By JOHN LEICESTER, Associated Press

PARIS (AP) — Even months later, the pain of losing a pet can still hit without warning.

The trigger might be noticing — again, for the umpteenth time — how empty the house feels since your cat died, without the pitter-patter of padded paws. Or stumbling across the leash of the dog you lost and remembering how it used to set off tail-wagging glee.

Grieving owners can feel doubly lonesome if the humans in their lives don’t quite know how to help, perhaps because they’ve not had pets themselves or feel awkward around grief.

A sculpture of a cat is seen at the dog cemetery in AsniËres-sur-Seine, outside Paris, Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2025. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

How can owners and their friends cope better with pet bereavement? Experts in pet loss offer these ideas:

Recognize that feeling awful is normal

For some grieving owners, pet loss can feel worse than a human death. That doesn’t make them monsters. Instead, it reflects the potential depths of human-animal bonds.

A sculpture of a dog is seen at the dog cemetery in Asnières-sur-Seine, outside Paris, Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2025. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

For some people, a pet is their most important relationship, “the being that they see every single day, that maybe sleeps on their bed, that they cuddle with on the couch,” says E.B. Bartels, author of “ Good Grief: On Loving Pets, Here and Hereafter.”

“There are people who feel more comfortable with animals than with people,” she adds. “So losing those relationships can be really, really difficult.”

Offer a sympathetic ear

People who haven’t experienced pet love may struggle to understand what it’s like to lose it. They may think they are being helpful by saying, “It was just an animal,” or “They were lucky to have such a loving owner.” But pat phrases, no matter how well-meaning, can make grieving owners clam up and feel alone.

Tourists visit the dog cemetery while a worker prepares a tomb in Asnières-sur-Seine, outside Paris, Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2025. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

“You feel like you can’t talk about it because people aren’t really empathizing,” says Annalisa de Carteret, who manages a telephone helpline and other pet-loss support services for Blue Cross, a U.K. animal welfare charity.

“Just allow that person to talk about how they’re feeling, and you don’t need to comment,” she says.

Avoid clichés like, “‘Oh, you can get another pet’ or ‘He had a good life, he was a good age,’” she says. For the owner, “that doesn’t make you feel any better, because you knew all of those things. You just feel sad and just want someone to listen and to understand.”

Bonds can run deep with any kind of animal

Another tip: Don’t assume that an owner’s grief is commensurate with the size or type of animal they lost, or the length of time they had them. The death of a pet lizard, for example, can be as painful for some people as losing the cutest of fur balls for others.

“My friend’s dad has a koi pond and he loves these koi. And he was so upset when a raccoon got in and killed all his koi one summer,” Bartels says. “Some people would be like, ‘Oh, they’re just fish.’ But he loved these fish, you know?”

Graves at the pet cemetery of Asnieres-sur-Seine, west of Paris, Friday, Feb. 21, 2025. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

She suggests that friends can offer practical help: A grieving owner who no longer has a four-legged reason to leave the house might appreciate the offer of a walk with a two-legged companion.

“People can really feel they lose their community,” Bartels says. “In the morning you get up, you bring your dog to the dog park and you get to know the group of people who are there every morning really well. And that’s your social community. And so then if you lose your reason for going … you’ve lost a lot more than just a dog.”

Guilt often compounds pet loss

Up to 30,000 people contact Blue Cross each year for pet-loss support. Many aren’t simply sad but also are fearful that they may somehow have been responsible for their animal’s death or disappearance, de Carteret says.

“Guilt is a really big part of pet loss,” she says.

View of a grave at the pet cemetery of Asnieres-sur-Seine, west of Paris, Friday, Feb. 21, 2025. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

“They maybe think, ‘Oh, if I’d done something differently, maybe they’d have stayed alive a little bit longer,’ or if they were stolen: ‘If I didn’t put them in the garden.’ Or, ‘What could I have done differently to change the inevitable?’”

For bereaved owners who feel more upset about the loss of a pet than about a family member, that can trigger more guilt, de Carteret adds.

“It’s really normal,” she says. But “it feels wrong to say, doesn’t it? And people don’t want to share that.”

Can a new pet help?

Possibly. But it’s not a magic bullet. Each animal has its own personality and a new one won’t necessarily fill the void left by another. And if your previous pet was full-grown, you may no longer have the patience for kittens’ litters or puppy-training again.

