Disregarding The Body – Podcast
The Crisis of our Time
Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art
Companion Posts
+++
Starting Again
I was born in the sixties. But I am not a child of the 60’s. My family was lower-middle class, and by the standards of the time, traditional in most every way. Dad was a minister. If he or mom had lived into their 90’s they would not have imagined the social changes we have witnessed in the last 20 years. It would be too easy to say the sexual revolution of the 60’s caused all this change, as some conservatives maintain. But the roots of this change go back much further than the swinging 60’s.
So I’m embarking with some misgivings on a survey of cultural history. There are deep intellectual and cultural traditions that have shaped our everyday lives. We’ve come to a point in the Western world where the statement “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body” is comprehensible to many public leaders, at least in public. That phrase would be completely incomprehensible to my parent’s generation, in public or private, not to mention every preceding generation. It is still incomprehensible to many, if not most people today. But if you express your bewilderment in public, say at many workplaces in the Western world, increasingly the odds are you will be regarded as stupid, immoral or worse. You may be reprimanded for your irrational “phobia.” You might even have your career derailed. If you broadcast your view on a public forum, say Twitter, expect the Twitterati to pounce with the ferocity of a caged unfed Tiger. In certain parts of the world you may even be charged with a hate-crime for your expressed incredulity at the latest massive cultural shift. (See the following posts, here & here.)
As a 60’s poet might say, “The times they are a changin.”
The tectonic cultural shift in the last 20 years is quite breathtaking. Regardless of what you think about gay marriage, we have gone from year 2000 where the majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage to today where normalization of Transgenderism is fast approaching.
A long and winding road brought us to this point. I want to offer a thoughtful and hopefully generous exposition, from a Classic Christian point of view, of how we got here. As I go, I’ll be documenting some disturbing current events. (Read my next post). I hope that even those who disagree with Classic Christianity will find here a fair and readable assessment of our state of affairs. (post continues page 2)
Birthright Citizenship: Time for a Good-Faith Review
Yesterday, a good friend of mine—who is not a fan of the current administration—sent me links to two articles on the hot-button issue of birthright citizenship (see links below).
One was by Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, and the other by former NY Times columnist, Anand Giridharadas. Both passionately advocate for an “inclusive” birthright citizenship policy. However, Robinson accuses Trump—and by extension, anyone else questioning this policy—of racism.
President Donald Trump’s executive order purporting to abolish birthright citizenship is unambiguously and profoundly racist. We can conclude only that this is the whole point. The order plainly violates the Constitution and seeks to overturn crystal-clear Supreme Court precedent.
Eugene Robinson
I’ve followed Eugene Robinson’s work at The Washington Post over the years and am well acquainted with his point of view. I’ve always enjoyed reading his perspective, even when I disagree—which I often do. I believe we should all strive to consider perspectives from commentators and media voices that differ from our own. Over the years, I’ve made this a personal habit.
A central theme in Robinson’s writing is race, often framed as a critique of Republican policy initiatives. This is especially true when discussing Donald Trump, a politician who, to be fair, provides ample material for criticism. But in the debate over birthright citizenship, Robinson and others who take a similar approach reduce a complex legal and policy issue to a simplistic “crystal-clear” narrative centered on race. And that’s wrong.
Our allies ‘across the pond’ in the United Kingdom disagree with Robinson on this issue. Would he call their policy racist?
The British Nationality Act (1981)
The British Nationality Act 1981 fundamentally reshaped the UK’s approach to birthright citizenship by ending the principle of unconditional jus soli–the principle that anyone born on their soil automatically becomes a citizen. Prior to 1983, anyone born on British soil automatically acquired citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. However, this changed with the 1981 Act, which took effect on January 1, 1983, and established new eligibility requirements for citizenship by birth. Under the revised law, a child born in the UK is only automatically granted British citizenship if at least one parent is either a British citizen or legally settled in the UK with indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Importantly, the law was not retroactive, meaning that those born in the UK before 1983 retained their citizenship, but children born afterward became subject to the new rules. Additionally, the 1981 Act explicitly excluded children of diplomats from birthright citizenship, aligning with international norms by recognizing that such individuals are not subject to British jurisdiction. These legal changes reflect the UK’s deliberate move away from automatic citizenship by birth, reinforcing the principle that nationality should be tied to legal status and long-term commitment to the country rather than merely birthplace.
