A Rebuttal to the Anointment
of Donald Trump as a Messiah

The anointment of Donald Trump as a Messiah by some US Evangelicals raises serious theological and ethical questions. While they present arguments supported by isolated Biblical references, a deeper exploration of scripture reveals significant contradictions in this claim. Below are key rebuttals grounded in Biblical principles and Christ’s teachings:

The Ten Commandments and the Worship of Truth

The first commandment unequivocally states, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). This is a direct call against idolatry, which includes elevating any human being to a divine status. By anointing Trump as a Messiah, evangelicals risk creating an idol. The true call of faith is to worship not a person, but the embodiment of divine truth, justice, and love. Assigning Messiah-like qualities to any political figure distorts this fundamental tenet, replacing God with human fallibility.

Confirmation Bias and Misuse of Scripture

One of the serious pitfalls of this movement is the use of confirmation bias—cherry-picking scripture to justify a preconceived narrative. This approach allows almost any belief, however flawed, to find Biblical “support.” For instance, while King David might serve as a precedent for flawed leaders chosen by God, David’s repentance and humility before God were central to his role. The Bible cannot be wielded as a weapon of selective interpretation; it must be read in full context, lest it becomes a justification for actions and beliefs that stray far from its teachings.

Evil as Stagnation in Selfishness and Separateness

Evil, in its essence, is a clinging to immature states of consciousness like selfishness, division, and the prioritization of ego. Supporting cruelty, exclusion, or the perpetuation of inequality reflects such immaturity. Trump’s polarizing rhetoric and policies often amplify separateness rather than unity—a disposition antithetical to spiritual growth and the divine call for compassion and reconciliation. To align these behaviors with the divine is to misunderstand the progressive, inclusive nature of spiritual evolution outlined in scripture.

Christ’s Message of Love and Compassion

Central to Christ’s teachings is the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31) and even to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44). Yet, the support for Trump often celebrates his animosity toward perceived adversaries and his harsh stance on immigrants and marginalized groups. Christ’s ministry was a radical proclamation of compassion, seen repeatedly as He healed the sick, fed the hungry, and welcomed the stranger. Policies or rhetoric that promote division, cruelty, or hatred starkly contradict His essential message.

Christ Was Neither a Capitalist nor a Lover of Money

Unlike Trump’s image as a businessman and self-proclaimed billionaire, Christ warned against the perils of wealth. “No one can serve two masters… You cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24). His temple-clearing anger at the money changers (Matthew 21:12-13) further cements His opposition to the exploitation and greed that often accompany capitalism. Trump’s fortune and business-focused narrative stand in stark contrast to the humility and simplicity Christ embodied.

Prioritization of the Poor

Throughout His teachings, Christ consistently placed the needs of the poor above the desires of the rich. Consider the Beatitudes, where He proclaimed, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3), or His admonition to the rich man to sell his possessions and give to the poor, “and you will have treasure in heaven” (Matthew 19:21). Trump’s policies, which often favor the wealthy, contradict this central priority of Christ’s ministry.

Concluding Thoughts

The anointment of any political leader as a Messiah represents a profound misunderstanding of both scripture and Christ’s mission. The figure of Christ cannot be co-opted to validate policies or rhetoric rooted in division, materialism, or cruelty. If modern evangelical rhetoric truly seeks to follow Christ, it must eschew the idolization of any flawed human figure and return to the unambiguous call for love, humility, and justice.

And while some may argue that Trump’s actions align with God’s will, perhaps we should extend such creative theological application further. Shall we then suggest awarding Pontius Pilate for his “decisive leadership” during Christ’s trial? Or perhaps propose a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing tranquility to tumultuous political waters by such divisive means? The irony speaks for itself. Faith must remain rooted in truth—not political expediency.

---

Invited Essays

Would Christ Advocate for Democratic Socialism Today?

While the socioeconomic systems of today did not exist in His time, Christ’s teachings and actions offer a framework that resonates strongly with the core principles of democratic socialism. From His advocacy for the poor and marginalized to His warnings against the dangers of wealth, Christ emphasized compassion, community, and a fair distribution of resources—values at odds with the competitive, profit-driven nature of unregulated capitalism.

