomes vary by individual. The number of refugees the US accepts per region per year changes with each presidential administration.

The United States committed to adhering to the laws and principles outlined in the agreement by agreeing to and ratifying the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. These principles are:

* Non-Refoulement: The US agreed to ensure that refugees are not expelled or returned to countries where they face threats to their lives or freedom because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

* No Penalties for Illegal Entry: The US agreed not to penalize refugees for their illegal entry if they come directly from a territory where they faced threats to their lives or freedom and they present themselves without delay to the authorities.

* Access to Courts: The US agreed that refugees should have access to the courts on par with nationals.

* Right to Work: The US agreed that refugees have the right to work and to the same treatment as nationals regarding employment laws and conditions.

* Welfare Access: The US agreed refugees should have access to social welfare equivalent to that of nationals of the host country.

In sum, the immigrant and refugee difference presents a multifaceted issue. While there is illegal immigration, much of the border crisis involves refugees. These are people fleeing extreme violence, persecution, or political instability, primarily from Central and South America.

This complex mix of illegal immigration and legitimate refugee movement presents unique challenges. On one hand, there is a need for robust border security to manage unlawful entry. On the other, there is a US-ratified refugee treaty commitment that protects and provides assistance to those who qualify as refugees under international law.

We need a nuanced approach that goes beyond the black-and-white classification of migrants and illegal immigrants and recognizes the grey reality of individuals arriving at the border. In essence, our response at the border needs to balance enforcing immigration laws with our obligations towards those seeking refuge from life-threatening situations.

Another point to consider is the distribution of refugee resettlement across states. Let’s consider the period from 2011 to 2022. During this time, seven states consistently emerged as primary destinations for refugees. Some states, specifically Florida and Washington, were among the top destinations in less than half of these years. No other states appeared on the list.

Depicting the data on a map is enlightening. The map clearly shows this issue isn’t a blue-state or red-state issue. This is a geography issue.

Refugees enter the US and then settle in their state of arrival, which means border states have more refugees. It further highlights the southern border receives more refugees than the northern border. The darker colors on the map indicate more refugees made those states a place of permanent residence.

We need to take some of the refugee burden off US border states.

Further, when we reject refugees legally, they still come into the country. Illegal entry across borders increases, along with human trafficking and other illicit activity. According to the Cato Institute, the US Border Patrol “recorded 41 percent more successful illegal entries in fiscal year 2019 than in 2016 and was on pace for 47 percent more through four months of 2020.” These refugees still settled in the US but with unknown numbers and locations. Undocumented and uncertain numbers of individuals then challenge state and local governments by making it difficult to plan and provide necessary services for residents and refugees.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leads refugee and immigration activities. Inside DHS, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) leads the refugee admission process, including conducting interviews and determining refugee status. Other DHS agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), play significant roles in managing border security and immigration enforcement.

Last week, we considered whether it was appropriate to send US military troops to the border for law enforcement. That option wasn’t tenable for both legal and practical reasons. However, there is no limitation on sending US forces to the border for humanitarian assistance.

Second consideration: Send troops to the border for humanitarian assistance

We need to increase DHS’s capacity to manage the refugee status at the southern border. We do need strong security measures against illegal entry. At the same time, we must provide humanitarian aid and support for refugees at the border, including healthcare, shelter, and legal assistance. Turning away all refugees only increases illegal entry. Instead, we need to make our process systematic and efficient.

We need to increase this capacity in a manner that takes some of the burden off US border states—processing refugees and allowing them to settle at a place of their choosing and with no assistance results in the majority of them settling in a border state. Additional states could help our border states rather than letting Texas, California, and New York absorb them all.

Though DHS leads refugee and immigration activities, the US military can provide nearly instant capability to address the issue. The military frequently engages in humanitarian and disaster relief operations domestically. This mission area in the Department of Defense is called Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA). DSCA includes rescue operations, medical assistance, and logistical support. DSCA may further include disaster relief, emergency management, and other forms of assistance where the military’s capabilities are beneficial. The key aspect of DSCA is that it supports civilian authorities and the military acts in a supporting rather than a lead role.

Led by DHS, DoD could help establish semi-permanent refugee and immigration processing centers on the border, while also providing logistical assistance to refugees to take them beyond our US border states to settle.

This approach achieves several goals. It addresses immediate humanitarian needs and proposes a more equitable distribution of refugees nationwide. It alleviates the disproportionate impact on border states and contributes to a more systematic and efficient refugee processing system.

It encourages refugees and immigrants alike to attempt to enter the country legally. It dissuades human trafficking and other illicit entry into the country, giving unambiguous indications to law enforcement agents that other attempts to enter the nation are unlawful.

In sum, this approach aims to encourage legal entry, reduce illicit activities, and ease the operational load on border states, thereby addressing both humanitarian needs and border security concerns.