Related Articles

An ice rink to fight opioid crisis: Drug-free fun vs. misuse of settlement cash

Texas measles cases rise to 146 in an outbreak that led to a child’s death

Measles is one of the world’s most contagious viruses. Here’s what to know and how to avoid it

Harsh flu season has health officials worried about brain complications in children

CDC report adds to evidence that HPV vaccine is preventing cervical cancer in US women

Bottom line: Grieving can’t be truncated. The sadness and memories can be lasting.

Bartels lost her dog, Seymour, last June.

“I’m sure I’ll have a hard time again in June when it’s the year anniversary of when we put him down,” she says.

De Carteret keeps her dog’s ashes by her fireplace, which was his favorite place to sit.

“Some people will think that’s weird,” she says. “But, you know, that’s how I deal with it … You have to find the right way for you.”

By Michelle Clardie, Bankrate.com

Despite attempts at financial equality, gender continues to impact nearly every aspect of personal finance, including earning, spending, investing and consumer debt.

Men on average earn more than women, allowing them to spend, save, borrow and invest more. Women tend to be more cautious with money, which makes sense since they have less of it. Data is not as robust for transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals, but emerging research shows a pattern of even greater financial strain for this marginalized group as they work to overcome prejudices and early setbacks caused by a lack of financial support that cisgender peers typically receive from family.

Whatever your gender, being aware of the role gender plays in personal finance can help you better understand your financial hurdles and those others are facing.

General differences in the finances by gender

Statistics only tell a small part of the story regarding finances by gender. Chromosomes, sex and gender expression do not affect someone’s ability to manage money, build good credit, use debt responsibly or invest for the future. However, external factors and societal pressure assigned to gender roles do have a financial impact.

Related Articles

St. Paul and Minneapolis chambers of commerce consider merger — again

How to set and invest your emergency fund

Smartphones in schools: Do they help students learn?

Teens are spilling dark thoughts to AI chatbots. Who’s to blame when something goes wrong?

Microsoft shutting down Skype in May

On average, women are still responsible for the lion’s share of family caregiving and household labor, negatively impacting their lifetime earning potential. Women also tend to suffer more severe financial consequences of divorce. By contrast, men feel socially pressured to exude wealth and status regardless of their success and frequently go into debt to keep up appearances.

Transgender individuals typically take on more debt when starting out than their cisgender peers, likely due to a lack of financial support and living accommodations provided by family. This puts transgender or nonbinary individuals in a more financially precarious position than cisgender men or women.

Earning differences by gender

After decades of progress in narrowing the gender wage gap, 2023 saw the gap widen significantly for the first time in 20 years according to the annual Income in the United States report from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Women who work full-time were paid about 82.7% of a man’s salary in 2023, down from 84% in 2022. Full-time male workers made a median salary of $66,790, while full-time female workers made $55,240. This results in a difference of $11,550 per year — a gap that only widens further for women of color, women with disabilities and women working part-time.

The median income for all American men in 2023 was $56,280, while the median for all American women was just $42,110.

Earning information specific to TGD individuals is not available.

Spending differences by gender

Spending tends to be closely correlated with income, with higher earners spending more.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’s latest Consumer Expenditure surveys found that the average single woman spends $42,174 annually, while the average single male spends $43,299.

The breakdown of spending by category is shown below.

Type of spending
Single woman
Single man

Food
$4,899
$5,302

Housing
$17,093
$16,309

Apparel and services
$1,123
$833

Transportation
$5,170
$7,066

Healthcare
$4,131
$3,038

Entertainment
$1,899
$1,914

Single men spend more than single women on food, transportation and entertainment. Single women spend more on housing, apparel/services and healthcare.

It is worth noting that the average age of single women from the survey is 60, while the average age of single men is 52. Age is an important factor in earning power and spending habits. Cost of living, dependents, disabilities, and other considerations also influence income and expenditures.

There is no data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics breaking down income and expenses for transgender or nonbinary individuals.

Borrowing differences by gender

Experian compared debt balances among men and women and found that men carry more debt in all categories except student loans.

On average:

Men have 16.3% more auto loan debt than women.
Men have 2% more credit card debt than women.
Men have 9.7% more mortgage debt than women.
Men have 20% more personal loan debt than women.
Women have 2.7% more student loan debt than men.

Type of debt
Women
Men

Credit card balance
$6,232
$6,357

Student loan balance
$36,131
$35,188

Auto loan balance
$17,747
$20,645

Personal loan balance
$14,780
$17,716

Home equity line of credit (HELOC) balance
$42,746
$47,017

Mortgage balance
$192,368
$211,034

Consumer debt information specific to TGD individuals is not available.

