The Wall Cannot Withstand Freedom

Notes from the Brandenburg Gate, on the eve of the 39th anniversary of the speech that told a young Marine what he had signed up for.

Sunset over the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin, Germany June 11, 2026

I stood at the Brandenburg Gate this evening, in the last gold light of a long Berlin summer day, and I walked straight through it. Past the columns, under the quadriga and her four bronze horses, from one side to the other, without a guard tower watching me and without a wall telling me where the free world ended. I want you to sit with that for a second, because I did. Thirty-nine years ago tomorrow, the most powerful man on earth stood on the western side of this gate and could not have done what I just did. The gate was sealed. A wall ran in front of it. The horses on top faced east into a city that was not free.

His name was Ronald Reagan, and on June 12, 1987, standing right here, he gave a speech that I watched from a long way away, in uniform, and that has shaped every working day of my life since.

Let me tell you where I was, because where I was is the whole point.

In January 1987 I had quit university and shipped to Marine Corps boot camp. By that June I was a freshly minted Marine going through military police school at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. I was young, my hair was gone, my world had shrunk to formations and inspections and classes, and somewhere in the middle of all that, the President of the United States stood in front of the Berlin Wall and explained, to a kid in Texas wearing his country’s uniform for the first time, exactly what that uniform was for.

You have to understand what it is to hear that speech as a brand new Marine. I had already made my decision. I had already raised my right hand and sworn the oath, already given the Corps my hair and my sleep and my civilian assumptions. What I did not fully have yet was the why, at least not in words. Boot camp gives you discipline and pride and brotherhood, but it is not in the business of geopolitical philosophy. Then Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and handed me the why, and I have never given it back.

“We come to Berlin, we American Presidents,” he said, “because it’s our duty to speak in this place of freedom.” Duty. That word meant something different to me in June than it had in December. In December it was an idea. By June it was a rack, a rifle, a schedule, and a chain of command. And here was the Commander in Chief, my Commander in Chief now, using my new word, telling the world that America shows up at the wall because showing up is what we owe.

Then he described what stood at his back, and he did not soften it. “Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city,” he said, “part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe.” Barbed wire. Concrete. Dog runs. Guard towers. He said every man standing before the Brandenburg Gate was “a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.” A scar. Not a border. Not a policy disagreement between two systems. A wound, cut through living families by a government that believed it had the right to do the cutting.

And then the line I have carried for 39 years. “As long as this gate is closed,” he said, “as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.”

The question of freedom for all mankind. Sitting in San Antonio, 20 years old, government haircut, I understood for the first time that I was now part of the answer. Not a spectator to the question. Part of the answer. There are not many moments in a life when a man can feel the purpose of his work arrive all at once, complete, like a key turning. That was mine. I had joined the Marine Corps on instinct, on patriotism, on a young man’s hunger to be part of something larger than a lecture hall. Reagan gave the instinct its full name. Every Marine standing a post anywhere in the world was standing it, ultimately, against that wall and everything that wall meant. The speech did not recruit me. The speech told me what I had already been recruited for.


People remember the famous line, and they should, but I think they forget that most of that speech was an argument, and the argument was about prosperity. Reagan stood in a city that had been rubble in 1945 and reminded the world what freedom had grown back. The Marshall Plan. The Wirtschaftswunder, the German economic miracle. He praised the leaders who understood, in his words, “the practical importance of liberty,” and then he drew the line that I have spent my entire post-Marine career proving true. “Just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech,” he said, “so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom.” The Germans reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes, and from 1950 to 1960 the standard of living in West Berlin doubled. Doubled. On one side of one wall.

Then he turned to the other side of that wall. He quoted Khrushchev’s old boast, “We will bury you,” and let four decades of evidence answer it. “In the West today,” he said, “we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health.” And then the sentence that ought to be carved over the door of every economics department in America: “Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself.”

He gathered all of it into one verdict, and he did not hedge it the way powerful men usually hedge. “Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.”

Freedom is the victor. I believed him in a classroom at Lackland in 1987. I believe him at the foot of this gate tonight.

And then, of course, he turned the whole argument into a single demand and aimed it at one man. “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

His own senior staff had fought to cut that line. They called it extreme. Unpresidential. Too provocative for the moment. Reagan kept it. And the unpresidential line, the reckless line, the line the careful men wanted struck from the draft, is the only line history bothered to remember, because it was the only line that was entirely true. That was a lesson too, and the Marine Corps was teaching me the same one in a different dialect that very summer: the cautious people are not always wrong, but they are reliably absent at the exact moment courage is required.