What are the most effective and humane strategies to solidify our borders against illegal entry?

Immigrants choose to relocate to another country. Refugees flee their home country due to persecution, war, or violence. The immigrant and refugee difference presents a multifaceted issue. While we have illegal immigration, much of the border crisis involves refugees.

On the one hand, we need robust border security to manage unlawful entry. On the other, the US ratified a refugee treaty, committing to protecting and providing assistance to those who qualify as refugees under international law.

And we need to take some of the refugee burden off our US border states.

To achieve our multifaceted goal, we need to increase the Department of Homeland Security’s capacity to manage the refugee situation at the southern border. We need to augment this capacity in a manner that takes some of the burden off US border states. By leveraging the Department of Defense’s support of civil authorities role, we can improve medical assistance, logistical support, and disaster relief on the border. We can then support our border states by distributing refugees more equitably nationwide.

Next week, strengthening border security measures by reducing the demand for migration. I look forward to you joining me.

May God bless the United States of America.

Can we send the US military to secure the southern border?

First, some background.

March 26, 1790. President George Washington (no party affiliation) signed the Naturalization Act into law. This law laid the groundwork for future US citizenship and immigration laws and reflected the racial and social biases of the time. It excluded Native Americans, indentured servants, enslaved people, free black residents, and Asians from eligibility for naturalization.

March 3, 1875. President Ulysses S. Grant (R) signed the Page Act. The Page Act represented the first ban on immigration into the US. The Page Act banned immigration for three groups: forced labor, felons, and Chinese women due to stereotypes of immorality.

May 6, 1882. President Chester Arthur (R) signed the Chinese Exclusion Act. This law was the first significant law implementing immigration restrictions based on nationality and race in the United States. Though the Page Act banned Chinese women, the Chinese Exclusion Act banned all Chinese laborers for ten years. Congress extended the ban until 1943. 

* A note from the National Archives: “In 2011-2012, Congress condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed a commitment to preserve civil rights and constitutional protections for all people: the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 201 in 2011; and the House of Representatives unanimously passed House Resolution 683 in 2012.”

El Paso, Texas. 1904. The first national border patrol agents, a small group of horse-mounted officials called Mounted Guards or Chinese Immigration Agents, began patrolling the US-Mexico border from El Paso to California. The US Border Patrol was born, though not established formally.

January 16, 1919. Nebraska became the 36th state to ratify the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution, banning the production, transport, and sale of alcohol nationwide. Americans refused to comply with the restrictions. As Mexico had no limitations on alcohol, alcohol and drug smuggling dramatically increased from Mexico into Texas.

May 24, 1924. President Calvin Coolidge (R) signed the Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act. The Immigration Act significantly restricted all immigration into the United States. This law established national origin quotas, drastically reducing immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe and virtually excluding immigrants from Asia. The quotas were based on a percentage of each nationality’s population in the US as of the 1890 census and favored immigrants from Western and Northern European countries.

May 28, 1924. President Coolidge signed the Labor Appropriation Act of 1924. This law formally established the US Border Patrol in response to the need for more rigorous control and monitoring of US borders in light of the stricter immigration policies outlined in the Immigration Act.

August 4, 1942. US and Mexican representatives signed a bilateral agreement to create the Bracero Program. In response to labor shortages during World War II, the two countries agreed to temporarily import Mexican agricultural laborers (braceros) into the US for work in agriculture and railroad maintenance. On July 13, 1951, President Truman (D) signed Public Law 78, formalizing and extending the Bracero Program. Public Law 78 governed Mexican laborers’ transportation, housing, and working conditions, aiming to regulate and protect the workers involved in the program. The Bracero Program ended in 1964.

October 3, 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It aimed to allow “those who can contribute most to this country – to its growth, to its strength, to its spirit” to enter the nation. The act abolished the national origins quota system and focused on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. This law led to major demographic shifts in US immigration.

November 6, 1986. President Ronald Reagan (R) signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This law offered legalization to millions of undocumented immigrants while also implementing measures to strengthen border security and imposing sanctions on employers who hired undocumented workers.

November 25, 2002. President George W. Bush (R) signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This law established the Department of Homeland Security. It reorganized various federal agencies to better coordinate efforts for national security and emergency response, especially in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The act significantly impacted US immigration and border security policies.

Some keynotes to summarize the above.

Over time, the nation’s immigration policies have trended towards the equal treatment of all attempting to immigrate. The US has not opened its borders to all, but immigration has changed from a skin color-based system to a system intended to attract skilled labor.

Conservatives and progressives alike have offered immigrants the opportunity to move to or stay in America.

There’s another trend in the history. No Congress or President has supported open borders.

Only President Reagan (R) and the 99th Congress of 1986 offered legalization to undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally. Of that event, Wyoming Senator Alan K. Simpson (R) noted that President Reagan “knew that it was not right for people to be abused,” and “anybody who’s here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights.”

