Dear America

Dear America Plot Summary

Introduction

The dark storm cloud hovering over America is not a weather phenomenon but a man-made feeling that something reprehensible is happening within our society. This shroud blankets the entire United States from sea to shining sea, representing a sickness in our collective gut. It manifests as a loss of patriotism, the rise of socialism, and a growing disregard for the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The cultural fabric, traditional values, and understanding of what it means to be an American are being destroyed and replaced with counterfeit ideals. This invisible yet detectable cloud involves more than just politics and divisiveness. It represents a fundamental shift within society, stemming from what we've wished for - mass prosperity and great blessings without responsibility. Modern Americans believe they're entitled to anything imaginable without sacrifice. What began decades ago with changes in family dynamics, media influence, and the deterioration of personal responsibility has accelerated dramatically with social media's rise. The troubling result is a nation where individual accountability has been replaced by entitlement, where cancel culture flourishes, and where speech is increasingly regulated by unelected tech oligarchs rather than constitutional protections.

Chapter 1: The Culture War for America's Soul

America has always been divided. From its founding to the present day, division has been a constant feature of American life. The problem is that in today's world, we have convinced ourselves that division is inherently negative - a cancer tearing us apart - when in reality, it has been with us from the beginning. What we now view as catastrophic division is simply our natural state expressed through modern channels. America represents an imperfect perfection. Nothing is truly perfect, but America comes remarkably close. Our differences make us strong. Being different means we will naturally be divided on many issues. Yet somehow our current generation views division as something to be eliminated rather than a natural part of our diverse society. Instead, we should see division as an opportunity for growth and expansion, coming together as different people united under one flag. The real healing cannot occur until we can engage in genuine discussions, civil disagreements, and meaningful discourse. The strength of America lies not in unanimity but in our ability to disagree while still recognizing our common bond as Americans. E pluribus unum - from many, one - does not suggest that we think alike on every issue, but that we share fundamental principles that transcend our differences. Our shared understanding that we are equal under God, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that we will stand together against threats to these principles is what unites us. The problem is not division itself but the belief that divisions must be eliminated at all costs. Differences in thought, reasoning, and information processing serve as checks and balances. We need the ability to disagree while maintaining our identity as Americans. Social norms have evolved dramatically, and with them, our understanding of what constitutes a "traditional" family or acceptable behavior. However, the fundamental idea that we can disagree without being enemies has been lost. The real strength of America lies not in forced unity but in the freedom to disagree while still respecting each other as fellow citizens bound by shared values.

Chapter 2: Fear and Division as Political Weapons

Fear is contagious, spreading faster than any virus could. This psychological contagion has been instrumental in dividing America and eroding freedoms that citizens once took for granted. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how quickly Americans would surrender their rights based on fear, allowing government mandates to dictate when they could work, where they could go, and whom they could see. Looking back at history, America has weathered far worse crises without shutting down society. The Spanish flu of 1918-1919 killed approximately 750,000 Americans and 50 million people worldwide, yet America kept functioning. Today's response to crisis reveals a fundamental shift in the American character - from courage to fear, from resilience to fragility, from independence to dependence on government direction. Fear now permeates every aspect of American life. Many are afraid to speak their minds, worried about social media backlash from strangers they'll never meet. Churches fear offending congregants, so pastors water down messages to avoid uncomfortable truths. Police officers hesitate in life-or-death situations, concerned about public perception and career-ending scrutiny. Doctors with alternative approaches to treating diseases remain silent, fearing professional repercussions. This culture of fear has transformed American society from one where fifteen-year-olds would lie about their age to storm the beaches of Normandy to one where adults are paralyzed by the prospect of online criticism. Personal experiences with fear – whether searching for missing parents as a child or temporarily losing a son in a hotel – pale in comparison to the national epidemic of fear that now controls public discourse and policy decisions. The most dangerous aspect of this fear-based approach to governance is how it has been weaponized politically. When President Biden told Americans that if they behaved correctly, they might be allowed to celebrate Independence Day in small groups, few recognized the irony of a government official dictating terms for celebrating freedom. Fear has conditioned many to accept restrictions on liberty that would have been unthinkable to previous generations who understood that freedom involves risk.