Twenty-nine months later the wall came down. I was still in uniform when it happened. I will not pretend I tore it down. Millions of brave Germans and Poles and Czechs and Hungarians did that, and a pope, and a president. But I wore my country’s uniform during the years the free world held the line, and I am as proud of that as I am of nearly anything in my life. America did not stumble into winning the Cold War. She stood guard for it, paid for it, believed for it, across nine presidencies and two generations of young men and women who raised their right hands the way I did. The wall fell because free people refused, decade after decade, to accept that it was permanent. That is not luck. That is character, and it was my country’s character, and I got to be one small stitch in that flag.


When I left the Corps I went looking for the other half of Reagan’s argument. He had said freedom needs defending, and I had done some of that. He had also said freedom leads to prosperity, and I wanted to spend the rest of my life proving it. So I went into economic development, which is a bloodless name for work I find almost romantic. My job, then and now and here in Mississippi where I do it today, is to take Reagan’s sentence off the page and make it real in a particular place. One factory at a time. One plant, one capital investment, one paycheck that did not exist last year and exists now because a free company chose to risk free money in a free state. Speed, risk, money, in a country where all three are still allowed. Every ribbon cutting I have ever stood at is a small, local, unglamorous proof of what he said at this gate: prosperity comes when the farmer and the businessman are free, and it comes no other way, and it has never once in human history come from the men with the plans and the walls.


So you can understand why, walking through the gate tonight, I was not only nostalgic. I was watchful. The Marine Corps trains you to stand a post, and some posts you never really come off.

Reagan understood something we are now at risk of forgetting, and he said it near the end of the speech, in a passage that never makes the highlight reels. He was explaining why the East produced misery while the West produced abundance, and he did not blame bad luck or bad harvests. He said this: “The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship.”

Violence to the spirit. That is the diagnosis, and it is the right one. The wall was never really about concrete. The concrete was downstream of an idea, and the idea was that a person’s mind, speech, worship, and labor belong by right to the collective, to be arranged by the people who run it. Once you believe that, the wall is just engineering. You will always end up building one in some form, because you cannot let people freely leave a place they are not free to disagree with.

I am old enough now to say plainly what I see, and what I see is that the idea did not die in 1989. It is patient. It changes vocabulary. In its hard form it still runs prisons and starves provinces abroad, and we should not let the tidy textbook ending of the Cold War fool us about that. But in the comfortable West, in the very countries the wall was built to keep people from reaching, the same impulse has learned softer manners. It wears our clothes now. It speaks our language. It tells us it is being kind.

I mean the part of our own culture that has decided, again, that there are things you may not say. That writes speech codes and calls them safety. That asks Americans to affirm beliefs they do not hold as the price of a job, a degree, or a promotion, and calls the affirming inclusion. That has revived the oldest, most exhausted idea in human history, the idea that a person is mainly a specimen of a category, to be sorted and weighted by group rather than judged as himself, and has had the nerve to market it as progress. I have watched institutions I respect install loyalty oaths and rename them training. I have watched young Americans be taught that disagreement is a form of harm, which is precisely the lesson a wall exists to teach. And I have watched the economic cousin of all this, the eternal socialist conviction that the free choices of millions of ordinary people ought to be overruled by a plan, come back into fashion among people who have never missed a meal because of it.

I will not insult the people who actually lived behind this wall by pretending my country’s campus commissars are the Stasi. They are not. But Reagan was not warning us about the Stasi. He was warning us about the idea that produces Stasis, the one that does violence to the spirit, and that idea does not need guard towers to do damage. It only needs enough comfortable people to decide that freedom is dangerous and someone responsible ought to manage it on everyone’s behalf. Speech codes are that idea applied to the conscience. Socialism is that idea applied to the economy. Identity politics is that idea applied to the soul. They are cousins, and the family resemblance is a fundamental distrust of free people.

Reagan saw the cousins coming. The most underquoted moment of the entire speech is the very last thing he said, almost as an aside, about the demonstrators who had turned out against his visit. He wondered whether they had ever asked themselves that “if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they’re doing again.” Read that twice. He stood in front of the most photographed symbol of tyranny on earth, and the parting thought he chose was a defense of the right to protest him. He understood that a free society which cannot tolerate its own critics has already started mixing the concrete, whatever it decides to name the project.