Presidents and Congress support legal immigration. Over time, immigration has trended towards a merit-based system wherein the nation accepts skilled labor over others. This approach aims to attract individuals who can contribute to the economy and society, aligning immigration policy with national economic and workforce needs. Both legislative actions and executive policies have increasingly emphasized skills, qualifications, and economic contributions as crucial factors in the immigration process.

No President or Congress has supported open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement. Though undocumented immigrants often take low-wage jobs, contributing to sectors like agriculture and construction, and do pay taxes, the immigrants are not able to benefit from their tax contributions. Illegal immigrants pay sales and property taxes (directly or indirectly through rent). Additionally, many contribute to Social Security through payroll taxes but cannot draw Social Security.

The most significant limitation for undocumented immigrants is that, though they do pay taxes, public resources such as hospitals and government agencies can’t plan and allocate resources due to the undocumented population’s uncertain status and number.

Demand for border crossing and transporting illicit goods into the US, transiting land, air, and sea, is strong. On MeatEater, Inc. podcast Episode 391: Border Patrol, Steve Rinella and crew hosted US Border Patrol officials Richard J. Fortunato, Charles Trust II, and James Searl to discuss border security. They share a fascinating discussion of US Customs and Border Protection law enforcement activities and highlight that if the incentive to transport goods and people is high enough, smugglers will push the envelope to find ways to move goods.

Now to the crux of the matter. 

What are the most effective and humane strategies to solidify our borders against illegal entry?

First consideration: Send troops to the border for law enforcement

Many presidential candidates preach they will send troops to secure the border. With exceptions including border disputes such as during the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, the 1835-1836 Texas Revolution, and the 1910-1920 Mexican Revolution, no sitting US president has deployed significant military forces to the border. 

And for good reason. Once we establish national borders, border security no longer represents a military conflict. It legally becomes a law enforcement activity, and US military forces have law enforcement limitations inside the United States. Four sections of US Code apply to military operations and the southern border.

The first significant limitation to military forces performing a law enforcement function inside the United States lies in US Code Title 18, Subsection 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Title 18 § 1385 first came into law as the Posse Comitatus Act. On June 18, 1878, President Rutherford B. Hayes (R) signed this act into law, prohibiting the use of military forces for law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by Congress. This act is now the cornerstone of utilizing military troops in domestic law enforcement activities on US soil.

The second area applicable to a president attempting to use military forces to support border law enforcement is US Code Title 10. US Code Title 10 governs the organization and conduct of military forces. This section of US law both indirectly and directly impacts border activities. 

Indirectly, Title 10 limits law enforcement activities by the military. It outlines that the military’s involvement in law enforcement is supportive and will not infringe on the responsibilities of civilian law enforcement agencies. Military forces may support civilian law enforcement but will not directly perform civilian law enforcement activities. Under Title 10, the military may provide logistical assistance, technical support, and surveillance.

Directly, Title 10 § 275 restricts direct participation by military personnel in law enforcement activities, such as search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activities, unless authorized by law. These are law enforcement activities and are not appropriate for military members. 

Title 10 places another direct limitation on a president who would send troops to the border. Military members serve in one of three components: the Active Duty component, the Reserves, and the National Guard. Active Duty and Reserves components operate under Title 10 authority for all activities. However, the National Guard may operate under Title 10 or Title 32. 

Under Title 10, National Guard members are federally funded and under federal command, typically for missions outside their home state or federal missions outside or inside the United States. In this status, they are subject to the president’s orders and integrated into the regular armed forces.

Under Title 32, National Guard members remain under the command of their state governor but can receive federal pay and benefits. This status is employed for domestic missions within the member’s home state, such as disaster response or civil disturbance control.

When a president activates a National Guard member for a federal mission, such as a wartime mission, that member falls under Title 10 authority. When a state governor directs a National Guard member for a state mission, the member falls under Title 32 authority. This distinction is important because, without Congressional authorization, a president cannot activate forces for a federal mission and then give those forces to a state governor for direction. If there is no federal wartime mission at the southern border, National Guard members supporting border operations fall under the command of the governor of those states, not the president. 

Our final US Code limitation on military members supporting border operations falls in US Code Title 50, Subsection 1809. US military forces are generally restricted from collecting intelligence against US citizens due to legal and constitutional protections. Provisions of Title 50 and the related Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act guide defense agencies in heavily scrutinizing intelligence collection against US citizens. Some foreign actors engage in illicit activities on the border, and some US citizens engage in illegal activities. Under certain conditions, such as drug trafficking, defense officials may permit intelligence collection against US persons. 

What are the most effective and humane strategies to solidify our borders against illegal entry?

We have a long history of attempting to navigate the complex issue of immigration and border security. President Washington signed a law guiding naturalization and immigration, and we are still dealing with the issue today.

