(Note: This was originally published in the May 1, 2016 edition of the Herald)

It has been 174 years since the American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson first published his 10,000-word essay titled “Self-Reliance.” [http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm] Throughout the first half of the 20^th Century, school and college textbooks included at least a condensed version of this essay as part of the cannon of great American literature. Sadly, it has long since been removed by the all-powerful PC police of the text-book publishing industry.

At the heart of Emerson’s essay is an essential corollary: “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to this iron string.” This is what Emerson means by self-reliance. He is not just talking here about our instinctive responses to biological cravings but about our God-given right to make conscious choices─in other words, to exercise our free will.

With the development and spread of behavioral sciences in the 20^th Century, however, the very concept of free will has been erased. While studying psychology at Harvard during the 1930s, Burrhus Frederick Skinner developed a laboratory device that allowed him to change the behaviors of laboratory animals by using varying schedules of reward (food) and punishment (electric shock). Based on his findings, Skinner hypothesized that his “Skinner box” technique could also be used to change human behavior.

Fast-forward to the late 1990s when University of Chicago academicians Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein saw a link between Skinnerian behaviorism and economics. Over the next several years, they continued to develop this hunch into a full-blown economic theory. Then, while Junior Senator Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency in 2008, Sunstein and Thaler co-authored and published a book titled Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. [https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/reviews/nudge.pdf]

Like Skinner, Sunstein and Thaler believe all human behavior is intrinsically irrational. Whether it’s what we eat or how we spend money, we humans tend to make bad choices. They conclude, therefore, that all Americans can and should be trained to make “good” choices through a system of government-imposed rewards and punishments. Hence, along with a host of other social engineering monstrosities, we now have SNAP cards and Obamacare.

Obamacare is probably the most conspicuous example of what Emerson was referring to when he wrote in his essay: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Without a doubt, the so-called Affordable Care Act is, in President Obama’s mind, the most important part of his plan to “completely transform” America. There are, of course, many other ideological tools such as his crusade against climate change, his obsession with completely open borders, gay marriage, “leading from behind” and refusing to utter the phrase “Islamic terrorism.” With his legendary pen and phone Obama has bullied congress and the Supreme Court into backing every one of his consistently foolish ideas.

But Obama is not the only one guilty of foolish consistency. There are “little statesmen and philosophers and divines” on both sides of the political aisle. Among the most conspicuous Democrats are Senator Harry Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi. Among Republicans are Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative Elise Stephanik. The best thing one can say about these RINOs is that they are consistent flip-floppers. [http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/04/dishonor-roll-the-20-rinos-who-voted-for-loretta-lynch/]

So where in 21^st Century America are the truly self-reliant leaders and how do we recognize them? Here’s how Emerson would probably answer these questions: “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members….Whoso would be a man must be a non-conformist.”

Sorry, PC cops! That’s just the way people talked back in the 1840s. In using the words man and manhood, Emerson was not being sexist. He was talking about what, in his time, were commonly understood to be the “manly virtues” of confidence, courage and conscience.

To those accustomed to the cryptic slang of Facebook and Twitter, Emerson’s prose seems exasperating because Emerson favors the aphorism. That’s why he would answer the question What do you mean by conscience? by retortinig, “What I do is all that concerns me, not what the people think.” Or, echoing his contemporary, Charles Darwin, Emerson might say, “Nature suffers nothing to remain in her kingdoms which cannot help itself.” Only the strong survive.

Does this sound like Emerson was an elitist? Yes, in the best sense of that word. He was an eloquent advocate of a great American tradition—the rugged individualist. We’ve encountered them many times throughout our nation’s history: from Patrick Henry to Daniel Boone, from Abraham Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt, and from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan. As Peggy Noonan wrote in her November 20, 2015, Wall Street Journal column: “What people hunger for now from their leaders is an air of shown and felt confidence. I can do this. We can do it.” [http://www.wsj.com/articles/uncertain-leadership-in-perilous-times-1447978574?alg=y]

Enter right: Donald Trump. Joseph Rago was spot on in his own November 11, 2015 Wall Street Journal column, “The Presidency as the Art of the Deal.” Rago’s is a long article, and most American voters will probably never read it. But they should because it’s full of the same insights Emerson offers in his essay on “Self-Reliance.” Consider just a few of the key points Rago makes. [http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presidency-as-the-art-of-the-deal-1448062143?alg=y]

• On self-reliance: “We on the Journal editorial board would rather cover than participate in the presidential vortex, but then Mr. Trump is a self-reliant phenomenon and the first person is thus unavoidable….Trump supporters may discount the mechanics of policymaking because of another undeniable chunk of his appeal: his invincible self-confidence….”
• On the Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest principle: “He seems to view most of human life as a series of transactions and in the unsentimental, Darwinian universe he inhabits, the deals are always zero-sum….”
• On Trump’s aphoristic style: “Mr. Trump speaks in lengthy recursive loops that fold back on themselves, over and again, and he rarely makes a point once when seven or eight times will suffice….”

Bowing, of course, to the senior members of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, Rago concludes his column with what may have been intended as an ominous closing sentence: “It’s politics, not business, but you never know. Maybe it’s time to start imagining Mr. Trump, come January 2017, in possession of the nuclear launch codes.”

How interesting it is, therefore, that following his recent six-state primary victories on the East Coast, Trump was the first candidate in the current presidential race to tell it like it is and say it’s a nuclear attack from Iran or North Korea that is the greatest threat to our national survival.

So go ahead, America ─ “Trust thyself!” And let Trump be Trump.