Chapter 3: The Cancel Culture Threat to Free Speech

Cancel culture is a modern form of ideological terrorism. Its sole purpose is destroying opposing voices, particularly conservative ones. Armed with the weapons of public shaming, economic pressure, and digital ostracism, cancel culture enforcers have created an environment where expressing certain viewpoints can lead to personal and professional ruin. This phenomenon represents more than mere disagreement - it's about silencing dissent entirely. What began as legitimate movements addressing real concerns, like #MeToo empowering women to speak about sexual assault, quickly transformed into broader campaigns targeting individuals for expressing unpopular opinions. The movement that started to help victims speak out morphed into an anti-man movement, just as Black Lives Matter transformed from addressing racial justice to becoming what many conservatives view as an anti-white movement. Social media companies enable and enforce this new censorship regime. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and others implement "fact-checking" systems that often target conservative viewpoints while leaving progressive claims unchallenged. These fact-checkers don't merely identify factual errors; they label opinions and predictions as "false" or "missing context" when they run counter to preferred narratives. When I pointed out that gas prices had begun to rise after Biden took office, fact-checkers flagged it as "missing context" despite acknowledging the basic fact was correct. The consequences of being "fact-checked" extend far beyond public correction. For content creators, it means demonetization and reduced distribution, effectively limiting their ability to reach audiences. For businesses that built their customer base on social media platforms, it can mean sudden deletion without recourse, as happened to companies selling pro-Trump merchandise. The system offers no meaningful appeals process, no presumption of innocence, and no proportionality in punishment. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields these companies from legal liability while giving them nearly unlimited power to moderate content according to their own standards. Originally intended to protect emerging internet platforms in 1996, this law now serves as a shield for trillion-dollar companies exercising what amounts to governmental power over public discourse without constitutional constraints. The real danger is that Big Tech now has more power than elected officials. When social media companies can effectively silence a sitting president while allowing foreign adversaries to spread propaganda, the constitutional balance of power has been fundamentally disrupted. Congress appears unwilling or unable to address this threat, perhaps because legislators themselves fear being canceled or because they benefit from the current arrangement.

Chapter 4: American Values vs. Progressive Ideology

We've perverted the concept of equality to mean equality of outcome, which is not only inherently false but also unattainable. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere does it guarantee equal results regardless of effort, ability, or choices. This fundamental misunderstanding has led to dangerous political movements that seek to redistribute wealth and resources without regard for merit or contribution. When Harris ran for president, she released an animated video showing two people climbing a mountain, with one starting behind the other. Her point about unequal starting positions seemed reasonable, but it was based on a false premise - that equality means everyone should reach the same destination simultaneously. Even if we gave everyone identical resources, training, and opportunities, outcomes would still vary. In any competition or endeavor, someone will excel while others struggle. This isn't a flaw in the system; it's a reflection of human diversity. Not everyone can be a boss, not everyone can finish first, and not everyone deserves the same rewards regardless of performance or contribution. The Democratic push for a $15 federal minimum wage illustrates this confusion between equality of opportunity and outcome. While it sounds compassionate, doubling the minimum wage would devastate small businesses in lower-cost regions like South Carolina and Mississippi. These businesses operate on thin margins and cannot simply absorb massive payroll increases. The result would be layoffs, reduced hours, and accelerated automation - as McDonald's demonstrated by installing self-service kiosks after wage increase demands. Similarly, attempts to mandate equal pay across different industries ignore fundamental market realities. When comparing NBA superstar LeBron James's $37 million salary to WNBA star Sue Bird's $215,000, the discrepancy seems unfair until you consider the vast differences in revenue generation, viewership, and global market value between the leagues. Forced equality in such situations would destroy the economic systems that create prosperity. Progressive policies often operate under the utopian assumption that people are inherently good and that perfect equality is achievable. The truth, reflected in Biblical teaching, is that people are naturally self-centered and must be taught otherwise. A baby cares only about its own needs - feed me, change me, make me comfortable. Good parenting involves teaching children to overcome these selfish impulses. Similarly, good governance should encourage responsibility and merit rather than enabling dependency.