Our first option to address security at the border, sending the US military to act against smugglers and illegal immigrants, doesn’t seem very tenable for both legal and practical reasons.

More options next week exploring technological, legal, and humanitarian strategies. I look forward to you joining me.

May God bless the United States of America.

Americans believe in free speech. We share a social contract that assures every individual the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What happens when these cherished principles intersect with the realities of corporate responsibility and societal norms?

Should Americans boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech?

How should companies that champion First Amendment rights above all else position themselves?

The 21st Century is one of “Managing for Stakeholders.” The task of executives is to create as much value as possible for stakeholders without resorting to tradeoffs. Great companies endure because they manage to get stakeholder interests aligned in the same direction. — R. Edward Freeman

Americans have the right to boycott companies for any reason of their choosing. These reasons might include political donations, treatment of employees, stances on social issues, and other policy positions.

R. Edward Freeman, Ph.D., American philosopher and Elis and Signe Olsson Professor of Business Administration at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, pioneered modern Stakeholder Theory in Business. Stakeholder Theory has profoundly impacted business ethics and corporate social responsibility practices.

Stakeholder Theory posits that a firm should “create value for all stakeholders, not just shareholders.” These stakeholders include employees, customers, the broader community, and shareholders. In A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management, Freeman and John McVea outline decisive factors businesses must consider, including integrating stakeholder equity into the firm’s purpose to achieve survival. Towards this aim, business executives must establish and share their firm’s core values and invest in the relationships that will ensure long-term success for their organization.

Imagine a social media company facing backlash for allowing offensive speech on its platform. Applying Stakeholder Theory, the company's executives would need to evaluate how this speech impacts all stakeholders. For employees, it could create a hostile work environment; for users, it might foster an unsafe online community; for advertisers, it could associate their brands with harmful content, and for shareholders, it might lead to financial losses due to consumer boycotts.

You can watch Dr. Freeman’s entertaining TedX Charlotte presentation, “Business is about Purpose,” here.

Thomas Donaldson and Thomas Dunfee, in their work Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics, considered social contract theory for economics. The book’s introductory analogy is a handshake between business partners, symbolizing a contract. Donaldson and Dunfee identify fairness, respect for others, and integrity as fundamental business principles. They further identify challenges, such as cultural differences, that lead to varied business expectations. 

The social contract is an intriguing construct, especially in the context of business and consumer relations. This theory posits that just as citizens can hold their government accountable in a social contract, consumers have a parallel right to hold businesses accountable. When businesses fail to uphold ethical standards or societal values, consumers can perceive this as a breach of the implicit social contract.

In short, businesses must balance the interests of all stakeholders, and stakeholders (like consumers) have the right to hold companies accountable when they fail to do so.

For example, when a company engages in practices that are harmful to the environment, consumers may respond with boycotts. Donaldson and Dundee use Shell Oil as a case study in their book. This action is not merely a market choice; it's a form of holding the company accountable for violating the implied ethical agreement that it would operate in line with the American social contract.

This business-consumer social contract might seem at odds with other strong American views. The social contract of America, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, assures every individual the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Embedded within this concept of liberty is our cherished freedom of speech. This poses a challenging question: How do we reconcile a business’s responsibility to its stakeholders with the protection of free speech, particularly when the speech is objectionable?

Freedom of speech is part of the national consciousness and legally protected by the First Amendment. This freedom is championed by media companies as a fundamental right that allows for the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and information.

Our first question. Should Americans boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech?

Freedom of speech represents protection from the government. Freedom of speech is not protection from consequences and judgement from fellow citizens. Further, Americans sometimes cross a line of acceptable speech. We might call this speech objectionable, or hate speech at its extreme. Hate speech has no clear definition across America.

When Americans cross this line, our national social contract comes into play. If media platforms fail to consider their consumers and allow what many consider is hate speech on their platform, consumers vote with their dollar and leave. If media platforms fail to consider their fellow corporations who pay them for advertising space, those corporations might judge the media company is untrustworthy and pull advertising dollars.

In this context free speech is a philosophical issue as much as a legal one.

If free speech is a philosophical issue in the realm of a social contract wherein consumers have the right to hold companies accountable for a failure to maintain civil discourse, Americans could boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech.

However, Americans also have a responsibility to respect the rights of others. The intricate balance between personal liberty and national division creates a resilient, enduring, free society. America relies on the individual liberty that empowers personal freedom, even while individual liberty creates division. This relationship demands we respect and fight for the liberty of others, even when they oppose our views.

Where’s the line between our right to boycott speech we don’t agree with and our responsibility to respect the rights of others?