Credit score differences by gender

The Equal Opportunity Credit Act largely prohibits using demographic information, including gender, in credit reporting, so it is difficult to evaluate credit scores by gender.

However, the Federal Reserve analyzed the credit scores of thousands of men and women in 2018. Its findings indicate that gender has little impact on credit scores, although the average man’s score is slightly higher than the average woman’s, controlling for age. For example, the mean VantageScore 2.0 for men aged 31–40 was 793 while the mean for women of the same age was 785. While this data is older, it’s unlikely that this disparity has changed significantly.

There is no reliable data differentiating the credit scores of nonbinary individuals.

Investing differences by gender

Women are less likely to invest than men. A study commissioned by BNY Mellon Investment Management found that if women invested at the same rate as men, there would be more than $3 trillion in additional assets under management today.

BNY cites the gender pay gap, perceived risk of investing and lack of engagement as key factors for this disparity.

Anne-Marie McConnon, Global Chief Client Experience Officer at BNY Mellon Investment Management, said: “As women, we all have different hurdles to overcome to meet our individual financial goals. Some of these are influenced by demographics and personal circumstances but some are a result of how the investment industry has traditionally engaged with women.” In fact, 86% of asset managers acknowledge that their default target customer is male.

There is no information specific to the investment habits of TGD individuals.

Financial stress differences by gender

Women are more likely to report feeling stressed by finances than men. In a recent Bankrate study, 46% of women say money issues have negatively affected their mental health, prompting feelings of anxiety, depression and stress. Only 38% of men report feeling the same financial stress.

Recent research from the International Journal of Consumer Studies found that transgender college students experience greater financial strain than their cisgender peers. According to the study, “TGD students had significantly lower financial optimism, financial self-efficacy and financial socialization than their cisgender peers.”

Discrimination in lending by gender

Legislation has been implemented to prevent lending discrimination by gender.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 prevents discrimination in mortgage lending, specifically based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, disability and family status. It wasn’t until 2020 that federal protections were put in place to prevent housing discrimination based on gender identity.

Additionally, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 prohibits discrimination in all types of lending based on race, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or participation in public assistance programs.

Before 1974, lenders were allowed to require women to have a male co-signer before approving a loan. This made it nearly impossible for women to build credit, buy homes or take out loans to start a business without a man agreeing to help them. While the act did make this discrimination illegal, prejudices from this era still carry forward.

The bottom line

Gender has no scientific bearing on your ability to manage money, but societal expectations and gender norms still affect your income potential and can pressure you to spend or borrow in a certain way. We’ve come a long way from when women couldn’t get their own credit cards and when nonbinary people could be charged more for housing, but we still have a long way to go.

Frequently asked questions

Do lenders consider gender when making decisions? No, a lender cannot consider your gender or gender identity when making decisions. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in mortgage lending, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination in other forms of lending.
What should I do if I’m being discriminated against financially because of my gender? If you feel you’re being discriminated against financially because of your gender or gender identity, try to gather as much evidence as possible. Take notes and record conversations if you’re in a state that allows one-party consent for recordings. Try to keep communications to a written medium for better tracking. Once you’ve gathered your evidence, submit a complaint through the proper channels, depending on your situation:

For housing discrimination, including mortgage lending and rental price discrimination: File a complaint through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
For credit discrimination including loans, mortgages and credit cards: File a complaint through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
For any type of discrimination: File a report with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Your state, county or city may also have a civil rights division where you can file complaints.
Note: Some of these may be subject to change with the Trump Administration’s changes. You may need additional research to find the best place to get help.

Key takeaways

On average, men carry more debt than women across all categories, except student loans.
The gender pay gap affects women’s ability to earn, save, invest and build wealth.
Even though women spend less and carry lower debt balances, they still feel more financial stress than men.

©2025 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Starting Wednesday, 16 boys teams from every corner of Minnesota will gather at Xcel Energy Center for the Minnesota State Hockey Tournament, one of the most renowned amateur sporting events in the country.

As has been the case every year since 1992, Bloomington Kennedy will not be among the 16. The Eagles — once an every-year contender for a state tournament berth — will never have that opportunity again.