Christ’s Teachings on Wealth and Resource Sharing

At the heart of Christ’s message is a profound concern for the less fortunate. Repeatedly, He calls on His followers to assist the poor, care for the vulnerable, and reject the accumulation of wealth as a life goal. Consider the story of the rich man, to whom Christ said, “Go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21). This directive is not just an ethical guideline; it is a complete rejection of hoarding resources for personal gain at the expense of others.

Such teachings align naturally with the principles of democratic socialism, which prioritize the equitable distribution of wealth and the provision of basic needs like healthcare, education, and housing for all. Under capitalism, by contrast, wealth often concentrates in the hands of a few, leaving millions in poverty despite living in societies of abundance. Christ’s parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) emphasizes that true righteousness is found in feeding the hungry, sheltering the stranger, and caring for the suffering. These acts are not optional but central to Christian life. Democratic socialism institutionalizes these values, ensuring that collective resources are used to uplift the most vulnerable.

Community Over Competition

Christ’s vision of a just society was inherently communal. The early Christian church, as described in the Book of Acts, is perhaps one of the most explicit Biblical models of democratic socialism. The believers “shared everything they had. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need” (Acts 2:44-45). This voluntary sharing ensured no one among them suffered from want. While this early church model was not identical to modern economic systems, its spirit—placing communal well-being above individual wealth—mirrors the goals of democratic socialism.

Capitalism, on the other hand, thrives on competition and the pursuit of self-interest. While proponents argue that this system drives innovation and growth, it often comes at the cost of widening inequality and exploitation. Christ’s teachings reject such hierarchies, calling instead for a leveling of human value. “The last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matthew 20:16) undermines the capitalist tendency to reward only the most competitive, reinforcing the idea that all should have access to abundance, regardless of their position in society.

Compassion and Care as Central Pillars

Democratic socialism emphasizes policies rooted in compassion—universal healthcare, affordable housing, accessible education, and workers’ rights. These principles align seamlessly with Christ’s ministry, which revolved around healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and liberating the oppressed. When Christ fed the five thousand with five loaves and two fish (John 6:1-14), He did so without inquiry into their worthiness, hard work, or ability to pay. His concern was simple and direct: addressing human need.

Contrast this with the capitalist ethic that links access to goods and services to one’s ability to pay. Those unable to meet market demands are often left without basic necessities, a reality that runs counter to Christ’s call for universal compassion. Democratic socialism, by ensuring that societal resources are distributed to meet collective needs, honors the spirit of Christ’s message.

Christ’s Critique of Wealth and Capitalism

One of Christ’s starkest warnings is about the moral dangers of wealth. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25). Christ was not condemning wealth in itself but the greed, corruption, and inequality that often accompany it. Capitalism, with its emphasis on profit maximization, frequently celebrates these very attributes, turning greed into a driving force of economies. Practices such as worker exploitation, environmental degradation, and prioritization of shareholders over social good reflect precisely the kind of moral pitfalls that Christ warned against.

Christ also actively disrupted systems that commodified sacredness, most notably when He overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple (Matthew 21:12-13). This act symbolized His outrage at greed infiltrating spaces meant for communal worship and devotion. Similarly, democratic socialism resists the commodification of essential human needs like healthcare and education, advocating instead for systems that prioritize human dignity and equity over profit.

Prioritizing the Poor and Marginalized

Perhaps the most compelling evidence for Christ’s alignment with the principles of democratic socialism lies in His consistent prioritization of the poor. Throughout the Gospels, Christ shows a preferential option for the marginalized. “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). Democratic socialism elevates this very ethos by seeking policies that close the gap between rich and poor. It aims to dismantle structural inequalities that capitalism often perpetuates, ensuring that resources flow toward those in need rather than concentrating in the hands of the wealthy.