Speech that calls for violence against others clearly violates the social contract as this speech disregards the lives and liberty of others. To uphold this social contract Americans should work to influence social media platforms to ban groups that have demonstrated a history of violence. We must take all calls for violence as a legitimate threat to others. Likewise, words enabling other criminal acts, such as human trafficking, pedophilia and other heinous activities, must be eliminated. These activities are threats to the lives and liberty of others, and those who support or enable this speech violate the American social contract.

However, when individuals or groups use social media platforms for offensive language that doesn’t call for violence and the group has no history of violence, we must tolerate their behavior. Using offensive language doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights. Those who would be offended can demonstrate their right to speech by responding, or they can demonstrate their right to refuse to learn from viewpoints with which they don’t agree and direct their attention elsewhere. Those who support the safe but objectionable views of others support the American social contract.

The American social contract extends to private companies. Businesses must balance the interests of all stakeholders, and stakeholders (like consumers) have the right to hold companies accountable when they fail to do so.

Our second question. How should companies that champion First Amendment rights above all else position themselves?

Let’s consider Dr. Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory again. Companies need to integrate stakeholder equity into the firm’s purpose to achieve survival. Freeman identifies many stakeholders, including customers, government, shareholders, owners, employees, and others. Social media platforms that seek to integrate stakeholder equity across this diverse group should take the American social contract into account—every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Media companies themselves only offer a platform. They are not the source of offensive speech. Social media companies that fail to ban threats to life and liberty are perceived to break our social contract and have no protection from individual Americans who could choose to boycott their brand. However, lacking calls for violence or a history of violence, social media platforms that enable free speech support our social contract.

Media companies should build equity among stakeholders by enabling individuals the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When speech calls for violence, or the group has demonstrated a history of violence, platforms must block these groups. If they fail to do so, consumers will boycott their brand. For anyone claiming a loss of First Amendment rights for these groups, consider—these groups could create their own platforms. Existing media platforms don’t owe anyone the right to post anything of their choosing.

However, if a social media platform fashions itself a defendant of free speech, speech that doesn’t call for violence must be tolerated. Some of the users will be criticized as “snowflakes, elitists, woke, misogynists, trolls, or fascists,” among other names. There will be calls from both sides to deplatform the other.

Though the two sides might fail to admit their commonality, they both share a belief that their freedom of speech is part of the American social contract. Removing one group’s ability to speak freely threatens a loss of free speech for us all.

Americans believe in free speech. We share a social contract of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Should Americans boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech?

Speech that calls for violence against others clearly violates our social contract. Americans should work to influence social media platforms to ban groups that have demonstrated a history of violence.

When individuals or groups use social media platforms for offensive language that doesn’t call for violence, we have a responsibility to tolerate their behavior.

How should companies that champion First Amendment rights above all else position themselves?

Social media platforms that seek to integrate stakeholder equity should take the American social contract into account—every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech is part of our national social contract.

When speech doesn’t threaten the lives and liberty of others, removing one group’s ability to speak freely threatens a loss of free speech for us all.

May God bless the United States of America.

Because Americans, like twelve black men in Arkansas in 1919, endured hardship, and individuals like President and Chief Justice Taft dedicated themselves to the constitutional rights of all Americans, more Americans today have the opportunity to be great.

We must dare to be great, and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage. — William H. Taft

Elaine, Arkansas, 1919. Black American sharecropper farmers were unsatisfied with the cotton crop payments they received from plantation owners who monopolized local agriculture during the Jim Crow era. The farmers met at a local church with the Progressive Farmers and Household Union of America to consider joining to seek higher revenues. 

Union organizers arranged for armed individuals to surround the church and protect the farmers during the meeting. The individual who fired the first shot is unknown. A white security officer from the Missouri-Pacific railroad died in the encounter, and a white deputy sheriff was wounded. 

The following day, the local Phillips County, Arkansas, sheriff organized a posse to round up the black individuals. The posse turned into an armed mob of “500 to 1,000” white individuals, both locals and individuals from surrounding states. The mob took matters into their own hands, indiscriminately killing their black neighbors. The Governor of Arkansas requested support from the then Department of War (now Department of Defense), who sent 500 troops to restore order.

In restoring order, the troops locked local black residents in enclosures until their white neighbors vouched for them. 

The event became known as the Elaine Massacre. Five white individuals died. The official death tally of black Americans by the sheriff was 26. Historian Griffin Stockley estimated the black American death toll between 100 and 200. In On the Laps of Gods: The Red Summer of 1919 and the Struggle for Justice That Remade a Nation, Robert Whitaker estimated the number of black Americans who died at 856. 

The sheriff brought charges against twelve black men for the deaths of the five white individuals. A mob surrounded the courthouse during the trial, shouting that if the judge didn’t sentence the men to death, they would lynch them. After deliberating for less than ten minutes per man, the jury found them guilty; Judge J. M. Jackson sentenced them to death.

