Why are they called “The Seven Deadly Sins”? Take Pride, for example. Is it such a bad thing to be proud of an accomplishment, such as building a company, winning an Olympic medal, getting a promotion, or celebrating a child’s graduation? Isn’t such pride innate, a feeling and an assessment that culminates with success and status? How could Pride be deadly? Isn’t it an acknowledgement of responsibility fulfilled?
It becomes deadly when someone cannot admit failure. The President of the United States will never admit that the deaths of hundreds of migrants storming the southern border resulted from his decisions. The supporters of “Defund the Police” will never admit that both police and civilians have died because 1) they generated hatred toward police and 2) they decreased police forces that worked to quash criminal activity.
Either by special protection or by luck, those whose policies led to deaths escape the ramifications of their actions, but others don’t. In their prideful depersonalized policies, they can ignore the plight of the abused and raped, robbed and killed, abandoned and homeless because they see no personal connection. I’ll say what I have said, “What isn’t personal, isn’t meaningful.” But if the policymakers were to suffer a personal loss of some kind related to their actions, then…But that might still not elicit a public acknowledgement of a mistake because Pride is in control.
Migration? Isn’t that ultimately the decision of the migrant? Haven’t people always wanted to enter America for its abundance? Is the current migration any different from the nineteenth century’s Gold Rush? Do prideful policymakers bear responsibility for the actions of individuals coming from afar? But isn’t the promise of free stuff implied in the open border policy? As the migrants suffer the indignities of the journey, those who make the crossing surreptitiously become the burden on the taxpayer who must fund hotel rooms, free phones, and transportation for the migrants. The Gold Rush continues for the destitute and the lazy.
Isn’t denying such amenities to illegal migrants the manifestation of another deadly sin, Greed? To some extent, yes. Greed engenders a lack of compassion, and compassion has been a tenet of the West—whether practiced or not—for two millennia. Shouldn’t the affluent Americans share a little of their wealth with the poor? Why do the affluent need more affluence? Don’t they have enough? Isn’t denying a migrant a free hotel room, free food, free clothing, free phone, and free transportation an evil or at least an indication of crass indifference?
The policymakers and their blind supporters are spared the direct costs just as they are spared the cruelty of traffickers and the hardships of the migration. Once thrown into the treasury, anyone’s particular tax dollar goes to support the policies. No individual can say, “You want me to pay for someone else’s hotel room when I have a hard time paying for a room for my own family’s vacation or trip to see Grandma? You want the money I need to rent a room on a business trip?” Who gets to say directly to the policymaker, “I worked for all I have, and you see nothing wrong in supporting Sloth in your welfare state open to the world. And though many migrants are eager to work and become self-supporting, you do not see the growing number of Americans who also want a life of free stuff. Can you not acknowledge just a little responsibility for the slothful?”
Unacknowledged policy failures have led to Wrath. Those whose communities have been affected are angry that their lives have changed. Border ranchers, for example, once living relatively peaceful lives now find bodies of migrants on their property and worry about home intrusions and even bodily harm to family members. They are angry with a government that fails to do its primary job: protect citizens from enemies foreign and domestic.
Do not look for any policymaker to acknowledge mistakes. And do not look for the compliant Press to take up the cause of individuals affected by bad policies. Ultimately, the deadliest of sins is Pride, the self-aggrandizing motive that apotheosizes the policymaker.
It becomes deadly when someone cannot admit failure. The President of the United States will never admit that the deaths of hundreds of migrants storming the southern border resulted from his decisions. The supporters of “Defund the Police” will never admit that both police and civilians have died because 1) they generated hatred toward police and 2) they decreased police forces that worked to quash criminal activity.
Either by special protection or by luck, those whose policies led to deaths escape the ramifications of their actions, but others don’t. In their prideful depersonalized policies, they can ignore the plight of the abused and raped, robbed and killed, abandoned and homeless because they see no personal connection. I’ll say what I have said, “What isn’t personal, isn’t meaningful.” But if the policymakers were to suffer a personal loss of some kind related to their actions, then…But that might still not elicit a public acknowledgement of a mistake because Pride is in control.
Migration? Isn’t that ultimately the decision of the migrant? Haven’t people always wanted to enter America for its abundance? Is the current migration any different from the nineteenth century’s Gold Rush? Do prideful policymakers bear responsibility for the actions of individuals coming from afar? But isn’t the promise of free stuff implied in the open border policy? As the migrants suffer the indignities of the journey, those who make the crossing surreptitiously become the burden on the taxpayer who must fund hotel rooms, free phones, and transportation for the migrants. The Gold Rush continues for the destitute and the lazy.
Isn’t denying such amenities to illegal migrants the manifestation of another deadly sin, Greed? To some extent, yes. Greed engenders a lack of compassion, and compassion has been a tenet of the West—whether practiced or not—for two millennia. Shouldn’t the affluent Americans share a little of their wealth with the poor? Why do the affluent need more affluence? Don’t they have enough? Isn’t denying a migrant a free hotel room, free food, free clothing, free phone, and free transportation an evil or at least an indication of crass indifference?
The policymakers and their blind supporters are spared the direct costs just as they are spared the cruelty of traffickers and the hardships of the migration. Once thrown into the treasury, anyone’s particular tax dollar goes to support the policies. No individual can say, “You want me to pay for someone else’s hotel room when I have a hard time paying for a room for my own family’s vacation or trip to see Grandma? You want the money I need to rent a room on a business trip?” Who gets to say directly to the policymaker, “I worked for all I have, and you see nothing wrong in supporting Sloth in your welfare state open to the world. And though many migrants are eager to work and become self-supporting, you do not see the growing number of Americans who also want a life of free stuff. Can you not acknowledge just a little responsibility for the slothful?”
Unacknowledged policy failures have led to Wrath. Those whose communities have been affected are angry that their lives have changed. Border ranchers, for example, once living relatively peaceful lives now find bodies of migrants on their property and worry about home intrusions and even bodily harm to family members. They are angry with a government that fails to do its primary job: protect citizens from enemies foreign and domestic.
Do not look for any policymaker to acknowledge mistakes. And do not look for the compliant Press to take up the cause of individuals affected by bad policies. Ultimately, the deadliest of sins is Pride, the self-aggrandizing motive that apotheosizes the policymaker.
RSS Feed