Most of our allies in the developed world do not recognize unrestricted birthright citizenship. Would Robinson argue that their policies stem from racial animus? The fact is, the United States is an outlier in this regard, and there is ample reason for a good-faith discussion about whether this policy continues to serve the national interest.
Trump, whatever one may think of him, is trying to invite a reasonable legal challenge to a policy that has gradually evolved beyond its original intent (see argument below). To frame such a challenge as inherently racist, as Robinson does, is both untruthful and harmful to public discourse. If we’re ever going to have real discussions about immigration, national identity, or any other important issue, we need to drop the automatic cries of racism and focus on the actual arguments.
I believe Mr. Robinson overlooks crucial aspects of the history and legal rulings surrounding birthright citizenship in the United States. With that in mind, here is my more detailed perspective on the issue that moves beyond reflexive accusations.
The Historical and Legal Foundations of US Birthright Citizenship
Lawmakers drafted the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 to secure citizenship rights for freed slaves, ensuring they were recognized as full members of American society. However, its phrasing—”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens”—has since been debated in contexts beyond its original intent.
The drafters of the amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to children of foreign nationals without full legal allegiance to the United States. The 1866 Civil Rights Act, which laid the groundwork for the Fourteenth Amendment, explicitly granted citizenship to “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power.” This wording suggests that Congress sought to exclude from automatic citizenship those whose parents owed allegiance to another country.
Misinterpretation of Wong Kim Ark
Proponents of universal birthright citizenship (the more inclusive kind) often cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as definitive proof that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil. However, this is a misreading of the case. Wong Kim Ark concerned the U.S.-born child of legal permanent residents, not of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. The ruling did not directly address the modern issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.
Further, early Supreme Court decisions like Elk v. Wilkins (1884) held that being born within U.S. territory was not sufficient for citizenship; one had to be fully subject to the country’s jurisdiction, meaning complete political allegiance.
Practical and Policy Implications of Birthright Citizenship
Unlike the United States, most developed nations have restricted or eliminated automatic birthright citizenship. I’ve already mentioned the UK. Other countries like France and Germany once granted citizenship based on jus soli—the principle that anyone born on their soil automatically becomes a citizen—but later abandoned it due to concerns over abuse and unintended consequences. The U.S. remains one of the few advanced economies where individuals can acquire citizenship simply by being born on its soil, regardless of their parents’ legal status.
This policy creates incentives for illegal immigration, as individuals recognize that having a child in the U.S. can provide an anchor for legal status and benefits. The term “birth tourism” describes cases where foreign nationals travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth, securing citizenship for their children despite having no lasting ties to the country.
The Moral and Cultural Counterarguments
Many contend that birthright citizenship defines American identity. Anand Giridharadas, in his article “The Idea of Birthright Citizenship,” presents an emotional and cultural argument: that America is a nation of becoming, defined not by blood or lineage but by inclusion. He contrasts this with European countries that define citizenship by ancestry, arguing that America’s model is superior because it embraces newcomers as equals from birth.
While compelling, this vision overlooks the crucial role of legal processes in maintaining a functioning nation-state. Immigration is a cornerstone of American success, but it should be orderly and lawful, ensuring that new citizens share the values and responsibilities of the country they join. A system that effectively rewards illegal entry undermines this principle.
The Path Forward: A Balanced Approach
Rather than maintaining universal birthright citizenship, the U.S. should adopt a policy that ties birthright citizenship to legal status. A possible approach:
- Citizenship should be granted at birth only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
- Children of non-citizens could be eligible for citizenship through a streamlined naturalization process, rather than automatically.
- Clear guidelines should be established to prevent birth tourism and other abuses while maintaining protections for those who come to the U.S. legally and contribute positively.