Junior goalie Dominick Russell leads Bloomington Kennedy out for warmups prior to the final hockey game in the program’s history on Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2025 at Aldrich Arena in Maplewood. (Jess Myers / Pioneer Press)

In 1987, Bloomington Kennedy won it all, but from that point on, it was a long, slow descent for the Eagles, who played their program’s final game on Feb. 19 at Aldrich Arena in Maplewood — a 13-1 loss to top-seeded Chisago Lakes in a first round Section 4A playoff game.

“It’s my last game in a Kennedy uniform ever. It’s pretty emotional,” Eagles goaltender Dominick Russell said after the final horn sounded. “We got stomped, but I had fun out there with the boys one last time.”

Bloomington Kennedy fielded a boys hockey team for 60 years. Included in those six decades were seven trips to the state tournament back in the one-class days, a state runner-up finish in 1984, and their lone state title three years later.

For much of the 1980s, Bloomington was a true hotbed of prep hockey in Minnesota, with one of the suburb’s two public schools — Kennedy on the east side and Jefferson on the west — playing in every state tournament of the decade. When they would face each other in the regular season twice a year, fans would be lined up in the cold outside Bloomington Ice Garden hours before the puck dropped with the hope of getting a few square inches of bleacher seating.

That 1987 Kennedy team avenged a regular-season loss to Greenway of Coleraine in the state semifinals, then ended Burnsville’s quest for a three-peat with a 4-1 win in the title game. Of the 20 players on the Eagles roster, seven of them went on to play Division I college hockey, with two more skating at the D-III level. Eagles captain Joe Decker played a notable role in Wisconsin’s 1990 NCAA title just a few years removed from high school.

With a massive new shopping mall under construction just a few miles from Kennedy High School, and the Minnesota North Stars playing NHL games in the neighborhood, East Bloomington seemed like the center of Minnesota at the time.

But changing demographics, and more families for whom hockey was either unfamiliar or unaffordable, or both, moving into the district meant a gradual decline in numbers for Kennedy youth hockey, which fed the high school program.

“Not as many kids playing hockey,” said Brandon Tveitbakk, who coached the Eagles in their final season. “There’s a lot of families that are moving in that are first-time English speakers. Hockey is likely not a sport where they move here from. Hockey’s new to a lot of these families, and it can be intimidating to try if you’ve never done it before.”

The Eagles made their last state tournament appearance in 1991, then saw a migration of young families move to further-flung suburbs, and schools such as Apple Valley, Blaine, Elk River, Eden Prairie claimed state titles over the next few decades. It’s worth noting, in fact, that four of the newer powerhouses in prep hockey — Rogers, Andover, Chanhassen and Maple Grove — are from outer-ring suburbs and didn’t have programs the last time Kennedy played a state tournament game.

“Hockey just seems to be moving out and out and out,” Tveitbakk said

The Eagles are far from the only team in the Twin Cities or other inner-ring suburbs to see things change. Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools play hockey in consolidated programs, as do Burnsville and Apple Valley. Richfield co-ops with a private school. Rochester John Marshall is part of a co-op, as well.

With open enrollment allowing players free movement, and with successful private schools such as Holy Angels in their neighborhood, the Kennedy player pool got progressively smaller over the past decade. Kennedy’s youth program was absorbed by Jefferson a few years ago, and starting next season, that will happen with the high school program, as well.

“Any (Kennedy) underclassmen this year will be eligible to play for Jefferson next season,” Tvietbakk said. “I’ve got a great relationship with the Jefferson staff, too, so I’ll be able to put in a word for our boys next year and hopefully have a little bit of a voice.”

Russell already has, ending his junior season with a 53-save effort in the loss to Chisago Lakes. Kennedy’s final campaign finished with a 1-24 record, and opponents put up double-digits in goals 10 times. But the goalie left the rink looking forward, not back.

On the ice after the game, he tipped his cap to senior Mason Biermaier, who scored early in the third period for the final goal in Kennedy hockey history.

“Going out and seeing one more goal in the third was fun, even down 12-0 or 10-0, whatever it was,” Russell said. His personal goal is one more year of high school hockey, even if it means wearing the powder blue of Kennedy’s crosstown rivals.

“I’d love to play for them next year, and if they’re open to having me, I’d love to be on the roster,” he said.

Smiles were harder to come by for other players, who — despite all of the lopsided losses — weren’t ready to see their season, or their program, come to an end.

Senior forward Tony Perkins huddled with five teammates at center ice for a group hug long after the handshakes were over and nearly everyone had left the rink. There were tears on the ice and outside the locker room as the Kennedy Eagles slung navy blue gear bags over their shoulders and prepared to catch a home-bound bus one final time.

