David Hackett’s Post

Last weekend, I had the opportunity to attend a performance of '1776,' a musical on the background story of the days leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. While we all have studied it as historical events, this moving performance presents the human side of our founding fathers. Like all well-meaning people with diverse viewpoints, they too struggled with the clash of personalities, debates on ideas (e.g., John Dickinson's disagreements with the Declaration itself), clauses to include and remove (e.g., Edward Rutledge's insistence on removing the section regarding slavery), timeframes (e.g., Thomas Jefferson feeling the pressure from John Adams to finish writing).   This struck a chord with me as we often lament at how divided the present society has become on every issue - small or big. However, there was never a time in history, nor will there ever be where humans don't argue about different interpretations of problems or ideas on how to solve them. In fact, these are key strengths that separate homo sapiens from other species - imagination and creativity.   With that understanding, let's give each other grace as we approach this election season with the election day less than a month away.   Even more closely in daily life, we often face the same struggles that those wise men faced. Working with colleagues and partners on problems to solve at work with multiple and often conflicting views can sometimes feel exhausting or seem self-serving or agenda-laden. Let's remember to give each other grace in that context too. Let's start with the assumption of good intentions, that people are following their conscience to the best of their knowledge and ability. 

It's hard to imagine... But the right to listen to any song you please is still a privilege reserved for the citizens of a few countries worldwide. In many places, getting caught listening to a forbidden song can get you in trouble, or even lead to death, as in North Korea. But if you are in one of the few places in the world where you can listen to songs freely, check out these 5 songs that will make you think about liberty while listening to them. 1️⃣ “Winds of Change” The song by West German rock band Scorpions was written after the band visited the Soviet Union and saw firsthand the perestroika. To this day, the ballad is associated with the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Few songs can transport you to another time like this one. 2️⃣ The entire album “2112” Ayn Rand’s novels 'The Fountainhead' and 'Atlas Shrugged' helped shape a generation, but it was her lesser-known work, Anthem, that inspired one of the greatest rock and roll albums of all time: 2112 by Rush. 3️⃣ and 4️⃣ "Revolution” and “Taxman” The Beatles aren't known for their political songs, but these two carry messages that classical liberals’ ears would find delightful. Launched in 1996, “Taxman” criticizes the heavy tax system of the United Kingdom at the time, which placed the band in the top tax bracket, potentially taxing up to 90% of their earnings. "Revolution," released in 1968, was a response to the New Left, which pressured the band to take a more political stance. They did, but not in the way the radical leftists expected. 5️⃣ "Uprising” Muse’s Matt Bellamy isn't the kind of liberal we usually talk about at Students For Liberty... But “Uprising” is sure to get you pumped up to fight the state. It's a call to stop being oppressed and fight back.

Access All Areas was formed in 2019 to give young people of Colour access into the music industry and create an equal and fair playing field, educating the next generation. Access All Areas is extremely saddened and deeply angered by the recent attacks, marches and riots throughout the UK by the far right. These anti-Asian, anti-Black, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-Muslim attacks on innocent people will not be tolerated. The far right racist rhetoric for the last 14 years of Tory reign needs to end immediately. Words have consequences, what we are seeing now is a throwback to 70s and 80s in Britain with Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. We cannot and WILL NOT allow evil to divide us. Politicians and social media companies in the UK and globally need to take a look in the mirror and stop fanning the flames of hate with false narratives and propaganda for their own ends that is putting innocent people's lives at risk. The far right terrorism we have seen over the last week, attacking innocent people for the colour of their skin and their religion has long lasting consequences. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Access All.Areas thoughts are with all those affected by the terrorist attacks by white supremacist groups throughout the country. Music has the power to unite us, we are stronger as a human race unified than divided. Please look out for those vulnerable in your community and we pray that the nation comes out of this challenge on the otherside 🙏🏼♥️✊🏽

In Congress, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world… Signatories: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton John Hancock Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark Josiah Bartlett William Whipple Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry Stephen Hopkins William Ellery Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott Matthew Thornton

“The greater part of our happiness or misery depends upon our dispositions and not upon our circumstances.” — Martha Washington. In the high-stakes arena of Canadian politics, the theatrics displayed during Question Period often overshadow the pressing issues at hand. Recent performances by Conservative MPs, particularly Stephanie Kusie and Garnett Genuis, exemplify a growing trend of dramatization that borders on the absurd. Their antics raise a crucial question: are they truly representing their constituents, or merely indulging in political theater? Kusie’s recent motions, suggesting that the government is irresponsibly “making it rain money” for executives at the Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), reflect a troubling tendency to exaggerate and misrepresent facts for dramatic effect. Such statements undermine the integrity of parliamentary discourse, reducing complex policy discussions to mere sound bites designed for social media virality. Instead of fostering constructive debate, they promote a narrative of sensationalism, which does little to inform or engage the public. Similarly, Genuis’s ill-conceived comments comparing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and journalist Tom Clark to “sharing a bathtub” veer into the realm of the ridiculous. Such remarks not only distract from substantive issues but also trivialize the responsibilities of MPs to engage in meaningful discussions. It seems that some members of the Conservative Party are more invested in crafting theatrical performances than in addressing the concerns of Canadians. If these MPs seek improvisation and dramatic expression, perhaps they should consider participating in local open mic nights or enrolling in drama programs at Ottawa’s colleges and universities. There, they could hone their craft without distracting from the essential duties of their office. Question Period should be a platform for serious dialogue, not a stage for political theatrics. The public deserves better than a circus; they deserve representatives who prioritize substance over spectacle.