Supreme Court Direction
For decades, birthright citizenship has expanded far beyond its original intent, not through congressional action or explicit judicial precedent, but through administrative policy creep. This drift occurred “silently through the back door” because executive agencies and immigration authorities passively adopted an overly broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than enforcing it as originally understood. Courts, too, have failed to clarify the issue, allowing bureaucratic inertia to dictate a policy that was never explicitly sanctioned.
It is not the role of unelected officials to redefine constitutional meaning through gradual reinterpretation, yet that is precisely what has happened. The Supreme Court must finally take up this case and settle the matter—preferably by reaffirming the original intent of the amendment, as was written and understood by its framers.
This, I believe, is Trump’s intent with this controversial executive order (he’s had a few!).
Conclusion – Returning to the Personal
This debate is about more than legal technicalities—it’s about how America defines itself. Is citizenship a mere accident of birth, or is it a commitment to a shared national identity and legal order?
I respect those who argue passionately for universal birthright citizenship, and I understand their concerns about exclusion and fairness. However, America’s history and legal traditions argue that citizenship should be reserved for those who are truly part of the nation, not extended indiscriminately.
At the very least, this is a debate worth having, rather than allowing bureaucratic reinterpretation aided by a few lower court decisions to override the original meaning of the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment must be understood as it was intended by its framers, not reshaped to fit modern political preferences. In that light, we should critically examine whether birthright citizenship, as currently applied, aligns with the amendment’s original purpose and serves the best interests of the country and its future generations.
Debating birthright citizenship is a matter of law and principle, not racism.
Sources:
Richard Epstein – The Case Against Birthright Citizenship (Legal scholar, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law)
Amy Swearer & Hans von Spakovsky – Birthright Citizenship Clause Too Many Forget, But Trump is Right to Question (Legal and policy experts at The Heritage Foundation)
Eugene Robinson – The Real Reason Trump Wants To End Birthright Citizenship (Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist at The Washington Post)
Anand Giridharadas – The Idea of Birthright Citizenship (Author and political analyst, former New York Times columnist)
+++
More Than Two Sexes?
The video below is well done and the “Sex is a Spectrum” advocate does a great job packing in a lot of important information in just 13 minutes. Although I strongly disagree with his belief that there are more than two sexes, this video is a good primer on current beliefs about Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD’s) which have been misrepresented in the video as “Differences of Sexual Development.”
So as you watch:
Note how many times the words or word groups mutation, syndrome, congenital condition, anomaly, disabilities, sterile, incomplete, ambiguous, recessive, health conditions, and even the dreaded word disorder are mentioned.
I counted over 15.
Also after reading my last post, DSD’s and Sex “Assignment” you should be ready to answer correctly this question: Do these DSD’s sound more like a difference or a disorder? If your answer is disorder, then you know there are only two sexes.
There Are More Than Two Sexes?
MOST IMPORTANT QUOTES:
“Biologists today are saying sex is a spectrum.” (0:35). There are plenty of prominent biologists and other medical professionals who dispute this. I mentioned two in my post, What is Sex?
“…biological features don’t always agree with each other.” (1:27). He’s talking about chromosomes, gonads, hormones & genitals which most would say should agree or you have a disorder.
“It’s estimated that nearly 2% of live births are born with congenital conditions of Atypical Sex Development.” (1:42) Based on everything I’ve read the 2% number used here is extremely high. Nothing I’ve read comes close to 2 percent. Based on my research the actual number is 1 in 5000 births.1This figure is found in Peter A. Lee et al., “Global Disorders of Sex Development Update since 2006: Perceptions, Approach and Care,” Hormone Research in Paediatrics 85 (2016): 159. Not sure where they get this 2 percent number. Unless their definition of “atypical” is an expansive definition not used by most medical professionals and scientists.
“That basically means that something in their chromosomes, hormones, gonads, or genitals is different from what many people expect of a “boy” or a “girl.” (1:52). So these are differences, not disorders. Notice how “boy” and “girl” are in quotes.
“This used to be known as being intersex, but these days, it’s better described as having Differences of Sexual Development, or DSD’s.” (2:01). Most health professionals and scientists still call them “Disorders of Sexual Development.”