Near the end, Reagan described words he had seen spray-painted on the wall itself, in his words “perhaps by a young Berliner.” The words were: “This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality.” And he answered that anonymous kid in front of the whole world. “Yes,” he said, “across Europe, this wall will fall, for it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.”

He was right, and faster than anyone dared hope. But read that spray paint again, because it cuts both ways. Beliefs become reality. Free people who believe in their freedom will pull down a wall with their bare hands, and the world watched them do it. And free people who are taught, patiently, year after year, that their freedom is a hazard to be managed will eventually agree to be walled in, and they will help pour the foundation, and they will thank the builders.

I walked through the gate tonight as a free man. A Marine, because there is no such thing as a former one. A grandfather six times over. An American who got to spend his youth standing guard over freedom and the rest of his life building what freedom makes possible. I walked through a gate that was sealed shut when I first heard its name in a classroom in San Antonio, wearing the uniform of the country that kept faith until it opened. None of that was inevitable. None of it is permanent. Freedom is not a monument you visit. It is a post you stand. In your country, in your institutions, in your own mouth when you decline to say the thing you do not believe.

The horses on top of the gate face a city that is whole now. They used to face a wall. I stood under them in the last of the light and thought about a 20-year-old military policeman in Texas, fresh from the drill field, hearing his Commander in Chief explain what his oath was for. Thirty-nine years later, the old MP reported to the gate in person. The post was secure. The gate was open. And the flag I served still stands for the thing Reagan said at this spot, the thing I have spent my whole life defending and building in equal measure.

Freedom is the victor. Semper Fidelis.

Babel or Pentecost? A Lay Catholic’s Reflection on Pope Leo XIV’s New Encyclical

Pope Leo XIV released his first major encyclical on May 25, the day after Pentecost. Titled Magnifica Humanitas, it takes up the dignity of the human person in this age of artificial intelligence. You can read the full text here on the Vatican website.

I read it prayerfully and want to share some thoughts as a Catholic layman. I have spent my career in economic development in Mississippi, and I use these tools every day for work.

Let me say plainly at the outset that I receive the Holy Father’s teaching with filial obedience. I admire the seriousness and pastoral depth of the document. I agree with much of it. The encyclical is right that technological power has shifted from governments to private companies whose resources rival those of many nation-states. It is right that the supply chains behind our devices include hidden labor and real human suffering. It is right that the displacement of workers must be met with practical justice, not platitudes. On all of this I follow the Holy Father with full assent.

Where I want to offer a complementary angle is on the dominant biblical image the encyclical uses. The Holy Father reaches for Babel. I believe Pentecost offers an equally fitting figure, at least at the level of the ordinary user, and I want to explain why.

The Babel Framing

Recall the story from Genesis. The men of Shinar said to one another, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves” (Gen 11:4). Their sin was not the building. It was the desire to make a name apart from God and the choice of one language and one technology as the instrument of that self-making. God scattered them and confused the tongues.

Pope Leo XIV uses this scene to describe what he calls the Babel syndrome of our age. He warns of a single language, a single technology and a single direction supported by a uniformity that chooses homogenization over communion. He worries that artificial intelligence and the digital revolution tempt us toward a future that excludes God and reduces the human person to data.

These warnings are serious and necessary. There is real concentration of power in the technology industry. There is homogenization at the level of infrastructure. There is a temptation to reduce persons to profiles, clicks and metrics.

What the User Actually Experiences

But here is where my daily experience as a user pulls gently against the framing. When I open one of these tools at a desk in rural Mississippi or anywhere else, what I encounter is not the Tower of Babel. It feels closer to its inverse.

Artificial intelligence answers on demand in the language of the questioner. It does not condescend on the basis of education or class. It does not refuse the inquiry of the poor man or flatter the rich. It will explain the Catechism to someone who has never owned one. It will translate the Psalms for an immigrant still learning the language of his new country. It will help a dyslexic student grasp the structure of St. Thomas Aquinas even if reading the original Latin is beyond reach.