The ongoing legal battles lasted several years. Among other procedural shortfalls, the state had denied the twelve men access to defense lawyers. No matter, the US Supreme Court and different lower courts denied their appeals on multiple occasions. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) lawyers finally won an appeal, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 

After serving as President of the United States, William H. Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Warren G. Harding. Taft oversaw the Moore v. Dempsey (1923) case involving the twelve black men. The lawyers of the twelve argued the state had denied the plaintiffs due process and the appeals failed to correct the deficiencies of the initial trial. 

In the unanimous decision, the justices ruled federal courts had the authority to review state court decisions if the state denied defendants a fair trial. The justices further found the state refused the twelve individuals their Constitutional rights. This ruling now helps protect individual rights against mob justice and racial prejudice​​.

The twelve won their Supreme Court case, but the state case wasn’t over. The high court ordered a retrial. Instead, the Arkansas governor commuted their sentences, and Arkansas released the twelve men on parole. 

President and US Supreme Court Chief Justice Taft’s quote again - “We must dare to be great, and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage.”

We should piece this statement apart.

We must dare to be great…

As a legal scholar and dedicated national servant, William H. Taft chose words with intention. His background in law and governance influenced his precise and deliberate use of language. His use of the term “must” suggests a sense of obligation or imperative. This word reflects Taft’s understanding of leadership and public service responsibilities, implying that striving for greatness is necessary for society and one’s purpose.

Greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice…

High levels of success are not the result of luck or talent. Success is the outcome of persistent effort and the endurance of hardship and failure.

Taft’s perspective underscores the value of commitment and perseverance in pursuing ambitious goals.

And high courage.

Taft’s views of race were complex and racially biased. In 1906, he supported Jim Crow laws and expressed beliefs that African Americans were not ready to use the vote effectively. He described black Americans as “not having the mental stature of manhood.” 

Despite his racial views, Taft as Chief Justice believed all Americans had constitutional rights. Many Americans at the time, who accepted that black Americans couldn’t eat in the same restaurant, use the same water fountains, and use the same bathrooms, disagreed.

Taft and the Supreme Court justices of his court demonstrated courage to set the legal precedent that, despite their distaste, black Americans had the same constitutional rights as white Americans.

It was not courageous of Taft to think lowly of black Americans. That was cowardice.

It was courageous of Taft’s court to accept their views of race were wrong, and demonstrate the fortitude to transcend personal biases to uphold broader principles of liberty and equality.

We won’t all achieve society’s view of greatness. We don’t all start from the same starting line. The fastest, strongest, or smartest don’t always win the race. Time and chance happen to everyone. Some choose not even to compete.

Some are unwilling or unable to make the effort or sacrifice. A sick child or sick parent might be a higher priority.

Some willing to make the effort might face nearly unsurmountable challenges because of their circumstances. Growing up in poverty presents challenges most don’t overcome. 

However, individual Americans decide their potential in life, not by choosing where to end up but by choosing when to quit. This decision is not due to the status of your birth. And even if we don’t achieve society’s view of greatness, we can be great for our communities and those we love around us. We can be great by choosing to help others.

Because Americans, like twelve black men in Arkansas in 1919, endured hardship, and individuals like President and Chief Justice Taft dedicated themselves to the constitutional rights of all Americans, more Americans today have the opportunity to be great.

May God bless the United States of America.

Collectivism is a social and political philosophy that emphasizes the importance of the common good — what’s best for society.

If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), writing a century after John Locke, is the foundational Western philosopher of collectivism. Rousseau starkly contrasted John Locke’s individualism (see John Locke: Ownership of Self, from last week).

While both critiqued the absolute authority of monarchs, Rousseau, in his 1762 The Social Contract, introduced the general will, which posited the community and not the individual was the basis of political legitimacy.

Rousseau’s main points: 

* General Will: Rousseau’s concept of the general will is central to his philosophy. Rousseau theorized that legitimate political authority doesn’t come from individual consent but from the “general will” of the people. Rousseau theorized the general will is about the common good – what’s best for society. 

* Social Contract Theory: Rousseau’s social contract theory differs from Locke’s in its orientation to an individual’s relationship with the state. Rousseau saw the social contract as an agreement between individuals to form a collective body, after which individuals surrender their rights to the general will for the common good. In contrast, Locke’s social contract represents individuals agreeing to form a government that protects their natural rights (life, liberty, and property, which Thomas Jefferson expanded to the pursuit of happiness). 

* Freedom and Autonomy: Rousseau saw true freedom as adherence to the general will. In Rousseau’s view, when one aligns with the general will, one is not being coerced but is instead participating in self-legislation.

* Natural Human Goodness and Corruption by Society: Rousseau posited that humans are naturally good, and society’s structures corrupt this innate goodness. 