Programs like progressive taxation, universal basic income, and affordable public services reflect Christ’s mandate to care for “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40). These initiatives ensure that the weak are not left to fend for themselves in markets dominated by the powerful, but are instead supported by systems that reflect the Kingdom of God’s justice and mercy.

Contemporary Examples and Christ’s Vision

Modern examples of democratic socialism provide context for imagining how Christ’s teachings might operate today. Nations like Denmark, Finland, and Norway, with their robust social welfare systems and commitment to economic equality, demonstrate how societies can embody principles of compassion, fairness, and communal care. These systems prioritize health, education, and well-being—values deeply congruent with Christ’s ministry.

Meanwhile, unregulated capitalism, as seen in highly unequal societies, fosters conditions of exploitation, environmental destruction, and social division. Such a system would likely incite the same prophetic outrage Christ directed at the exploiters of His time. He would call for justice not through violent revolution but through a collective reimagining of society, one that places love and care at the center of its values.

Conclusion

If Christ walked among us today, His teachings would almost certainly challenge the prevailing economic systems, calling instead for structures rooted in community, compassion, and justice. While not identical to democratic socialism, His ministry shares its core principles—a rejection of greed, a commitment to the poor, and an unwavering belief in shared responsibility for human welfare. Capitalism, with its emphasis on competition and profit, conflicts with these ideals, often leaving the weak to suffer in its wake. Democratic socialism, by contrast, offers a vision of a world where Christ’s call to “love your neighbor as yourself” becomes the foundation of policy and practice. Would Christ be a democratic socialist today? Perhaps not in name, but certainly in spirit.

---

How Christ Might Have Advised the Founding Fathers to Avoid Equating Freedom with Capitalism

The United States was born with freedom at its core. Yet, over time, freedom became intertwined with capitalism, creating a narrative that equates liberty with the unrestricted pursuit of wealth. If Christ had been present at the founding of the United States, His teachings could have provided a profound counterbalance, urging the Founding Fathers to craft a vision of freedom rooted in justice, compassion, and shared responsibility rather than in the unchecked forces of individualism and profit.

Freedom in Christ’s Teachings

For Christ, freedom was not about the pursuit of personal gain but liberation from the bonds of selfishness, greed, and sin. “The truth shall make you free” (John 8:32) reflects a freedom that comes from aligning oneself with divine truth and living in harmony with others. Christ’s vision of freedom rejected systems that oppressed or exploited others, instead emphasizing the collective well-being of humanity.

If He had advised the Founding Fathers, Christ might have cautioned that equating freedom with economic self-interest would eventually lead to a society where the powerful exploit the vulnerable. True freedom, He might have said, lies not in the accumulation of wealth and material success but in fostering relationships built on love, compassion, and mutual support. He would have guided them to ensure that economic structures reflected these principles, emphasizing community over competition and service over self-interest.

Community Over Individualism

Christ’s teachings consistently prioritized community over individual gain. The early Christian church exemplified this ethos by sharing resources so that “no one among them had need” (Acts 4:34-35). Such a model reflects the spirit of economic structures that ensure communal well-being.

He would have urged the Founding Fathers to build a system where freedom meant the ability for all people to live lives of dignity, free from poverty and oppression. This could have meant designing constitutional safeguards to prevent wealth inequality, ensuring that economic policies prioritized housing, education, and healthcare as fundamental rights rather than market-driven privileges.

Christ might have also reminded them that excessive focus on individual liberty, as promoted by capitalist ideals, risks eroding the social fabric. An economic system based on unregulated competition inevitably creates winners and losers, increasing division rather than building unity. “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Mark 3:25) could have been His warning, urging the architects of the nation to adopt policies that bind people together rather than pit them against one another.

Economic Justice and the Common Good

One of Christ’s core messages was the pursuit of justice and equity. He championed the poor, fed the hungry, and warned repeatedly against the dangers of wealth. “Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort” (Luke 6:24) is a reminder of the spiritual and societal harm caused by unchecked materialism.

