To have a functioning society, we expect the government to provide a framework allowing us to go about our everyday lives without fear for the safety of our families, property, or ourselves and protect the vast majority from those seeking to threaten or restrict us. 

In our Republic, we’re supposed to let the majority rule on most things while protecting minorities or individuals from the “tyranny of the majority.” The fear of even transitory majorities taking advantage of others led to the promise of history’s first written protections even against the majority to gain acceptance of our Constitution—the first ten amendments, known as the” Bill of Rights,” allayed fears. These protections are a large part of the genius of our constitutional government.

Minorities take over our streets, making many parts of our cities disastrous. Minorities commit crimes with small or no price. Too much of a good thing can make you sick. In many cases today, the tail wags the dog.

How did our protection of minorities and even individuals morph into a “tyranny of the minority”? In his book “Rules for Radicals, ” community organizer Saul Alinsky proposed a rule that makes “the enemy live up to their own rules.” This rule has meant appealing to the majority’s best nature to lure the majority to bend to your will.

Barrack Obama was a community organizer in Alinsky’s Chicago, and Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis was on Saul Alinsky. You may not know about “Rules for Radicals,” but many people in power positions do.

Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King also pushed people to live up to their ideals to move their cause forward successfully. If a majority are people of goodwill and in control, this tactic can be successful. However, you can’t appeal to the hearts of others if they have none. This tactic has failed in Russia, China, and other totalitarian states. It only works with people with a conscious. 

Those arguing for the homeless to park where they want and criminals to suffer little consequence, and rules to be changed so we don’t cause pain to these people depend on the nation’s character to achieve these outcomes.

Today’s radicals tell us the destruction of civil society is the price one must pay to be fair to these abused minorities. But is this true, or are we just taking the easy way out?

Is leaving people with real problems living on and foul our streets the best way to help? How does failing to punish criminals because they came from a hard life make them better citizens? 

How many approve of the situation and then move away or hire private security? Of course, these people can afford it. The rest are left living in dangerous and declining areas.

It’s about time we ask ourselves if this is the best we can do for everybody involved. Many of those for maintaining the status quo have a financial interest. Federal CoC funding supports a whole coalition of organizations helping people without homes. Even with the vast amounts expended, the problem is still growing.

The same is true of the criminal justice “reforms.” While radical community organizers work through numerous organizations today, most big cities need to be safer or will continue to decline. These entrenched organizations expand with the growth of homelessness and crime. 

Isn’t it time for us to appeal, as Lincoln put it, to”our better angels?” By that, he meant notions of enlightenment, calm, and righteous judgment instead of letting a relatively small number of people destroy whole cities.

Now is the time to find real solutions to benefit everyone. We aren’t helping the mentally ill by leaving them on the street. Showing petty criminals that crimes do pay encourages them to do worse. We want to do the right thing, so let’s find out what that is.

Once we look at the plight of these cities in light of the balance between caring and the general public good, we can see other areas where minorities exercise outsized control. Teacher’s unions and ivory tower academics sway over our education system or the political extremists who dominate our elections.

Most Americans want no part of a Biden-Trump rematch, but that is where we’re heading. Primaries sound democratic, but narrow turnouts deliver power to the extremes. 

The Founding Fathers took steps to restrain the “Tyranny of the majority.” They never contemplated a “Tyranny of the Minority,” yet that’s where we are in many places.