In the grand political theater, this year’s convention feels like a high-stakes rodeo. Picture it: Republicans, invigorated and unified under the bucking bronco that is Donald Trump, ride with a steely determination. But somewhere in the dusty outskirts of this political arena, another potential game-changer looms—a retirement speech away. President Biden, the seasoned cowboy, may tip his hat and mosey off into the sunset, leaving us all to adjust our binoculars to the new landscape. Wouldn't it just be the plot twist worthy of a soap opera if our dear Joe put down his lasso and strolled out? The melodrama! The gasps! 1. **Republicans**: With the enthusiasm of a pep rally, they're like a marching band that’s perfectly synchronizing every step with Trump’s beat. Trump 2.0 is their anthem, and adulation flows as if the percussion never missed a beat. 2. **Democrats**: Staring across the field, perhaps nervously dusting off their hands, knuckles white. The prelude of Biden’s hypothetical exit stirs the political pot. It's a ticking time bomb where the clock’s hands are whimsically in President Biden’s control. What if President Biden does decide to stage an exit worthy of a political Shakespearean play? Suddenly, Democrats find themselves yearning for a compelling leading actor or actress to take the maiden bow. The reverberations will be akin to knights and days jousting, adjusting lids, and preparing—because folks, we are going to be regaled to a showstopper. Contemplatively speaking, this is the climax akin to an old western film where everything hinges on a final showdown. Stages have been set, arenas prepped, and the audience sits at the edge of their leather seats. Without a doubt, the political undertones signal a combative terrain ahead where alliances will recalibrate. If Biden retreats, a saga accumulates sprightly where fresh narratives converge, new power players emerge, and voters recalibrate loyally. Theoretically, contingency plans are layered beneath Democratic tents as they anticipate an unforeseen disruptor. Watch closely! The political drama layered with unpredictability unrolls poetry as suspense chisels definitive character arcs. With a pang reminiscent of melancholy, speculative intrigue heightens emotions all around. **Predictively:** • Republicans saddle up with boldness unshaken, visions unblurred. • Democrats diagram intricate board drafts anticipating Biden’s potential departure. • Our stage brightens underfoot, enduringly mindful of a protagonist exchange. Whether senior Biden rides off into the tranquil dusk or stands stalwartly, one inherent reality illumines—come what may, clenching tightly to this theatrical spiral dictated by speculative dimensions. Stay tuned, stalwart spectators! #Politics #USA2024 #PoliticalDrama #ElectionExcitement #Republicans #Democrats #FutureOfPolitics #DramaUnfolded #JoeBiden #DonaldTrump #ElectionTale https://lnkd.in/emdgfXDV

[This unrivalrous Perspective from Lyle Enright was featured in a recent issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Frame. Click here to subscribe: https://buff.ly/3vu0N4G\] The phrase “The whole world is watching” started as an anti-war protest chant. With the advent of social media, however, it often feels like the whole world is always watching something–even if it’s only one person. For example, Taylor Swift recently released her new album "The Tortured Poets Department." One of the most talented artists of our generation, and certainly among the most famous, her announcement also came with a sobering reminder about the costs of fame which aren’t always paid by the stars themselves. In "The Cut," one woman wrote about a lifelong friendship falling apart because of her perceived lack of support for her friend’s idolization of Swift. "Paste Magazine," which released a lukewarm review of the album, omitted the author’s byline because a previously critical review of Swift provoked death threats from fans. Media expert and creator Jeff Gomez calls this phenomenon “superpositioning.” We think of social media as fairly “democratic,” allowing anyone their chance at going viral. But when one person somehow “wins” at every platform simultaneously, that person becomes “superpositioned,” poised to influence and even direct the desires of millions of people at once. But such a person does not steal our attention – we give it to them. And when we are blinded by seeing them everywhere we turn, we can unknowingly surrender the power to direct our own desires, our relationships, and our behavior. I’m reminded of my recent interview with my friend Gareth Higgins: paradoxically, as the world feels plagued by conflict, always demanding we all turn our eyes to the same place, the more important it is to focus our attention on the shadows. Then we may see what we’ve overlooked: good people are doing good things, working for peace and justice without fanfare or applause. If “superpositioning” is a problem, then I imagine being mindful of our desires and keeping faith in those who often go unseen is a big part of the solution.