“There’s a lot of variation within what we call male or female, and there’s a lot of overlap that’s normal too. Anatomically, someone might look…female on the outside but not have ovaries or a uterus, or have tissue from both overies and testes.” (3:24) How anyone can seriously call this variation or overlap “normal” is part of the problem we face. Because of a well-meaning desire not to stigmatize and also, it must be said, a desire to propagandize an ideology, we are expected to believe these are mere differences, and not disorders.
“Minor Learning Disorders” (4:35). The first and only occurrence of the word “disorders.” Interestingly this disorder has to do with learning. Or the lack, thereof. Hint, hint, for those who haven’t learned the “new” science of sex and gender.
“Did I learn nothing but lies in High School?” (5:29) The way he says this is funny. But he makes a serious mistake in again suggesting that DSD’s like Mosaicism and Chimaerism are just “different” developments. For example, a Genetic Chimera occurs when two different embryos combine early in a pregnancy. Some cells are XX and some cells have XY chromosomes. Fewer than 100 cases documented worldwide. No, you were not lied to in High School. You were told the truth about normal human bodies. Which the advocate tacitly admits in the next quote.
“Depending on the distribution of those cells, mosaicism and chimaeras can result in ambiguous sexual characteristics or both male and female reproductive body parts. (5:54). Nothing normal about that!
From this point forward the words “mutation” and “syndrome” occur frequently. Notice the many times a so-called “difference” in development is mentioned. The advocate is “spinning” the story here to fit his narrative, but by now you should understand these as disorders.
***
People born with Disorders of Sexual Development often develop gender-dysphoria. Gender Dysphoria — formerly known as “Gender Identity Disorder” is characterized by a severe and persistent discomfort in one’s biological sex. They need our loving support which also means telling them the truth about their disorder.
On the other hand, the vast majority of young people today who are convinced they have gender-dysphoria do not in fact have it. Classic gender-dysphoria presents early in life, ages 2-4, and until the recent explosion among teenage girls, was almost exclusively experienced by young boys. Today most of those who say they are gender-dysphoric don’t have any DSD’s, for example. Their discomfort is purely psycho-social in nature but they remain convinced they were born in the wrong body. We can blame the Gender Ideology taught in our schools, coupled with “affirming” therapy that largely disregards other co-morbidities like anxiety, autism, depression, and in far too many cases, trauma caused by sexual-abuse. We can also blame the social contagion phenomena spread via social media for the confusion, especially among our girls.
The Irreversible Damage being done to their bodies is heartbreaking.
Is this the world we want to live in?
***
Restoring Institutional Trust Through Viewpoint Diversity
David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times, once wrote:
“We don’t want to live in a populist paradise in which expertise is suspect and ignorance a sign of virtue. Nor do we want to live in an elitist world in which technocrats try to rule the world. As the political scientist James C. Scott showed, technocrats are too abstracted from reality to even see what is going on.
We need to settle upon a place where experts are respected and inform decision-making, but civilians make the ultimate calls. In a healthy democracy people revere great learning on substantive issues; they understand the world is too complex to be captured in bite-size slogans; but they also appreciate the wisdom that comes from concrete experience and know that most hard calls have to be made in light of the deeply held values that have made America what it is.”
This quote resonates deeply with me. It captures a vital balance: respecting expertise while staying grounded in the lived realities of everyday people. In a healthy political culture, experts inform decisions, but the people—grounded in values and experience—through their representatives, make the final calls. Sadly, that balance seems increasingly absent in today’s polarized world.
Reflecting on Experience
As someone who grew up reading National Review and Mr. Brooks, who once wrote for NR, I’ve always appreciated the importance of culture and the pursuit of “the permanent things.” Coming from a lower-middle-class family, with parents who didn’t attend college, I quickly realized the value of educating myself. Reading well-written journals like National Review about culture and politics became my pathway to understanding the world. In high school and throughout college, I devoured the bi-weekly magazine from cover to cover—an experience that shaped my understanding of conservatism and the values that underpin our country. Although David Brooks and I have evolved in different directions over the years, we’ve held onto a similar core belief: hard decisions must be made in light of deeply held values, not fleeting trends.