To the Founding Fathers, Christ might have argued for an economic ethos embedded in the Constitution that ensured markets served people, not the reverse. He might have suggested mechanisms for progressive taxation, labor protections, and public investment in essential services to prevent extreme inequality. These principles are not antithetical to freedom but ensure that freedom flourishes for all, rather than being reserved for the privileged few.

Christ might have also emphasized that the greatness of a society is measured not by the wealth of its elite, but by its care for its most vulnerable members. Policies that prioritize profit over people—hallmarks of unrestrained capitalism—would have been seen by Him as morally bankrupt. In His words, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40). A constitution mindful of such wisdom would prioritize the common good as central to its framework.

Compassion as a Guiding Principle

The driving force in Christ’s life was compassion. His ministry consistently centered on acts of mercy, healing, and inclusion. He extended His love to the outcasts of society—those marginalized by the economic and social systems of the time.

To help the Founding Fathers avoid the mistake of tethering freedom to capitalism, Christ would have stressed the need for policies that reflect compassion as a core value. He might have recommended embedding principles of economic equality, workers’ dignity, and generational care into the nation’s foundational documents. For example, protections for fair wages, access to healthcare, and environmental stewardship would ensure that economic systems do not exploit or scar humanity. These are not just moral imperatives but prerequisites for secure, sustainable freedom.

Equality as an Economic Ethos

Christ’s life was a testimony to equality—He walked with the poor, ministered to the sick, and built communities across lines of race, class, and gender. His teachings turned societal norms upside down, proclaiming, “The last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matthew 20:16).

He might have advised the Founding Fathers to design an economic system that actively fosters equality rather than one that entrenches privilege. Rather than idealizing the free market, Christ would have urged a system that ensures everyone has the resources they need to thrive, emphasizing distributive justice as the foundation of true freedom.

Christ’s Vision for a Constitution

Ultimately, Christ’s advice to the Founding Fathers would have been to avoid codifying any system that prioritizes individual wealth accumulation over collective well-being. Instead, He might have called for a Constitution that defines freedom as the ability to live in dignity, share in abundance, and create a society wherein love and justice prevail. Economic systems, He would have argued, must be tools of service, not masters of humanity.

The Founding Fathers did condone slavery, which stands in stark contradiction to Christ’s teachings of love, equality, and compassion for all individuals. While they laid the groundwork for a nation built on principles of freedom and democracy, the reality of slavery highlighted a profound moral and ethical inconsistency. Christ’s message emphasized the inherent worth and dignity of every person, advocating for love and justice that transcends social and racial divisions. The acceptance of slavery by the Founding Fathers reflects a significant departure from these teachings, underscoring the complexities and contradictions in the early history of the United States.

Perhaps Christ might have reimagined the idea of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as “life, community, and the pursuit of justice.” This vision aligns with the promise of the Pledge of Allegiance, which declares the United States to be “one Nation… with liberty and justice for all.” Originally written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, the Pledge has undergone several revisions over time, the most notable being the addition of the words “under God” in 1954. Therefore, Christ’s vision for a just society would have transcended notions of competing for resources and instead placed the focus on living together in harmony, ensuring that all have enough—not just to survive, but to flourish. This, He might have concluded, is the true soul of America—the one that reflects God’s plan for humanity.

Editorial note: The phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is found in the Declaration of Independence, not in the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration, adopted on July 4, 1776, outlines the American colonies’ reasons for seeking independence from Britain and articulates fundamental principles of individual rights and government.

The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, is the foundational legal document that establishes the framework of the federal government and outlines the rights and responsibilities of its citizens. It does not contain the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” although it has aimed to secure liberty and justice through its provisions and amendments.

---

From the center where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide all little human wills –
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.

---

The Price of Speaking Up: How Wealth Silences Free Speech

Imagine this—you’re a journalist uncovering a corruption scandal involving a powerful billionaire. After months of work, you’re ready to publish, shedding light on injustices that could spark change. But instead of your story inspiring action, it triggers a backlash. The billionaire doesn’t issue a public statement or refute the claims—they sue you for defamation. They know the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed, but that’s beside the point. The legal fees alone could financially ruin you, forcing you into silence.