Chapter 5: Media Censorship and the Truth Gatekeepers

This is an old story with a new twist. The media's one-sided power has long been evident in America, but now a new arm of media manipulation has emerged: fact-checking. Media entities not only practice biased reporting but employ fact-checkers to target opposing viewpoints, particularly conservative ones, through unregulated practices that distort truth rather than defend it. The mission of these fact-checkers isn't truth-seeking but truth-destroying. They aim to weaken conservative voices by questioning their veracity through baseless accusations. Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms use these fact-checks to justify censoring content and restricting reach. The standards are fluid and selectively applied, creating a system where progressive claims receive minimal scrutiny while conservative statements face intense examination. Former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos demonstrated the industry's bias when he went on CNN and essentially called for censoring conservative speech, comparing it to ISIS terrorism. This equivalence between mainstream conservative thought and violent extremism reveals the ideological motivation behind much fact-checking. Meanwhile, Project Veritas exposed CNN technical director Charlie Chester admitting on hidden camera that the network had deliberately used "propaganda" to help defeat Trump and hyped COVID-19 death counts to drive ratings. The fact-checking process itself is deeply flawed. Often, checkers create articles specifically to contradict conservative claims, then use these newly written pieces as the "authoritative" source to declare the original statement false. When I noted that typing "antifa.com" redirected to Joe Biden's campaign website, fact-checkers labeled it "false information" despite being demonstrably true. They conflated my observation with a claim I never made - that Biden was financially connected to Antifa. These fact-checkers also apply inconsistent standards based on political alignment. President Biden makes numerous factual errors during speeches, yet receives minimal fact-checking. During the 2020 presidential debates, Trump was fact-checked hundreds of times while Biden received zero fact-checks despite numerous questionable claims. This disparity cannot be explained by anything other than political bias. The consequences of being fact-checked extend far beyond public correction. Content creators face a three-strike system where being labeled "misleading" or "lacking context" counts the same as spreading actual falsehoods. After entering the "red zone," creators face demonetization, which reduces distribution by up to 75% and eliminates their economic viability. There is no meaningful appeal process, no right to representation, and no presumption of innocence. Big Tech has created a parallel justice system with none of the protections Americans expect from actual courts. While Section 230 was meant to foster open communication, it has instead enabled unprecedented censorship by shielding companies from legal consequences while granting them broad power to moderate content according to their own standards - standards that increasingly align with one political perspective.

Chapter 6: Reclaiming Patriotism in Post-9/11 America

America was created with the understanding that individual rights endowed by our Creator were worth fighting and dying for. However, this sentiment was not unanimous. The Revolutionary War wasn't a moment where everyone suddenly decided to fight for freedom. It began with a small group who saw something wrong and believed in fighting back. Over time, they convinced others to join their cause, willing to sacrifice everything for a vision of something better. Would the Founding Fathers be proud of today's America? Would they approve of a growing percentage of Americans embracing Democratic socialism? Would they support our shift away from individualism and exceptionalism toward government dependency? To answer these questions, we must consider why America was founded in the first place. Americans were tired of being told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it by the British crown. They wanted freedom to practice their faith, pursue their livelihoods, and live without excessive taxation. What made the American experiment unique was that after winning independence, the Founders didn't establish an authoritarian regime. Instead, they created a system where power resided with the people - a radical departure from historical precedent. The spirit of America is fundamentally selfless, not selfish. The problems we face today stem from selfishness: "I deserve this," "I need this," "You're not doing what I need." This mentality permeates every level of society from individual relationships to federal governance. We've forgotten that being an American comes with responsibilities, not just entitlements. Most troubling is that powerful organizations with no political accountability now have more authority than the government itself. Big Tech companies can silence the President of the United States while operating on infrastructure they don't own. Wall Street can shut down trading when average Americans start beating hedge funds at their own game. These entities weren't elected by anyone, yet they dictate what Americans can say, buy, and do. The greatest healing for our nation can only occur when we recapture the spirit of September 12, 2001. The day after the terrorist attacks, Americans weren't defined by race, religion, gender, or political affiliation - we were simply Americans. We showed the world what America was supposed to be: not a group that always agrees, but a people united by common principles transcending our differences. Twenty years later, how do we fix what's gone wrong? We live like it's 9/12. How do we address division? We live like it's 9/12. How do we reform education, reduce crime, improve police-community relations, and restore cultural norms? We live like it's 9/12. We owe this to future generations - to embrace the spirit of unity that defined us at our best while acknowledging our differences. We don't fix America by transforming it into something it was never meant to be or by chasing utopian fantasies. We fix it by returning to foundational principles: recognizing our differences while embracing our common identity as Americans. The path forward requires courage to stand for these principles even when it's uncomfortable or unpopular.