The Rise of the “Bobos”
Back in 2000 I eagerly read Brooks’ book ‘Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There,’ his funny and sharp take on a new kind of cultural elite that emerged in America during the late 20th century. He called them “Bobos,” a mashup of “bourgeois” (middle-class, practical, materialistic) and “bohemian” (creative, free-spirited, countercultural). These people, according to Brooks, have taken over the cultural and professional world—and their quirks, contradictions, and influence are everywhere.
He noticed that the old divide between stuffy, materialistic “bourgeois” types and artsy, rebellious “bohemians” was disappearing. In their place was this hybrid: highly educated, affluent people who wanted the best of both worlds. They’re ambitious and wealthy but try to stay laid-back and authentic. They shop at farmers’ markets, send their kids to private schools, wear $200 hiking boots, and call it “casual.” Think of the tech executive who drives a Tesla but vacations at an off-grid yoga retreat—that’s a Bobo.
The Values of the Bourgeois Bohemians
Education is the New Status Symbol: Forget inherited wealth—Bobos believe the real path to the top is through education. Degrees from Ivy League schools or other prestigious universities are their ultimate badges of honor. They’re obsessed with learning and credentials, and they make sure their kids are too. They’ll pay crazy amounts for private schools and tutors to keep their families in the meritocracy club.
Moral Consumption: Bobos hate the idea of being materialistic, so they justify their spending as “ethical” or “enriching.” They’ll splurge on organic, local, sustainable everything—food, clothing, you name it. They’re the reason why Whole Foods exists and why you’re paying $8 for a latte with oat milk.
Secular Spirituality: Traditional religion? Not really their thing. Bobos are into yoga, mindfulness, and “spirituality” that doesn’t involve commitment to any one faith. It’s more about inner peace and personal growth. Their worldview is a mix of self-help books, meditation apps, and the occasional retreat in Bali.
Here’s the kicker. Bobos love to see themselves as egalitarian and anti-materialistic, but their whole lifestyle revolves around privilege and money. They spend loads of cash to look low-key, and they talk about social justice while benefiting from an elite system. Brooks doesn’t hate them for it; he’s just pointing out how funny and self-contradictory it all is.
Why Populism Resonates Today
There’s a growing feeling out there that the elites—the so-called Ivy League types who populate our institutions—just don’t get it anymore. They’re living in their own world, flying over the country in private jets, sitting in newsrooms, boardrooms, or cushy government offices, and looking down at everyone else. For the average person, it feels like these folks think they’re smarter than everyone and should be running the show, but when push comes to shove, they’re out of touch with what people actually need and care about.
That’s a big part of why someone like Donald Trump can make such a strong appeal. Love him or hate him, he’s not one of them. He doesn’t speak the careful, sanitized language of elite culture, and a lot of people find that refreshing—someone who might actually stick it to the folks who’ve let us down (according to the populists.)
Take the COVID shutdowns. Sure, it’s easy for an elite with a nice house, a stocked fridge, and a laptop job to say, “Stay home, save lives.” But for small business owners, or people who need to show up somewhere to make a paycheck, that advice felt like a gut punch. Shuttering businesses, closing schools, and locking people down had real-world consequences that the experts didn’t seem to grasp. Small businesses, the backbone of so many communities, were crushed, while big corporations like Amazon thrived. And now, looking back, some are questioning if all those decisions were worth it. People remember being told to “trust the science,” only to watch the so-called experts flip-flop or ignore the struggles of ordinary folks.
Then there’s the whole gender ideology thing and the cancel culture it spawned. For most parents, it feels like it came out of nowhere. One minute, they’re helping their kids with math homework; the next, they’re hearing about pronouns, gender identity lessons, and books in the school library that they never imagined their kids would be reading. To parents who just want their kids to grow up with some sense of stability and common sense, it feels like these ideas are being pushed on them by the same cultural elites who already run the media, Hollywood, and universities (see stats below). The whole thing feels disconnected from reality, especially for families who are just trying to teach their kids right from wrong, without all the added confusion.