This scenario isn’t just hypothetical. Across the globe, frivolous defamation lawsuits—also known as SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation)—are being used as weapons by the wealthy to intimidate and silence critics. This practice undermines the very foundation of free speech and highlights the corrosive influence of wealth on democracy.

The Weaponization of Wealth

When used responsibly, wealth can create opportunities, fund innovation, and drive progress. But in the wrong hands, it becomes a tool for dominance, designed to suppress opposing voices. The wealthy can leverage their resources to hire expensive legal teams and file baseless lawsuits that burden defendants with unsustainable time and financial costs.

The problem isn’t the merits of the lawsuits themselves—it’s the process. Even if the accuser has no evidence, the sheer expense of defending oneself can be enough to force critics into submission. Activists, journalists, whistleblowers, and everyday citizens become so bogged down in legal battles that they’re left with no choice but to withdraw their claims or self-censor moving forward.

The Cost of Self-Censorship

At first glance, the chilling effect of such lawsuits may look like isolated cases, impacting individual defendants. But in reality, the implications ripple through society. When one journalist is silenced, others take note. Media organizations may reconsider publishing controversial stories. Whistleblowers, knowing the potential cost of speaking out, might stay quiet.

Self-censorship isn’t dramatic—it happens in quiet moments of hesitation. It’s a writer’s decision to scrap a sentence, a publication’s choice to hold back an article, or a protester’s reluctance to carry a sign. Over time, the voices willing to challenge injustices and demand accountability dwindle, leaving society poorer for it.

Real-World Cases

Defamation lawsuits designed to silence critics are more common than you might think. Take the case of environmental journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was hit with over 40 libel suits before her assassination in Malta in 2017. Many of these suits were filed by powerful figures her investigative reporting exposed. While they may not have been the direct cause of her tragic death, the lawsuits created a hostile environment and underscored the personal risks tied to speaking the truth.

Closer to home, major corporations and public figures often use defamation claims to stifle dissent. It’s not just journalists who are targeted—activists and even ordinary citizens voicing criticism on social media can face similar repercussions. Each case sends the same message: challenge the powerful, and you could pay a steep price.

Free Speech Under Threat

At its core, free speech is about more than just the words on a page or voices in a crowd. It’s the backbone of democracy, enabling a marketplace of ideas where individuals can question, challenge, and demand better. When wealth tips the balance, restricting who feels safe to express themselves, democracy weakens.

Frivolous defamation lawsuits don’t just harm individuals; they harm society by protecting the interests of the rich and powerful over the collective interest. They create a two-tier system of justice, where only those with deep pockets can afford to fight back.

The Meritocratic Alternative

Contrast this with a meritocratic approach, where ideas rise and fall based on their validity, not who can afford to defend or attack them legally. A healthy system ensures that criticism, when presented in good faith, is met not with suppression but with dialogue. It champions accountability and transparency, giving everyone—regardless of status—the freedom to speak their minds without fear.

Meritocracy thrives when free speech thrives. Every voice matters, and progress is driven by challenging outdated norms and uncovering uncomfortable truths. Silence only benefits those who fear scrutiny.

Fighting Back

Protecting free speech in the face of wealth-backed intimidation requires action. Anti-SLAPP legislation, which seeks to prevent the filing of frivolous lawsuits designed to silence dissent, is a crucial step. Such laws create safeguards for those standing up to power, ensuring the legal system isn’t weaponized to suppress speech.

But the fight goes beyond laws. Media organizations, civil society groups, and individuals must stand united in calling out these practices. By supporting independent journalism, amplifying marginalized voices, and refusing to bow to intimidation, we can push back against the misuse of wealth to stifle dissent.

A Democracy Worth Defending

The battle between fear and free speech is as old as democracy itself, and wealth has often been its sharpest tool. But societies that value merit, fairness, and progress understand that silence is never the path forward. Defending free speech isn’t just about protecting voices today—it’s about ensuring that future generations inherit a world where truth isn’t a casualty of power.