Of course none of this is perfect. The quality depends on the underlying data and the intentions of those who built the system. Yet at the user level the dominant experience is one of translation and access. It moves between human languages. It moves between technical jargon and ordinary speech. It moves between dense old documents and prose nearly anyone can understand. The effect is plural, not uniform. Many tongues, not one tongue.

The biblical scene that matches this experience is not Genesis 11. It is Acts 2.

The Pentecost Case

On the day of Pentecost the apostles were gathered in one place. The Holy Spirit descended as wind and fire. They began to speak in other tongues, and the crowd was astonished “because each one heard them speaking in his own language” (Acts 2:6). The miracle was not a new universal language. It was that each person heard the Gospel in their native tongue.

Pentecost inverts Babel. Babel confused the tongues to scatter the proud. Pentecost multiplied the tongues to gather the humble. St. Gregory Nazianzen, preaching on Pentecost in the fourth century, made exactly this point. The dividing of tongues at Babel was a punishment because the unity sought was evil-minded. At Pentecost it was praiseworthy because the diversity served the building up of the Body of Christ.

I am not claiming artificial intelligence is the Holy Spirit. God forbid. The Spirit gives himself. The machine is built. The Spirit dwells in the soul. The machine processes tokens. The distance between them remains infinite. Yet when a created tool produces effects that resemble the gifts of Pentecost, crossing language barriers and widening access to knowledge, the Babel frame feels incomplete.

At the infrastructure layer real homogenization exists and deserves scrutiny. But the encyclical does not always clearly distinguish that level from the lived experience of the ordinary user.

The User as a Graced Subject

The deepest reason for this complementary reading is anthropological. Catholic teaching insists the human person is a subject, not a function. Vatican II taught that man fully discovers himself only in the sincere gift of himself. Even under pressure the soul remains free, accountable and addressed by God.

When the encyclical describes users as shaped by algorithms, exposed to manipulation and penalized by opaque systems, those warnings are accurate as far as they go. The harms are real. Yet if that becomes the dominant note it can unintentionally portray the user as essentially passive. Catholic anthropology says otherwise. The user is a baptized soul marked for the Lord and equipped by Confirmation for the discernment of spirits. He need not wait for platforms to be reformed before exercising that gift.

This shifts the response. If the user is primarily a victim the answer is only regulation and rescue. If the user is a disciple the answer also includes formation, gratitude and responsible use.

Where the Encyclical Is Exactly Right

Before going further I want to affirm the many places where I follow the Holy Father without reservation.

On work: The worker fearing obsolescence is not a Luddite. His vocation is part of his dignity. Pope Leo XIV chose his name and release date deliberately to echo Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. The Church remains the worker’s best friend.

On hidden labor: The suffering in cobalt mines, content moderation and data labeling is a decisive moral test.

On children: Unmediated exposure to these tools is a grave evil.

On war and autonomous weapons: Some decisions cannot be delegated to machines.

On power: The shift to transnational platforms demands new applications of subsidiarity, transparency and accountability.

What the Builders Actually Believe

From my work recruiting investment to Mississippi I have sat across the table from people building these systems. The encyclical rightly critiques transhumanist and posthumanist currents. Yet the dominant motivation I encounter is not Promethean dominance but a recognizable Enlightenment-style hope: democratizing access to information, leveling barriers between the credentialed and uncredentialed, and extending competence to those who could not otherwise afford it.

This is not Catholic but it is not evil on its own terms. The Catholic tradition has long held that knowledge and goods should not be the preserve of any class. St. Basil the Great taught that what a man holds in surplus belongs to the one who has nothing. Recognizing this self-understanding as a form of generosity, however imperfect, opens a richer evangelical conversation.

The Work of the User

If Pentecost is a fitting image then the user is not a victim awaiting rescue but a disciple awaiting his commission. His work includes these things.

First, to give thanks. Catholic life begins with gratitude. Thank God for tools our grandparents could scarcely imagine, then build the necessary levees.

Second, to use with discernment. Ask whether this leads me closer to God or away from him. Does it deepen relationships or thin them? Does it enlarge my capacity for charity, prayer, work and rest?

Third, to refuse. Reject uses that deceive, flatter the ego, avoid real thinking or substitute simulation for genuine relationship.

Fourth, to bless. Thank the developers who build well. Refuse blanket cynicism. Contribute to a better moral environment for the next generation of tools.