And then there’s the media. Trust in journalism is at an all-time low, and it’s not hard to see why. The news used to feel like it was about getting the facts and letting people make up their own minds. Now, a lot of people feel like the media is more interested in pushing a narrative or looking down on anyone who doesn’t agree with them. When working-class concerns—whether it’s inflation, crime, or the border—don’t seem to get the same airtime as elite cultural debates, it’s hard not to feel ignored.
Inflation—A Tax on Everyone
Another sore spot for the average person is inflation—the so-called “hidden tax” that hits everyone, but especially those who can least afford it. While elites might feel the pinch of rising prices at the steakhouse or on luxury vacations, for most families, inflation isn’t just an inconvenience—it’s a crisis. When groceries cost more each week, gas prices eat into the budget, and rent skyrockets, people start asking tough questions: How did this happen? Why didn’t the experts see it coming? And, most importantly, why aren’t they doing more to fix it?
For those outside the elite bubble, it feels like policymakers and central bankers are insulated from the pain they’ve helped create. Printing trillions of dollars and flooding the economy with easy money might sound like a good idea in a committee meeting, but the ripple effects hit real people in real ways. Paychecks don’t stretch as far, savings lose value, and the dream of homeownership drifts further out of reach. Meanwhile, the very institutions responsible for managing the economy often feel like they’re playing catch-up, offering little more than excuses while ordinary folks bear the brunt of their missteps.
All of this adds up to one big conclusion for a lot of people: the institutions that are supposed to work for everyone—government, schools, media—aren’t doing their jobs. And worse, they seem more interested in serving themselves than serving the people. That’s why there’s this populist energy bubbling up. People are tired of being told to “sit down and trust the experts” when it feels like those same experts don’t trust them or understand what it’s like to walk in their shoes. It’s a pushback against a culture that feels elitist, out of touch, and sometimes even hostile to the values and struggles of everyday Americans.
That’s what modern day populists think. And, they have a point.
Let’s take a closer look at the political leanings within some of our key institutions, focusing on campaign contributions and voting patterns. These are not the only metrics, to be sure, but they will shed some light on the concerns about elite influence.
The Media and Institutional Bias
Once seen as a neutral conveyor of facts, many now view the media as a partisan echo chamber. Surveys show journalists lean heavily left, with political donations from major outlets overwhelmingly favoring Democrats. While professionalism strives for objectivity, subconscious biases—or outright groupthink—can shape what gets covered and how.
This ideological homogeneity extends beyond journalism to education and government institutions. For example, Ivy League faculty donations skew almost entirely Democratic, with Yale’s faculty contributing 98% to Democrats in recent cycles.
Educational Backgrounds of Journalists
• A large proportion of journalists at major outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and major TV networks (CNN, NBC, ABC) are educated at elite universities (e.g., Ivy League schools, Stanford, Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism, Columbia Journalism School).
Political Preferences of Journalists
• Surveys consistently show that journalists lean politically left:
• A 2017 study by the Center for Public Integrity found that 96% of political donations from journalists went to Democratic candidates during the 2016 election.
• Pew Research Center surveys indicate that most journalists identify as liberal or left-of-center, especially in larger national outlets.
Is it any wonder that many people have increasingly turned to alternative media over the past few decades?
Ivy League School Administrators and Faculty:
Political donations from Ivy League faculty and administrators heavily favor Democratic candidates. For instance, during the 2022 midterm elections, 96% of donations from Ivy League professors went to Democrats, with only 4% to Republicans. This significant disparity highlights the liberal inclination prevalent in these prestigious institutions.
• Yale University: A 2023 analysis by the Yale Daily News found that 98% of faculty political donations went to Democratic groups, with only 2% directed towards Republicans.
• Harvard University: A survey conducted by The Harvard Crimson reported that 77% of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences identified as “liberal” or “very liberal,” while fewer than 3% identified as “conservative” or “very conservative.”
• Ivy League Employees Overall: An analysis by Times Higher Education revealed that employees of Ivy League universities contributed 95% of their political donations to Democratic candidates .
Government & Institutional Bias
Federal agencies reflect similar patterns, as highlighted by data from OpenSecrets.org. Such lopsidedness makes calls for diversity and inclusion ring hollow when diversity of thought is conspicuously absent.