We all have a role to play. Whether it’s speaking out against injustice, supporting courageous journalists, or pushing for reforms that limit the abuse of wealth, our actions shape the world we build. Free speech is a right, but it’s also a responsibility—to use it, to defend it, and to ensure it thrives for all.

---

A Balanced Approach to Meritocracy

Emphasizing merit in a way that overlooks the context of structural social injustices can potentially derail affirmative action efforts. Affirmative action is a policy or set of practices aimed at increasing the representation and opportunities for historically marginalized or underrepresented groups in areas such as education, employment, and business. These groups often include racial minorities, women, and others who have faced systemic discrimination and barriers to equal access.

1. Ignoring Historical Disadvantages: A strict merit-based approach might fail to account for the historical and systemic barriers that have prevented certain groups from accessing the same opportunities. Affirmative action aims to level the playing field by acknowledging these disparities and providing support to those who have been disadvantaged.
2. Reinforcing Existing Inequities: Without considering the broader social context, merit-based systems can inadvertently reinforce existing inequities. For example, if educational and economic resources are unevenly distributed, those from privileged backgrounds may continue to excel, while others remain marginalized.
3. Overlooking Diverse Contributions: Merit is often measured by standardized criteria that may not fully capture the diverse talents and contributions of individuals from different backgrounds. Affirmative action recognizes the value of diverse perspectives and experiences, which can enrich organizations and society as a whole.
4. Reducing Opportunities for Underrepresented Groups: By focusing solely on traditional metrics of merit, opportunities for underrepresented groups might diminish, as these metrics often reflect the biases of the dominant culture. Affirmative action seeks to ensure that these groups have access to opportunities that might otherwise be inaccessible.
5. Undermining Social Cohesion: A merit-only focus can create divisions by suggesting that those who benefit from affirmative action are less deserving. This can undermine social cohesion and the collective effort needed to address systemic injustices.

In summary, while merit is important, it should be balanced with an understanding of the structural inequalities that affirmative action seeks to address. This balance ensures that efforts to promote fairness and equality are comprehensive and effective.

---

Trust or Fear? Meritocracy vs. Plutocracy in Shaping Society

Imagine a town hall meeting where citizens voice their concerns freely. Ideas flow, debates are lively, and decisions are reached through collective reasoning. Now imagine a starkly different scenario. The same community is quiet, not out of contentment, but fear. People whisper about what’s wrong, too afraid of retaliation to speak openly. These two settings illustrate the core difference between societies driven by meritocracy and those dominated by plutocracy.

At its best, meritocracy builds trust—a mutual confidence in fairness, competence, and the belief that ideas can rise above status or wealth. Plutocracy, on the other hand, thrives on fear. Here, power lies in financial dominance, and influence is wielded to silence dissent, leaving openness and progress to wither.

Fear as a Tool of Control

Plutocracy derives its strength from wealth—the concentrated kind that creates influence beyond reason. This system often rests on the principle of keeping others in their place, ensuring the powerful remain unchallenged. Fear is the most effective tool for achieving this.

When wealth dictates power, it becomes difficult for individuals to speak out against wrongdoing. Leaders and organizations driven by plutocratic principles often use financial leverage to quash dissent. Critics are met not with dialogue, but with threats—whether legal, economic, or social. Whistleblowers could lose their jobs. Activists might face smear campaigns. Journalists could be slapped with lawsuits requiring resources they don’t have.

Fear in plutocracy doesn’t always look dramatic, but its grip is pervasive. People begin to police themselves, not out of respect for others, but out of the fear that those with wealth and power might retaliate. It’s a chilling effect—subtle, yet deeply corrosive. Over time, not only voices but also ambitions stall. Creativity, innovation, and bold ideas all take a backseat when fear dictates action.

Trust as the Lifeblood of Meritocracy

Meritocracy offers a different narrative. Power in this system isn’t inherited or bought—it’s earned. Leaders and decision-makers rise through proven actions, talent, and trustworthiness. What emerges from this foundation is trust—not just in individuals but in the entire system.

