Here’s an interesting — if not at all surprising — finding, pointed out by Alain Tolhurst in the New York Post:
In the first undertaking of its kind, they analyzed the fortunes of 44 countries across Europe and Asia and looked at geography, religion, systems of government and a more intangible quality called “deep cultural ancestry.”
Writing in the journal Royal Society Open Science, they matched these factors against where they ranked on the United Nations Human Development Index, which measures per-capita income, life expectancy at birth and the number of years its citizens spend in education.
Most of the issues they looked at appeared to have little or no effect on the disparities between the countries, except for Islamic countries scoring a little worse on education.
Instead, the single strongest predictor for a country’s health, and the second-strongest for its wealth, turned out to be whether its rulers had embraced communism.
To this, Glenn Reynolds adds: “Communism destroys social trust — communist governments do this by design — and that does longterm damage.”
Just so, observing progressive-backed legislation at the state level in Rhode Island, one notices a recurring theme of division. Tenants should assume the worst of their landlords. Employees should assume the worst their employers. Families should assume the worst of anybody who has any influence on their children. These aren’t people interacting with their neighbors toward complementary or shared goals; they’re factions attempting to get the better of other factions.
This division allows the progressives to present themselves (via government) as the people’s representation against their oppressors. The message is that we need central planners because we cannot possibly trust each other to get along without them.
Add to that the requirement that everything must be political. Every tweet and transaction should be a statement of the right political philosophy.
This cannot possibly be healthy for a society.