John Locke’s ideas, not Rousseau’s, outline our US Constitution. But even though we didn’t structure our Constitution using Rousseau’s ideas, America hasn’t ever been able to wholly refute them either. On the surface, Rousseau’s argument seems beneficial. We might hear it described by some with a positive spin as “a rising tide lifts all boats.” It implies that policies or actions that help the greater good will benefit everyone, not just a specific group. Sometimes this is true. 

If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?

A key point of divergence is the term “general will.” Rousseau argued that the general will of the people, as opposed to the sum of individual wills, represents the true interest of the community.

James Madison and many founders of America wholly disagreed. They feared collectivism could suppress individual rights and lead to a tyranny of the majority.

Madison, writing Federalist No. 10, urged protecting the individual from the collective. He used the term majority twelve times in the short essay. He outlined that dividing power between groups protects the rights of individuals from the majority or general will of the people. This division of power included checks and balances at the federal level, power divided between states and the federal government, and a representative form of government rather than a direct democracy. 

In sum, Rousseau’s concept of the general will represents the common good – what’s best for society. While this sounds good, this same concept can potentially oppress the individual. 

Though American founders didn’t agree with Rousseau’s views as he wrote them, we should consider a couple of points about collectivism.

First, Rousseau’s theory that the general will is about the common good — what’s best for society — is sound when we acknowledge that the common good is preserving our rights as individuals. 

Sometimes, Americans try to take a collectivist approach and strip rights away from other Americans, such as the right to demonstrate free speech by some who would wear different clothes or read different books than others. Eventually, this gets resolved. Issues often get resolved in favor of the individual rather than the majority (represented by the government.) This process is not straightforward or swift. For example, the history of civil rights in the United States illustrates that protecting individual rights for marginalized groups requires prolonged legal and social struggles.

The crux of the matter regarding Rousseau’s general will begs the question—who decides what’s best for society? 

When we give the majority, represented by the government, the power to strip rights away from some individuals, we give the majority the ability to strip rights away from us all. When we fight for the rights of other Americans to maintain their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including the right to make decisions that support those rights, we retain our own rights. 

Second, individualism fails when individuals collectively fail. When individualism fails, society calls for collectivism.

This dilemma is the strongest argument in support of Rousseau’s theories. For instance, a US Federal Reserve study from 2018 titled, Are Millennials Different?, found young American generations have lower average earnings, fewer assets, and a different financial landscape compared to what previous generations experienced at similar stages in their lives.

These conditions faced by young American generations have individualists and collectivists posing solutions. A Roosevelt Institute position paper from 2015 titled Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy outlines various approaches to redirect the American economy. The paper includes ideas such as strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, and awarding government contracts only to corporations that meet high labor standards. 

While some might disagree with the proposals, these are individualist ideas. They are not collectivist policies. Individuals need to be able to succeed economically. We must pay workers high enough wages so they can provide for their own needs from the effort of their work. This premise supports individualism. If we can’t set conditions enabling individuals who go to work every day to have heat in the house and food on the table, the call for collectivist approaches will get louder. Collectivist approaches might be Universal Basic Income and more debt transfer from Americans into the federal deficit.

We don’t need to agree with all of the Roosevelt Institute’s ideas to recognize that the call for solutions results from real economic challenges.

Conservatives and progressives alike can build consensus around raising American workers’ wages. Improving the ability of individual Americans to provide for themselves strengthens our individualism society. Higher wages for workers reduce the need for social programs. Higher wages preserve American’s ability to demonstrate their rights to liberty.

Suppose we are going to set conditions that enable Americans to provide for their own basic needs, help individual self-motivated Americans to be great no matter their upbringing, and reduce the social program taxation burden on the American taxpayer. In that case, we must enable individual Americans to succeed economically.

If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?

Because collectivism can suppress individual rights and lead to the tyranny of the majority.

If we want to maintain the individualism that is the foundation of America, we need to enable individuals to succeed.

May God bless the United States of America.

How do Americans regard John Locke’s principle of self-ownership?

Across the political spectrum, Americans believe in an individual’s right to own themselves, their property, and the product of their labor. Conservatives might interpret self-ownership in terms of economic freedom and property rights. Progressives might focus more on personal liberties and rights in healthcare, reproductive rights, and freedom of expression. Libertarians might interpret self-ownership as the right to make decisions about one’s body, privacy, and personal life without coercion or control by the state.

Though we express this belief differently, we all believe in John Locke’s fundamental concepts of life, liberty, and property.

And we express this belief by voting.

Englishman John Locke (1632-1704) was a philosopher and physician. He is the original source of individualism and, therefore, American theory.

Locke penned his most influential works late in the 17th century. He wrote his seminal Two Treatises of Government (1689) while exiled in the Netherlands. Locke’s two treatises:

* Locke first refuted the concept of the divine right of kings.

* Locke then outlined modern representative democracy. He argued for social contract theory, positing that governments exist with the consent of the governed and must protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.