Federal Government Bureaucracy:
1. Pentagon (Department of Defense):
In the 2024 election cycle, employees from the Department of Defense contributed approximately $621,206 to Democratic candidates and $448,713 to Republicans, indicating a slight preference towards Democrats.
2. Justice Department:
During the same period, Justice Department employees donated around $448,713 to Democrats and $149,747 to Republicans, showing a stronger lean towards Democratic candidates.
3. Treasury Department:
Employees here contributed about $253,190 to Democrats and $60,274 to Republicans, reflecting a significant tilt towards Democratic support.
4. Department of Education:
Notably, Department of Education employees donated $65,155 exclusively to Democratic candidates, with no reported contributions to Republicans. None.
In this cycle, (2024) the Air Force is the only Federal agency listed with more donations to Republicans than to Democrats.
| Agency | Democrat Donations | Republican Donations |
| Education | $65,155 | $0 |
| Interior | $282,684 | $6701 |
| OPM | $33,197 | $0 |
| Commerce | $371,159 | $33,045 |
| Labor | $85,897 | $4201 |
| Agriculture | $352,308 | $28,216 |
| Defense | $621,206 | $448,713 |
| Justice | $448,713 | $149,747 |
| Energy | $374,157 | $17,885 |
| Treasury | $253,190 | $60,274 |
| Transportation | $204,130 | $95,665 |
| Army | $363,213 | $314,514 |
| Navy | $303,956 | $214,735 |
| Air Force | $209,378 | $221,779 |
| Veterans Affairs | $694,951 | $223,202 |
| Total | $4,139.734 | $1,819,677 |
Source: OpenSecrets.org
If you exclude current military service members—whose donations tend to reflect a more balanced political composition—the disparity in political contributions by federal agency employees becomes even more pronounced. Democrats receive $3,263,188 compared to $1,068,649 for Republicans, a striking 75% to 25% split. This contrast underscores the diverse, meritocratic culture of the military, where service and mission take precedence over partisan ideology, fostering a political balance more representative of the nation as a whole. (Although you should read an earlier post about DEI indoctrination in the military.)
Toward a Better Balance
It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it? The same elite institutions that proudly wave the flag of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) often seem to lack true diversity where it matters most—diversity of thought. While their contributions to informed discourse and public service are undeniable, their apparent ideological uniformity make their calls for equity and inclusion feel a bit hollow—especially when alternative viewpoints are often dismissed, ignored, or even suppressed. It’s hard not to wonder: where’s the real inclusivity in all of this?
Yet, it doesn’t have to be this way. Restoring viewpoint diversity doesn’t mean rejecting expertise or turning against institutions. It means ensuring that all voices are heard—especially those that challenge the status quo. Populist frustration isn’t just a rebellion against elites; it’s a cry for recognition, fairness, and accountability.
Final Thoughts
As someone who values cultural conservatism and Christian faith, I don’t always agree with populism’s style or substance. Yet I understand its appeal. People are tired of being told to “trust the experts” while watching those same experts fail to grasp their struggles. Instead of dismissing these concerns, we need open, honest conversations that bridge divides rather than deepen them.
I’ll be honest, I’m not a fan of Trump’s style. There are plenty of moments where I find myself cringing at his tactics, not to mention his past ethical lapses, which aren’t exactly inspiring. But at the same time, I don’t buy into the idea that he’s some kind of dictator-in-waiting. We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, and it’s built to prevent anyone from grabbing too much power—no matter who’s in office. Maybe what we’re seeing right now is more of an over-correction than anything else, a reaction to years of feeling like the elites have ignored or dismissed so many people.
As we move forward, we must commit to fostering a culture that values viewpoint diversity—a kind of diversity that is too often overlooked in today’s institutions. Without it, we risk isolating ourselves in echo chambers that only amplify division and resentment. True progress comes when expertise and lived experience complement one another, and when differing perspectives are not just tolerated but actively sought out. Let’s work toward a democracy that genuinely serves all its people by embracing the messy, challenging, yet vital conversations that arise when diverse voices are heard and respected.
+++
Celebrate Viewpoint Diversity