Fifth, to participate as a citizen. Engage parishes, unions, schools and civic groups. Subsidiarity demands a rich civic life alongside better regulation.

A Word on Style

I write this as a Catholic layman in mild disagreement with one accent of the Holy Father’s teaching but in full submission to his office and deep gratitude for his care. St. Catherine of Siena addressed Pope Gregory XI as babbo mio dolce (my sweet daddy) while urging reform. Obedience and plain speech can coexist.

Pope Francis reminded us that reality is greater than ideas. The reality of AI for ordinary users is mixed: hopeful and fearful, joyful and diminishing. The Church needs both images. Babel warns the powerful. Pentecost encourages the ordinary faithful.

Conclusion

Pope Leo XIV closes Magnifica Humanitas with the Magnificat. That is the right note. The Magnificat is itself a Pentecostal text. The same Spirit who overshadowed Mary at the Annunciation and the apostles at Pentecost is at work today.

The ordinary user, like the Virgin, can be overshadowed by that Spirit. He is invited to say his fiat: “Let it be done to me according to your word.” When that fiat is given to God rather than the machine even imperfect tools can become instruments of grace.

Receive Magnifica Humanitas with gratitude and obedience. Heed its warnings on power, labor, children and truth. But also receive the gifts of this age with proper thanks. Pray that these tools become instruments of translation rather than confusion, access rather than exclusion, and communion rather than mere connection.

Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love. Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth, even this earth of data centers, algorithms and users who are also souls.


Footnotes

1 Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas (May 15, 2026), no. 7.

2 On the limits of artificial intelligence, see Magnifica Humanitas, no. 98.

3 Magnifica Humanitas, no. 100.

4 Magnifica Humanitas, nos. 115-117.

5 Other sources: Genesis 11:1-9; Acts 2:1-11; St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 41 on Pentecost; St. Basil the Great, Homily on Luke 12:18; Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 24; Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891); Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 1287, 1830-1831; Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, no. 236.

Devaluing the “Feminized”: Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s Misdiagnosis and Mississippi’s Better Approach

Jennifer Siebel Newsom thinks California’s K-shaped economy is the result of undervalued empathy.

Watch a clip here

She is wrong, and Mississippi’s economic trajectory proves it.

In the clip that circulated widely on social media, Siebel Newsom offered her diagnosis of why California suffers from a K-shaped recovery, a pattern in which top earners and high-skill sectors surge while the middle and lower rungs stagnate or fall further behind. She did not point to restrictive zoning, regulatory overload, a narrow reliance on tech and entertainment, or a homelessness crisis driven by housing costs. Instead, she went cultural. In her own words:

Everything that we’ve feminized in American culture, whether entire industries like education, health care, etc., or just attributes like empathy, care, and collaboration, because of the devaluation of all that we’ve feminized, we actually have this incredible inequitable system whereby socioeconomic mobility has never been as poor.

With California, for example, being the richest and poorest state in our country, we know that we have a lot of work to do to ensure that every California resident achieves not just the American dream, but the California dream.

This is a striking claim. It places cultural devaluation of feminine traits at the root of California’s inequality problem. For those of us who have worked in Mississippi economic development under Governor Tate Reeves’ conservative leadership, this argument demands a direct, data-driven response. Mississippi has taken a different path: lower taxes, lighter regulation, a relentless focus on workforce and opportunity, and respect for market signals over cultural engineering. The results are real. What follows examines Siebel Newsom’s claims against the labor market evidence, and uses the California-Mississippi contrast to draw a lesson about what actually drives broad-based prosperity.

The Labor Market Reality: Near Parity, Not Devaluation

Siebel Newsom implies that a feminized economy suffers because of cultural bias against care and collaboration. The data tell a different story about what is actually happening in the American labor market.

Women represent approximately 47 percent of the total U.S. labor force. According to the BLS Current Population Survey, men’s labor force participation rate stood at 67.2 percent and women’s at 57.2 percent as of February 2026. The gap exists, but it reflects a mix of preferences, life-cycle choices, and family priorities rather than systematic exclusion. Prime-age women ages 25 to 54 have actually reached a labor force participation rate of 78.3 percent, fully recovering from pandemic lows and exceeding their pre-2020 peak.

In Mississippi, the overall labor force participation rate runs around 55.6 percent, broadly consistent with national patterns adjusted for the state’s demographic profile. Our lower cost of living and affordable housing, two features the market produces when government gets out of the way, amplify the real value of wages earned here in ways that nominal comparisons with California simply do not capture.

These numbers do not suggest a workforce organized around devaluation of women’s contributions. They reflect near parity alongside voluntary sorting that economists have studied for decades.

Occupational Segregation: Supply, Demand, and Choice

The sectors Siebel Newsom highlights, education and healthcare, are heavily female-dominated, and that is no secret. According to BLS Current Population Survey data, women hold approximately 27.6 million jobs in education and health services, representing roughly 70 percent of that workforce. That share has been stable for years, persisting even as women have expanded dramatically into law, medicine, finance, and executive leadership.

The academic literature on occupational segregation points consistently toward differences in interests and comparative advantage rather than top-down cultural suppression. Research by economists including Claudia Goldin, Lawrence Katz, and David Autor has documented that even as educational attainment equalizes between men and women, occupational sorting by interest and risk tolerance persists across countries and cultures. Women on average gravitate toward people-oriented roles emphasizing communication and care; men toward thing-oriented or system-focused roles involving physical risk, competition, or mechanical complexity. These tendencies appear early in development, hold across societies with different gender norms, and are well-established in the psychometric and labor economics literature.

Basic economics explains the wage patterns that result. When workers enter occupations in large numbers, wages in those fields tend to stabilize relative to sectors with tighter labor supply. Male-dominated sectors in construction, energy, and heavy manufacturing routinely involve hazard exposure, irregular hours, physical demands, and geographic mobility. Economists call the additional compensation for those conditions compensating differentials. Mississippi’s manufacturing and energy industries pay family-supporting wages precisely because they compensate for these realities.

The aggregate gender earnings gap sits at 82.1 cents per male dollar for full-time workers in 2025 annual data from BLS, narrowed from 80.7 cents in the third quarter of the same year as methodology shifts. When researchers control for occupation, hours worked, experience continuity, and industry, the adjusted gap shrinks substantially. That is not a defense of every disparity in every workplace. It is an honest accounting of what drives aggregate differences in measured earnings.

In Mississippi, our lower nominal wages are substantially offset by the nation’s second-lowest housing costs and a cost of living well below the national average. A Mississippian earning 85 cents on the California dollar while paying a fraction of California housing costs is ahead in real purchasing power terms. That is the kind of economic math that rarely makes it into elite cultural commentary.

California’s Failure Is Policy, Not Patriarchy

Siebel Newsom is correct that California combines enormous wealth with deep poverty. She is wrong about why.

According to Census Bureau data using the Supplemental Poverty Measure for the three-year period 2022 through 2024, California tied Louisiana for the highest SPM poverty rate in the nation at 17.7 percent of residents. The SPM adjusts for geographic variation in housing costs and taxes, which is exactly why California’s ranking jumps from 18th under the official poverty measure all the way to first under the supplemental measure. The state’s own housing costs are the leading driver of that gap. This is not a story about undervalued empathy. It is a story about zoning restrictions, environmental litigation, and supply-side policy failures that have pushed the median California home price above $800,000 and driven teachers, nurses, and service workers out of the communities they serve.

On homelessness, the HUD 2024 Point-in-Time Count tells the story plainly. California recorded 187,084 people experiencing homelessness, roughly 24 percent of the national total. According to analysis of the HUD data published by USAFacts, California’s rate works out to approximately 47 people per 10,000 residents. Mississippi, by contrast, recorded the lowest homelessness rate in the nation at 3.5 per 10,000. The American Enterprise Institute’s Housing Center, analyzing the same data, confirmed that Mississippi, Louisiana, and Virginia had the nation’s lowest displacement rates, and identified median home price to median income ratio as by far the most explanatory variable in predicting homelessness across states, with an R-squared of 78 percent. Housing affordability, not cultural attitudes toward empathy, explains who ends up on the street.

California’s policy mix did this. Tight zoning, protracted environmental review, and a regulatory apparatus that adds years and millions to every construction project have turned the state’s richest cities into unaffordable enclaves. The workforce that staffs California’s schools and hospitals cannot afford to live there. Siebel Newsom’s diagnosis lets the actual policy failures entirely off the hook.

Mississippi’s Better Path

Under Governor Reeves’ conservative framework, Mississippi has moved in the opposite direction. The results are documented in BLS data, not press releases.

On wage growth, BLS QCEW data covering July 2024 through July 2025 show Mississippi’s average weekly wages grew 5.0 percent nominally over the period, second in the nation behind Idaho at 6.7 percent. With inflation running at 2.7 percent over the same stretch, Mississippi workers gained real purchasing power at a rate most of the country did not match. USAFacts, drawing on BLS data, confirmed the ranking: Idaho and Mississippi led the nation in real wage growth during that period.

On homeownership, Mississippi maintains one of the strongest rates in the country. Census Bureau CPS/HVS data put the national homeownership rate at 65.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025. Independent analyses drawing on ACS data put Mississippi’s rate in the 74 to 75 percent range, well above that national average and reflecting an affordable housing environment that the market, not a government mandate, produced. West Virginia, Mississippi, and a cluster of affordable interior states dominate the top of the homeownership rankings for the same reason: when government does not strangle housing supply, people can afford to own.

On homelessness, Mississippi’s performance at 3.5 per 10,000 under the 2024 HUD count is the best in the country. This did not happen by accident. It reflects affordable rents, low housing cost burden, and a social fabric that includes high homeownership as a stabilizing factor.

These outcomes did not arise from cultural reengineering. They arose from tax cuts, streamlined permitting, workforce investment, and policies that let markets allocate housing and labor without bureaucratic override.

The Masculinity Critique: A Distraction from Real Policy

Siebel Newsom’s broader intellectual project, which runs through her film work and public advocacy, argues that overvaluing competition and stoicism comes at a social cost. The economic implication is that traits coded as masculine crowd out care and relational work, making inequality worse.

This framing mixes a normative cultural argument with an empirical claim and invites confusion. The infrastructure, energy grids, supply chains, and manufacturing capacity that underpin every care sector, including the hospitals, schools, and community services Siebel Newsom rightly values, were built and are maintained by industries that depend heavily on the physical risk tolerance, spatial reasoning, and system-orientation that show up disproportionately in male-leaning occupations. Mississippi’s manufacturing sector, which ranks 13th nationally in manufacturing employment per capita as of December 2025 BLS data, depends on exactly those contributions. Masculine and feminine strengths are not in competition. They are in cooperation. The Mississippi economy needs both, and builds around both.

Men also face distinct labor market challenges that rarely surface in the devaluation framework: higher rates of workplace fatality, substantially higher suicide rates, and a growing educational lag that has women earning 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees nationally. A policy agenda serious about workforce outcomes addresses all of these, not just the ones that fit a cultural narrative.

The Mississippi Lesson

Siebel Newsom’s observation that California has a K-shaped economy is accurate. Her explanation is not. Nearly equal male and female workforce participation in a free labor market produces occupational sorting because individuals have different interests, risk tolerances, and life priorities. Markets pay wages that reflect scarcity, measurability, and productivity, not moral rankings of traits. California’s poverty crisis and homelessness crisis reflect what happens when housing policy fails catastrophically, not what happens when a culture undervalues empathy.

Mississippi’s record over the last several years shows the alternative works. Second in the nation in real wage growth. Lowest homelessness rate in the country. Homeownership rates running nearly ten percentage points above the national average. K-12 academic achievement called the “Mississippi Miracle” by the New York Times. These are underdog wins by any measure, achieved without DEI mandates, productivity-blind equity requirements, or cultural correction campaigns.

The policy lesson is straightforward: protect housing affordability, streamline regulation, choice in education, build workforce pipelines around real skills and real jobs, and honor the market’s capacity to signal value without telling it what to value. Mississippi has done that, and the numbers reflect it.

If Siebel Newsom wants to talk about what gets systematically undervalued in American public life, she might start with understanding the working-class residents of a small Southern state who are busy building real prosperity while California is busy trying to figure out why it couldn’t.

Data sources: BLS Current Population Survey, Table A-8b (February 2026); BLS Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers, Annual 2025 (January 2026); BLS QCEW, state-level average weekly wages (Q1 2025 release); HUD 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report, Point-in-Time Count; U.S. Census Bureau Supplemental Poverty Measure, three-year averages 2022-2024 (September 2025); U.S. Census Bureau CPS/HVS, Q4 2025 (February 2026); USAFacts analysis of BLS wage growth data (December 2025); AEI Housing Center analysis of HUD PIT data (2025).