Kevin

Well, you know, Madison, he defines faction in Federalist 10. He says any time that there is an individual or a group whose ends would deprive other citizens of their rights, that's a faction. So he's in favor of interest groups. But the real caution that I think the founders give us with regard to faction of ethnicity, race, those kinds of things,

is you begin to see yourself as a member of a certain insular tribe. That's why they were cautious about some of these religious groups. You know, Roman Catholics, Jews, they were less than, you know, maybe a percent of the population. So Federalist II talks about all the things that would unite a people.

is you begin to see yourself as a member of a certain insular tribe. That's why they were cautious about some of these religious groups. You know, Roman Catholics, Jews, they were less than, you know, maybe a percent of the population. So Federalist II talks about all the things that would unite a people.

And that would be a common language, common customs, common religion, common ethnicity migrating from the same parts of Europe. So that was their idea as to what would help root a people that would help to maintain the affection that would preserve the common and the common good. I think what we've seen, and this is particularly since, and we see two, really two movements of this.

And that would be a common language, common customs, common religion, common ethnicity migrating from the same parts of Europe. So that was their idea as to what would help root a people that would help to maintain the affection that would preserve the common and the common good. I think what we've seen, and this is particularly since, and we see two, really two movements of this.

The first one begins in the 1920s. That's where you have certain thinkers who begin to argue that they ought to be able to maintain their group identity as well as be citizens of the United States. The argument there is America is nothing but an idea. That really begins, as best as I can tell, in the 1920s.

The first one begins in the 1920s. That's where you have certain thinkers who begin to argue that they ought to be able to maintain their group identity as well as be citizens of the United States. The argument there is America is nothing but an idea. That really begins, as best as I can tell, in the 1920s.

And so you have Alain Locke talking about the new Negro and blacks being able to retain their own identity. You have the same thing for Jews in the 1920s, talking about how all these groups, they ought not to have to assimilate, but rather America is just a mere idea. It has no common ethical principles. And of course, they extend that to religion and all these other things.

And so you have Alain Locke talking about the new Negro and blacks being able to retain their own identity. You have the same thing for Jews in the 1920s, talking about how all these groups, they ought not to have to assimilate, but rather America is just a mere idea. It has no common ethical principles. And of course, they extend that to religion and all these other things.

The danger with that is, in that kind of mentality, is that once you begin to import more and more groups, they keep their tribal identities, and there's no longer a pressure to assimilate.

The danger with that is, in that kind of mentality, is that once you begin to import more and more groups, they keep their tribal identities, and there's no longer a pressure to assimilate.

And by the time you get to the late 60s, then the problem is, is that in the interpretation of what, you know, the 64 Civil Rights Act, whether you agree with it in relation to the government, federal government, to private business or not, that what had been a colorblind act, at least in its intentions, was interpreted in a very lawless way to begin to recognize different groups.

And by the time you get to the late 60s, then the problem is, is that in the interpretation of what, you know, the 64 Civil Rights Act, whether you agree with it in relation to the government, federal government, to private business or not, that what had been a colorblind act, at least in its intentions, was interpreted in a very lawless way to begin to recognize different groups.

And you have to understand, this is why the founders revolted, that they revolted against the British Empire, because in the British Empire, you were accorded certain privileges and duties, not based upon equal citizenship, but based upon your overlapping assigned group identities.

And you have to understand, this is why the founders revolted, that they revolted against the British Empire, because in the British Empire, you were accorded certain privileges and duties, not based upon equal citizenship, but based upon your overlapping assigned group identities.

And that's what we see beginning to happen in the 1970s through the EEOC, Title VI and Title VII, as well as even in Title IX, that in a very lawless way, we begin to manage and balance these different groups that only have their own interest in mind.

And that's what we see beginning to happen in the 1970s through the EEOC, Title VI and Title VII, as well as even in Title IX, that in a very lawless way, we begin to manage and balance these different groups that only have their own interest in mind.

You can see this, by the way, with some of the insular minorities who, when they talk about Donald Trump, will say something like, well, what have you done for my people? I think that's the dangerous part, is you only think about the good of your people.

You can see this, by the way, with some of the insular minorities who, when they talk about Donald Trump, will say something like, well, what have you done for my people? I think that's the dangerous part, is you only think about the good of your people.

Thank you.