October 7, 2025

2 thoughts on “Is the Culture War Lost?

  1. Interesting definition of liberalism by Ms Ali… “sanctity of life?” “Rule of law?” “Free markets?” Sounds like my definition of conservatism. A misleading redefinition of liberalism. My whole lifetime, liberals (also known as progressives) have demonized free markets and economic success and promoted redistribution of wealth (actually poverty). I wonder what her definition of ‘conservatism’ would be. It appears to me that wokeism is just a new name for progressiveism (?).

  2. Uh, not to put too fine a point on it, but we have not had “free markets” in this country for some long stretch of time now.

    A “free market” means an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

    We do not have that; to the contrary, we have a “planned economy,” where a centrally planned economy, also known as a command economy, is an economic system in which a central authority, such as a government, makes economic decisions regarding the manufacturing and the distribution of products.

    Go back to 1946 and the Employment Act of 1946 ch. 33, section 2, 60 Stat. 23, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1021, the main purpose of which was to lay the responsibility of economic stability of inflation and unemployment onto the federal government by stating that it was the “continuing policy and responsibility” of the federal government to:

    “coordinate and utilize all its plans, functions, and resources . . . to foster and promote free competitive enterprise and the general welfare; conditions under which there will be afforded useful employment for those able, willing, and seeking to work; and to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power.”

    The Act created the Council of Economic Advisers, attached to the White House, which provides analysis and recommendations, as well as the Joint Economic Committee, one of four standing joint committees of the U.S. Congress established as a part of the Employment Act of 1946, which deemed the committee responsible for reporting the current economic condition of the United States and for making suggestions for improvement to the economy.

    Good bye free markets, which takes us to the “Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act” known informally as the Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act, which was an act of legislation by the United States government that came about because unemployment and inflation levels had begun to rise in the early 1970s, reviving fears of an economic recession.

    Whereas in the past, the country’s economic policy had been defined by the Employment Act of 1946, which encouraged the federal government to pursue “maximum employment, production, and purchasing power” by cooperation with private enterprise, some Representatives, dissatisfied with the vague wording of this act, sought to create an amendment that would strengthen and clarify the country’s economic policy.

    The Act’s sponsors embraced a form of Keynesian economics, advocating public intervention to increase economic demand and to secure full employment.

    That of course is totally inconsistent with the concept of a free market, but since we don’t have a free market, who cares?

    Consistent with Keynesian theory, the Act provides for measures to create public jobs to reduce unemployment, as applied during the Great Depression.

    The Act also encouraged the government to develop a sound monetary policy, to minimize inflation, and to push toward full employment by managing the amount and liquidity of currency in circulation.

    Overall, the Act sought to formalize and expand Congress’s role in the economic policy process, as governed by the Federal Reserve and the President.

    So, as I said, good bye free markets, because today, the concept is meaningless in an age of a planned economy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *