The phrase “A good democrat is a dead democrat” was retweeted by President Trump on May 29, 2020, encapsulating the current state of America. Despite widespread claims of the election's integrity, Trump refuses to accept President-elect Biden's victory, asserting the election was fraudulent. This viewpoint persists even as many affirm that this election ranks among the most secure in American history. Throughout the past four years, Republicans have largely remained silent, with a few exceptions. Ted Cruz faced public humiliation from Trump in a now-deleted tweet but continues to defend him. Lindsay Graham has, on multiple occasions, stated he would not support a Supreme Court nominee in an election year, yet he proceeded to endorse one anyway. Most of Trump's original cabinet members have either been jailed, indicted, resigned, or dismissed, with many positions filled by individuals who are compliant with the president's directives. During a 2016 campaign rally, Trump famously claimed, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” which, unfortunately, proved to be true after four years.

The issue extends beyond Trump and his supporters; it also involves a redefinition of free speech. The left seeks to eliminate certain words, categorizing them as “hate speech,” while presenting themselves as champions of social justice. However, true free speech encompasses hearing ideas we may disagree with, enduring criticism, and confronting racism. If we begin dictating what can and cannot be said, we tread dangerous ground akin to becoming the thought police. At what point will the suppression of words and ideas impact your own views? Instead of silencing others, we should denounce racism and engage in open dialogue. Free speech is not conditional; it means the right to express oneself fully, even if that includes unpopular opinions.

Turning to socialism, a concept many seem to misunderstand, its pure form tends to cause more harm than good. The Oxford Dictionary defines socialism as a political and economic theory advocating collective ownership or regulation of production and distribution. Historical attempts at socialism, such as in the USSR, ended in failure, with the intended benefits worsening societal conditions. Bernie Sanders once promoted Venezuela as a model of successful socialism, yet current events illustrate the opposite. The far-left now cites Sweden as a successful example, neglecting to mention that its economy nearly collapsed under absolute socialism, prompting a shift toward capitalistic practices. While hybrid systems combining elements of socialism and capitalism—like social security and Medicaid—can function effectively, pushing for outright socialism in America is misguided, just as advocating for a dictatorship from the far-right is perilous. Socialists often shift blame for failed systems onto leaders like Stalin and Mao rather than acknowledging the inherent flaws within the ideology itself. I once supported Bernie Sanders in 2016, but extensive research has led me to conclude that socialism isn't the ideal path for our nation.

The denial of scientific truths is rampant across political spectrums, affecting discussions on race, gender, and religion. In a Philosophy of Death and Dying course at Rutgers University, I presented scientific evidence to counter an argument favoring illusion over reality. The response was, “Why must science always have the answers?” to which I countered:

> Science encompasses a range of disciplines and does not claim to have all the answers. Its value lies in requiring evidence; you cannot assert someone is a witch without substantiating that claim. While ignorance may bring temporary happiness, pushing that ignorance as fact necessitates proof, regardless of emotional impact.

Science is not a belief system; it is a means of understanding the world grounded in evidence. The adage “facts don’t care about your feelings,” coined by Republicans, highlights this truth, despite backlash due to political polarization. Regardless of personal beliefs, facts remain unchanged. The overwhelming evidence disproving the link between the MMR vaccine and autism is frequently dismissed by those unwilling to confront facts. Currently, many Republicans are rejecting scientific guidelines, such as mask-wearing, arguing that it infringes on their rights, even as evidence shows that adherence to such protocols leads to fewer cases. They accept private business decisions when it comes to denying service based on personal beliefs but resist when required to follow public health protocols. The mandate to wear masks is a precautionary measure aimed at protecting public health, not a governmental overreach.

This discussion on facts transitions into the topic of religion in America and the paradox of Christians claiming persecution while asserting the nation’s religious identity. How can you claim persecution when 73% of Americans identified as Christian in 2016? How is there persecution when the president participates in Christian events or when “In God We Trust” appears on our currency? The reality is that such claims lack merit and distort historical facts. The separation of church and state was a foundational principle for our founders, enshrined in the First Amendment to avoid the religious conflicts that have plagued Europe for centuries. James Madison articulated this concern in 1803, stating:

> The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

Thomas Jefferson emphasized this in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, affirming:

> I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

John Adams, in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, declared:

> The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

Our founders sought a landscape where individuals could practice their faith or choose not to, without fear of persecution from either side. However, the rise of Christian nationalism posits that secularism in America equates to persecution. In reality, as society moves toward greater equality, religious doctrines hindering this progress face scrutiny. While I support the right to individual religious practice, it should never be imposed by the government. When such imposition nears reality, organizations like the ACLU or FFRF intervene to protect individual freedoms.

The case of Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple based on his religious beliefs, has sparked national debate. Both sides have valid points; on one hand, religious individuals shouldn't be compelled to act against their beliefs, yet discrimination under the guise of religion raises ethical concerns. Consider the hypothetical situation of an atheist doctor denying care to a Christian child—this scenario exemplifies the danger of allowing religious beliefs to justify discrimination.

America’s current state resembles Charlie Gordon from the book Flowers for Algernon, where a mentally disabled man temporarily gains intelligence but ultimately regresses. After a brief moment of clarity, America seems to be slipping back into ignorance—politically, intellectually, and scientifically. Racism is rampant, and while Biden's presidency may restore some semblance of normalcy, it is not a panacea. The underlying issues of denial of science, educational decline, and increasing division persist. America is experiencing an existential crisis that demands resolution, as lives hang in the balance.