Songs of hope National anthems are peculiar. Often, they began as chants or tunes during times of struggle before becoming a nation’s unifying sonic symbol. The first known dated anthem, the Dutch Wilhelmus, emerged in the 1570s amid the Dutch Revolt against Spanish rule. Though it wouldn’t officially become the Netherlands’ anthem until centuries later, Wilhelmus’ words of resilience continued to resonate long after the conflict was over. As countries began defining themselves in the 18th and 19th centuries, so did the need for shared symbols of identity, unity and history. Nations sought ways to create cohesion and pride; songs offered a surprisingly effective solution. France’s La Marseillaise, for example, was composed during the French Revolution and quickly captured the nation’s revolutionary spirit. Others, like Cuba’s Bayamo Anthem, appeared amid similar calls for independence, giving these songs an enduring place in their nations’ stories. Over time, these once local compositions grew into something bigger. National anthems became fixtures of public life, uniting people in times of celebration and loss alike. Today, they echo in stadiums, at ceremonies and even in quiet gatherings. They are traditions people carry forward, often subconsciously, as something that feels right to do. In a time when so much can divide, anthems still bring people together. They have become reminders of common ground, even if they came from tumultuous times. Voltaire once quipped, “Anything too stupid to be said is sung.” Yet songs reach people in ways logic and words alone cannot. National anthems stir something elemental - a love for place, fellowship or the comfort of something shared. By contrast when patriotism is spoken about it is often divisive and inflammatory – more a case of “anything too stupid to be sung is said” then.

In the modern American symphony, where the clarion calls of digital distractions drown out the delicate notes of our storied past, Larry Arnn steps up as an unexpected maestro. 🎻 Standing on the eroded podium of our collective memory, he coerces the discordant orchestra back to a melody composed by none other than our Founding Fathers. Imagine a time machine, sleek and polished, parked right next to your social media feed. You see, Arnn has thrown us the keys, with an air of nostalgia and a sprinkle of desperation. He wants us to take it for a spin and behold the marvel of 1776—where powdered wigs are cool and principles, even cooler. Oh, but let's not be naive spectators, assuming this journey comes without turbulence. Our society, possessed as it is by TikTok woes and Instagram gratification, will have a hard time revering sepia-toned doctrines. Feel a chuckle mounting? I hear you! After all, idolizing folks who penned the Constitution in candlelight—while we swipe right under LED skylights—is rather amusing. 🕊️ Arnn's call is more than an aesthetic reverence; it whispers a melody of ideals: - **Freedom:** An endangered libertine bird we keenly sight in the wilderness of political correctness. - **Justice:** A sightseer lost amidst the skyscrapers of bureaucratic red tape. Now, add a dash of thoughtfulness. Let’s be candid, folks. What’s revered today may molder in the irrelevant corners of history tomorrow. But what if that's precisely the point? Our minds, adventurous and hopeful, revere not just the Founding Fathers themselves, but the ode to heroism they crafted. Is Arnn an oracle or merely a chronicle salesman overhyped by nostalgic bias? Prognostication beckons us to consider these questions and more. In dissecting Arnn's persistence, there lies a pivotal reflection—a provocation to dissect our contemporary values and the parchment from which they are imprinted. Without plunging into melancholia, I should point out the potency of bold ideas in bleak times. Imagine standing on the precipice of liberty, staring into the abyss of cultural amnesia. Yet, there lies firm ground—a promise textured by both audacious dreams and somber recollections. Future enthusiasts will likely roll their eyes or holler energizing cheers. These temporal reveries remind us that history evolves, flexes but rarely capitulates. ❇️ Thank you, Larry, for reminding us that the echo of freedom is a harmony worth straining to hear, even amidst cacophonous modernity. https://lnkd.in/emdgfXDV #Freedom #FoundingFathers #AmericanDream #LarryArnn #HistoricalIdeals #Liberty #Principles #ModernSociety #CulturalReflections #PonderingThePast

David Collier wrote presciently, about the experience of the Jewish community in Britain post October 7th, that "British democracy will not save us - it will bury us" [https://lnkd.in/ewdijufc] On that point, it's interesting what John Gray (one of his major commentators) wrote about Isaiah Berlin's differentiation between liberty and democracy. To quote Gray "That a greater measure of liberty may exist in some authoritarian regimes than in some democracies is not for Berlin just a logical possibility, however. It is also a fact of history: ‘Indeed, it is arguable that in the Prussia of Frederick the Great or in the Austria of Joseph II men of imagination, originality and creative genius, and, indeed, minorities of all kinds, were less persecuted and felt the pressure, both of institutions and custom, less heavy upon them than in many an earlier or later democracy." Neither Gray nor Berlin brought this as an argument for returning to the dictatorship of kings. Rather they sought to point out that democracy itself guarantees much less than we might think. It remains, as Karl Popper argued in the Open Society and Its Enemies, the responsibility and necessity of right thinking people to stand up for liberty and the rights of minorities, and if this fails to happen, then truly democracy and liberty have no necessary connection. This is also, as Berlin saw, why Jewish national self determination is so important. Zionism is in significant part the recognition that democracy, in lived experience, guarantees nothing.