America survives as a healthy, wealthy nation only if the majority of the population is willing to stand on its own two feet.
Long before we Americans pick a side politically, we adopt a rhetorical stance that matches our worldview. That stance becomes the filter through which we interpret everything we see and hear, shaping our preferences and our politics.
Broadly speaking, Americans fall into three groups:
A. Dependents—those who believe in the primacy of the collective, where individualism is subordinated to the needs of the group. Their worldview echoes the “it takes a village” mentality.
B. Individualists—those who believe that responsibility begins and ends with oneself, and that we are meant to become the best version of who we are through our own decisions, actions, and consequences.
C. Amoral Pragmatists—those who choose the path of least resistance. They are situational, opportunistic, and guided more by emotion and convenience than by principle or ethics.
These three groups are roughly equal in size. Dependents form the backbone of today’s progressives. Individualists form the core of today’s conservatives. And the third group—the amoral pragmatists—constitutes the modern swing vote. They are highly persuadable, driven by emotional security, and often vote with their pocketbooks. During times of societal stress, this group becomes especially volatile, prioritizing safety and comfort over principle. High gas prices, war, and economic anxiety can swing them dramatically, and as a result, they frequently determine election outcomes.
For a society to prosper, it needs more individualists than dependents. But government policy has spent generations cultivating the opposite. Government, by its nature, expands. America’s safety nets—federal, state, and local—have grown steadily for more than a century, and many people, especially those in the third group, no longer see themselves as responsible for their own well-being to the degree their parents or grandparents once were.
Advertisement
Geography reinforces this divide. The South and Southwest remain strongholds of individualism. The North and West Coast have embraced a near-total reliance on government to shield them from crime, economic hardship, health risks, and educational failures. Government has become, in effect, a surrogate parent—a provider of safe spaces and emotional reassurance. To individualists, this is anathema. To the swing group, it is sometimes comforting, sometimes not. Together, these dynamics explain much of the country’s deepening bifurcation.
It’s worth remembering that none of these three groups existed in 1776. The country was founded by people whose values centered around independence, self-governance, and personal responsibility. These principles left no room for a dependent class or an emotionally driven swing bloc. Those who still favored British rule kept quiet and adapted. And the dependent group, as we know it today, simply could not have survived. There were no government programs to fall back on, and private or religious charity came with expectations that discouraged idleness or fantasy.
It took roughly 140 to 150 years after America’s founding for large-scale, government-run safety nets to meaningfully displace America’s original model of individualism supported by local charity. The shift began in the late 1800s, accelerated at the state level in the early 1900s, and became unmistakably national with the New Deal in 1935. That moment marked the inflection point at which individualism began to give way to federal and state social programs and a growing cultural belief in government’s central role.
From that point forward, a kind of countdown began—a slow transition from independence to dependence. Immigration played a major role in accelerating this shift, particularly by introducing large numbers of people whose cultural assumptions were incompatible with the most productive aspects of the American ethos.
America has never opposed immigration per se, but we turned it into a lottery for those entering, rather than a benefit for those already here. And when change wasn’t happening fast enough for progressives, they just opened the doors to anyone and everyone, regardless of health, education, criminality, or willingness to assimilate. We all know how that turned out. It was simultaneously their most brilliant and most disastrous tactic.
Some argue that this flood of incompatible immigration was accidental—a misguided act of empathy. It wasn’t. It was a deliberate strategy by those who envisioned a Marxist America and were running out of time to see it realized. Their impatience may yet prove to be their undoing.
We recently came very close to the tipping point. Had Kamala Harris been elected president, the transformation would likely have been completed. Another 15 to 20 million illegal immigrants would have crossed the border, creating a national crisis of staggering proportions.
Under a Harris administration, the filibuster would have been eliminated, D.C. and Puerto Rico would have become states, and the Electoral College and Supreme Court would have been “reimagined.” Progressives would have framed all this as moral necessity—a suicidal empathy, to use Gad Saad’s term, demanding that we absorb tens of millions of newcomers at any cost, just as Europe did, surrendering sovereignty and stability in the process.
Through divine providence, Donald J. Trump’s election, and other forces, we may yet avoid the fate now overwhelming many first-world nations. But the other side is not giving up. As we approach a pivotal moment this November, we must understand exactly what we are up against and craft a message that resonates with the persuadable middle. That’s not a new insight. What is new is recognizing that dependence functions like a drug—and more and more swing voters are becoming addicted.
The question before us is simple: What are we doing to counter that message?
God Bless America!
Author, Businessman, Thinker, and Strategist. Read more about Allan, his background, and his ideas to create a better tomorrow.
American Thinker
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 