Chapter 7: The Path to American Resilience

America was not founded with a Plan B. When the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, they knew failure meant death. There was no reset button, no fallback position. This total commitment to their cause gave them clarity of purpose that many Americans lack today. Modern Americans want safety nets and assurances before taking any significant action, whether in personal life or civic engagement. This hesitation manifests in multiple ways. People complain about corrupt politicians but refuse to run for office themselves. They lament declining education standards but won't consider becoming teachers or school board members. They criticize woke Christianity but won't challenge their pastors to preach Biblical truth. Everyone wants someone else to fix the problems while they remain comfortable observers. Real change requires action, not just words. If you dislike your job, build a better business that creates more jobs and helps fellow Americans. If you oppose how schools indoctrinate children, get involved in education reform or homeschooling networks. If you believe your community is heading in the wrong direction, run for city council or mayor. Stop waiting for others to solve problems you can address yourself. The most dangerous internal threat to America today is censorship - also known as cancel culture. When cartoon characters are canceled for being "inappropriate," Dr. Seuss books are pulled from publication, and conservative viewpoints are systematically suppressed on social media, we face a fundamental attack on free expression. Meanwhile, explicit sexual content is celebrated in popular music and entertainment, revealing the hypocrisy of those who claim to be protecting public sensibilities. This censorship regime operates with no accountability. Who decides what content should be canceled? Who determines which opinions are acceptable? These decisions happen behind closed doors, orchestrated by unelected individuals who wield enormous power over public discourse. Their decisions increasingly align with progressive ideologies while marginalizing traditional and conservative perspectives. The greatest defense against censorship is courage - the willingness to speak truth regardless of consequences. When Chris Harrison of "The Bachelor" apologized and attended race education training after being targeted by cancel culture, he reinforced the system. When Eminem released a song telling would-be cancelers he "couldn't care less," he demonstrated the proper response. When Tucker Carlson refused to apologize for criticizing military wokeness despite high-ranking officers attacking him, he showed the backbone America needs. America needs fighters willing to take a stand regardless of personal cost. We need fearless individuals who understand that our way of life and thinking are being threatened. We're being manipulated into believing we're more divided than we really are. Those promoting progressive ideologies want us to believe equality of outcome is achievable and desirable, when in reality it destroys the incentives that drive innovation and excellence. The fundamental calling of being an American is caring more about America than yourself - caring about future generations more than your own comfort. We've accumulated trillions in national debt through COVID relief, burdening our children and grandchildren. We're operating like a nation trying to extract final pleasures before collapse rather than building for perpetuity. This must change if America is to survive and thrive.

Summary

The greatest threat to America isn't external but internal - our collective abandonment of the principles that made this nation exceptional. What began decades ago with the breakdown of family structures, media influence, and personal responsibility has accelerated dramatically with social media's rise, creating a society where entitlement replaces merit, fear trumps courage, and censorship substitutes for discourse. The solution isn't complicated but requires tremendous courage: Americans must reclaim the spirit of September 12, 2001, when we stood united not in unanimous agreement but in commitment to principles transcending our differences. The path forward demands individual action rather than passive complaint. Each American bears responsibility for the nation's direction - whether running for office, challenging educational institutions, supporting constitutional freedoms, or simply speaking truth regardless of social consequences. The Founding Fathers didn't create America with contingency plans; they risked everything on the belief that freedom was worth fighting for. Today's Americans face a similar choice: continue the comfortable decline into censorship, dependency, and division, or embrace the difficult work of restoring a nation where differences strengthen rather than fracture our common bonds. As the author concludes, "We have a lot of work to do, and it's time we got started."

About Author

Loading...

Graham Allen

Professor Graham Allen joined the School of English in University College Cork in 1995. Professor Allen has published extensively in the fields of literary and cultural theory and on subjects within Romantic literary studies. Professor Allen is Distinguished Visiting Fellow of the London Graduate School, a member of the Advisory Board of The Oxford Literary Review, a publishing poet and a regular book reviewer for The Sunday Business Post. The title poem of The One That Got Away won the 2010 Listowel Single Poem Prize and the collection has been shortlisted for The Crashaw Prize (2013), the Fool for Poetry Prize (2014) and the Strong/Shine First Collection Prize (2015).‍

Read more