Locke’s influence extended beyond philosophy into political theory, education, and theology. His ideas on religious tolerance were particularly forward-thinking for his time, advocating for the separation of church and state.

Locke’s ideas became fundamental to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States Constitution.

Locke’s broad ideas are, in essence, an outline of the US Constitution. From Two Treatises of Government, they include:

* First, a foundation of natural rights, which Locke defined as life, liberty, and property. These ideas heavily influenced Thomas Jefferson when Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, where he famously wrote about “unalienable rights,” including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

* Second, our government exists as a social contract wherein the representatives serve with the consent of the governed. This concept underpins the Constitution’s provision for a government that derives its power from the consent of the governed.

* Third, we prevent institutional tyranny through the separation of powers. Our Constitution structure includes a system of checks and balances among the government's legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The structure of our republican representative democracy, which flows from our Constitution’s structure, flows from Locke’s theories.

Servants of the nation swear allegiance to our Constitution. Because Locke’s theories outline our Constitution, national servants (elected officials), intentionally or not, believe in John Locke’s ideas: natural rights, representatives serving their constituents, and preventing institutional tyranny.

If we as a nation structure our society based on Locke’s theories, do we support Locke’s theory of property as a natural right? Jefferson changed it in the Declaration of Independence to the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson broadened the scope of natural rights to a more holistic view of what it means to live a free and fulfilling life. By the time of the American Revolution, thinkers like Jefferson interpreted enlightenment ideas to emphasize not just material wealth and property but broader human well-being and fulfillment concepts. “The pursuit of happiness” reflects this more comprehensive enlightenment thought, focusing on individual fulfillment in a more holistic sense.

In contrast, Locke’s original premise was that everyone owned property. He argued that property is a natural right stemming from an individual’s right to own themselves and the product of their labor. According to Locke, people own themselves, and when a person works on something from nature, their labor is mixed with the resource, making it their property. Following this line of reasoning, since we possess ownership over ourselves, we inherently direct the autonomy of our bodies and maintain the right to make choices that serve our interests.

The government cannot grant natural rights; natural rights are inherent in the state of nature. The transition from natural rights to civil society, as Locke posits, involves individuals consenting to form a government. Citizens consent to governance with the understanding that the government’s primary role is protecting these natural rights.

Locke’s philosophy transforms at the transition point of joining natural rights and civil society. His principles become not just about individual rights in isolation but about how these rights are essential in the formation and functioning of a modern democratic society. This broader context is crucial in understanding Locke’s enduring influence on American political thought.

Because Jefferson changed the term “property” to “pursuit of happiness,” do Americans believe, like Locke did, that we own ourselves?

Yes. Americans believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership.

Conservatives might interpret self-ownership in terms of economic freedom and property rights. They emphasize the importance of individual responsibility and the freedom to pursue financial success without excessive government intervention.

Progressives might focus more on personal liberties and rights in healthcare, reproductive rights, and freedom of expression. They often advocate for a role of government ensuring individuals have the resources and opportunities to exercise their rights fully, viewing self-ownership as a matter of property and economic freedom but also of personal autonomy and social justice.

Libertarians stress the importance of individual autonomy in all aspects of life, advocating for minimal government intervention. They might interpret self-ownership as the right to make decisions about one’s body, privacy, and personal life without coercion or control by the state.

In sum, Americans believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership.

No matter the group you associate with (if any), the logic is that if we don’t own ourselves, we are not free to pursue our life goals, find happiness, and seek personal fulfillment. In American culture and legal understanding, this concept has evolved to include various aspects of personal autonomy, such as freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, and the right to privacy. We see these rights as integral to an individual’s ability to pursue their version of happiness.

Further, American voters believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership. Right now, American voters are expressing this belief by voting for other Americans to have the right to make their own healthcare decisions. John Locke’s theory of self-ownership, 319 years after his death, keeps winning elections. 

Conservatives, progressives, and libertarians alike believe in Locke’s theory. And why shouldn’t we? Locke’s ideas formed our national system. Though the Constitution framers didn’t adopt the language verbatim, we believe in natural rights, the social contract that exists between our representatives and the consent of the governed, and keeping in check the tyranny of the institution just in case the institution tries to tell us we can’t make decisions in line with our natural rights.

How do Americans regard John Locke’s principle of self-ownership?

Across the political spectrum, Americans believe in an individual’s right to own themselves.

The diverse interpretations of self-ownership across the political spectrum — from conservative to progressive and libertarian—highlight this concept’s dynamic nature in shaping American policy and law. Locke’s self-ownership principle will likely continue playing a critical role in American political discourse.

Further, we don’t just say we believe in Locke’s principle. American voters believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership and, by extension, the right to make their own healthcare decisions in line with this natural right.

May God bless the United States of America.