Consider how this plays out in workplaces that champion merit. Employees can speak up without fear, knowing their contributions are valued based on worth and not personal connections or financial sway. This openness fosters collaboration, innovation, and a culture where everyone feels empowered.

On a societal level, meritocracy inspires belief in progress. When people see success tied to effort rather than privilege, they’re more likely to engage. Institutions, be it governments or businesses, are seen as accountable when leadership is competent and includes diverse voices. Trust becomes both the product and driving force of such societies, creating a virtuous cycle of growth and transparency.

The Societal Cost of Fear

When fear becomes the currency of control, democracy itself falters. Fear isolates individuals, breaking the bonds that allow communities to push for change. Why fight for justice if the personal cost is too great? Why share ideas if doing so might lead to alienation or loss of opportunity?

The damage extends beyond individuals to the collective. Innovation slows when risk is stifled. Economic inequality worsens when wealth-hoarding plutocrats dictate priorities. Social trust dwindles, leaving fragmented communities that struggle to mobilize for the greater good.

The Strength of Trust

Meritocracy, in contrast, integrates communities. It empowers individuals by assuring them that outcomes are fair, not fixed. When it’s safe to speak, people share ideas freely. When effort yields results, more people engage wholeheartedly. The trust this creates pays dividends—not just in personal relationships, but in resilient institutions and communities capable of facing challenges openly.

Merit-driven societies reward collaboration and celebrate diversity of thought. This is why democracies reliant on free speech and fairness succeed over time—they allow for error correction, dissent, and new ideas, all of which are essential for long-term growth.

Charting a Path Forward

The choice between meritocracy and plutocracy isn’t abstract. It’s one we face every day—in boardrooms, at voting booths, and in social movements. We decide which leaders to support, which organizations to back, and which values to champion.

Fostering trust over fear requires conscious effort. We need to curb the influence of wealth in systems meant to serve everyone, through initiatives like campaign finance reform, anti-monopoly regulations, and anti-SLAPP legislation. Transparency in governance and business is key—when elites are held accountable, it builds trust in institutions.

On a personal level, there’s power in standing up to intimidation and supporting those who challenge the status quo. Amplifying underrepresented voices, protecting whistleblowers, and promoting open dialogue are actionable ways to strengthen meritocratic principles.

Building a Future of Trust

Every society must grapple with the forces that guide it—fear or trust, silence or dialogue, inherited privilege or earned respect. The battle between plutocracy and meritocracy is, at its heart, a battle over whose voices are heard and whose values prevail.

By choosing trust and fairness, we affirm that progress isn’t reserved for a select few. It belongs to every voice willing to speak, every mind eager to think, and every hand ready to build. The strength of societies isn’t measured by their wealth, but by the richness of their ideas and the courage of their people.

The question is simple. Do we build a future where trust thrives or one where fear rules? The answer lies in what we champion today. Actions matter, and a meritocratic world starts with the choices we make—individually and collectively. Will we speak? Will we support? Will we trust one another enough to rise together?

---

For 97 years, the editors of TIME have been picking the Person of the Year: the individual who, for better or for worse, did the most to shape the world and the headlines over the past 12 months. In many years, that choice is a difficult one. In 2024, it was not.

–https://time.com/7201547/person-of-the-year-2024-donald-trump-choice/

Adolf Hitler (1938) and Joseph Stalin (1939, 1942) had also been chosen Person of the Year by TIME for their significant impact on world events. 

The Moral Responsibility of the Press in Shaping Perceptions of Controversy

The press wields immense power in its ability to shape public perception and influence historical narratives. This role carries a profound moral responsibility, especially when journalists and editors choose to spotlight figures who have caused immense harm, such as war criminals or perpetrators of systemic violence. Time magazine’s historical decisions to name Adolf Hitler (1938) and Joseph Stalin (1939, 1942) as their “Person of the Year” highlight this tension. These selections were ostensibly made to acknowledge impact rather than endorse actions, but the distinction becomes murky when such figures are presented on global platforms, gaining a veneer of legitimacy.

What happens when the press shines its spotlight on individuals whose legacy includes brutality and oppression? The justification that the title is awarded based on influence, rather than greatness or morality, may hold some merit in theory. Yet in practice, presenting war criminals on magazine covers or in celebrated year-end spots carries consequences. It risks normalizing their actions or even glamorizing figures of destruction. Notably, while the title wasn’t intended as an honor, for many in the public eye, such recognition conflates power with admiration.

Distortion of Public Perception

The humanizing effect of a high-profile media feature plays a dangerous game. For instance, Stalin’s inclusion as “Man of the Year” just three years after orchestrating purges that took millions of lives moves the narrative from a condemnation of these horrors to a discussion of his supposed necessity as a historical figure. For Time to shine this light during his leadership validated his reign to a certain degree—not in the intent but in the resultant perception. Similarly, the acknowledgment of Hitler, even if intended to soberly reflect on his rise, reframed his fascist terror into an achievement quantified by global impact.

This distortion paves the way for the public to view moral atrocities through the lens of spectacle. When war criminals and convicted felons are raised to the level of global celebrities, the atrocities they commit risk becoming diminished through euphemism, footnotes in the broader recognition of their strategies or ambition. Media inadvertently lifts these figures out of the cages of moral accountability and places them into the pantheon of figures “worth knowing,” as if fame could consume their deeply tragic legacies. The implications are troubling. History may record their crimes, but contemporary portrayals through high-profile features soft-pedal these truths, allowing room for dangerous reinterpretations.

Ethical Responsibility in Journalism

The conundrum for media outlets is the clash between their duty to inform and their tendency to seek engagement through controversy. The press operates in an ecosystem that thrives on readership, clicks, and attention. Unfortunately, morally neutral—or even voyeuristic—marketing of controversial figures often generates this engagement at a high cost to ethical integrity. Journalists and editors choose whose stories to amplify. Responses of “but they were relevant” do not absolve the press of complicity in giving a platform to those who should only be remembered for their destruction, not obscured behind a strategic rebranding as masters of geopolitics.

Moving forward, a clear distinction must be made by media houses that assigning bandwidth to “impactful” figures like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin does not mean offering celebratory podiums. Responsible journalism would emphasize the gravity of their misdeeds without succumbing to spectacle. This involves refusing the clichés of false neutrality, where tragedies are rewritten as mere “historical phenomena,” and proactively resisting glamorization altogether.

In 2024, Donald Trump was named TIME’s Person of the Year for his significant influence on global politics and his remarkable political comeback. After a tumultuous first term and losing the 2020 election, Trump returned to the political scene, winning the presidency again by expanding his voter base and capitalizing on economic frustrations. His victory marked a historic political realignment, with increased support from Black and Latino voters and suburban women. Trump’s influence reshaped American politics and the presidency, reflecting a broader global shift towards populism and skepticism of traditional institutions¹.

Footnotes

1. https://time.com/7201547/person-of-the-year-2024-donald-trump-choice/ ↩

Sources

Why Donald Trump Is TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year
Donald Trump named Time magazine’s ‘Person of the Year’
Donald Trump Is Time Magazine’s Person of the Year for …
Trump named Time’s ‘Person of the Year’ for second time
Donald Trump named Time Person of the Year again

A Sarcastic Reminder to the World

Media and recognition committees alike continue to blur lines of ethics and folly. If influence trumps morality so easily, why not carry the absurdity further and task Benjamin Netanyahu with the Nobel Peace Prize for “finally bringing peace to the Middle East”? After all, his policies have indisputably impacted millions of lives—for better or worse, in certain narratives more heavily weighted toward the latter. Such an award would crown decades of unresolved conflict with irony so thick even Orwell might blush.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies both with journalists and the society scrutinizing them. History demands accountability—not through reverence to power but by learning its limits. To abdicate this responsibility is to risk repeating yesterday’s atrocities with today’s convenient justifications. The pen and the press must never forget whose stories need to be told, and whose legacies demand unflinching condemnation, not passive recognition.

---