“It’s a great honor. The guys in the penalty box were reminiscing about what a powerhouse Kennedy was, and it kind of puts into perspective how moving this whole season was, not only for us but for the whole program,” Perkins said. “I’m not ready to let go of this. I don’t know how I’m going to walk out of this rink tonight.”

An exhausted quartet of Bloomington Kennedy players — Isaac Syrjamaki (2), Anourak Carlson (5), Braden Thornburg (16) and goalie Dominick Russell — head off the ice for the last time following the final game in the Kennedy program’s history on Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2025 at Aldrich Arena in Maplewood. Kennedy fell to Chisago Lakes 13-1 in a Class A, Section 4 quarterfinal hockey playoff. (Jess Myers / Pioneer Press)

Related Articles

High school boys hockey: Stillwater downs Hill-Murray in double overtime to reach state

High School Hockey: Dosan does it for St. Thomas in double overtime to beat Cretin-Derham Hall for section title

Boys hockey: Mahtomedi advances to state for fourth straight year by beating Chisago Lakes

Boys hockey: Johnson folding storied program into co-op with Highland Park

Lakeville police officer, high school hockey coach critically injured in fall during practice

American political culture goes through phases. Between 1933 and 1963 that culture went through a Hamiltonian phase. Leaders believed in centralizing power to build big things. Franklin Roosevelt created the Tennessee Valley Authority and the rest of the New Deal. Dwight Eisenhower built the national highways system and founded NASA.

A lot of the stuff the centralizers did was great, like New York infrastructure czar Robert Moses’ building Lincoln Center. Some of the stuff they did was horrific, like Moses’ destroying Bronx neighborhoods to put in a highway.

Somewhere around the late ’60s the culture shifted in a decentralizing, Jeffersonian direction. A new generation of conservatives and progressives emerged who were suspicious of centralized authority and instinctively against the establishment, and who railed against “the system.” People with less power were automatically the good guys, and people with more power were automatically the bad guys.

On the right, Republicans from Ronald Reagan to the Tea Party crusaded against elites and the swamp in Washington. On the left, progressive activists like Ralph Nader and the environmentalists sued the government to halt development projects. Progressive community activists empowered neighborhoods to take on and stymie city hall. Federal workers passed masses of regulations to micromanage everyday life on a worksite. Republicans and Democrats joined forces to pass the National Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act and the Endangered Species Act, all of which could be used by activists to slow down and halt housing and transportation projects.

The decentralizing Jeffersonians overshot the mark. A group of activists who came of age during the New Deal era concentrated power to get things done. Then, a new generation of activists who came of age during the 1960s rebelled against concentrated power and made it nearly impossible to get anything done. This became the pattern.

In 2008 California set out to build high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco, promising that it would be finished in 2020. The project was blocked by a thousand little barriers, and now a scaled-down line between Merced and Bakersfield may open in 2033 at a cost, so far, of $35 billion.

In the United States it costs roughly $609 million to build a kilometer of rail. In Canada it costs only $295 million and in Portugal, $96 million. Because of regulations and the lack of cost-effective production, a basic elevator in New York City costs about four times as much as that same elevator in Switzerland.

Progressives proved especially effective at blocking new home construction. A study in California found that as the share of liberal votes rises by 10 points in a given city, the number of housing permits issued declines by 30%. In San Francisco, according to one 2023 state report, it took 523 days on average to get clearance to construct new housing and then 605 days to get building permits, if your project wasn’t killed in the meantime by lawsuits and citizen action.

One result has been scarcity and higher prices for the things that get regulated, like housing. Another is that highly educated people found they could game the permitting system and prevent poorer and less educated people from sullying their neighborhoods. Another is that when government tries to do big things, like build clean energy or rail lines, it finds it can’t act. The irony is this: Progressives, who believe in using government to do good things, have built a system that renders government incompetent.

But now the culture may be shifting again. Over the past several years, various versions of something called the abundance movement have been growing at libertarian-leaning think tanks like the Niskanen Center, at right-leaning tech hubs like Andreessen Horowitz and at a wide array of left-leaning think tanks. The core argument is the need to get rid of regulations that make it impossible to build things, and we need to invest money in order to achieve great things.

This winter the abundance movement is having its coming-out party in the form of three spectacular books by some of its more prominent champions.

Next month, Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein’s book “Abundance” will be published, offering a comprehensive indictment of the current problems and a clear path forward.

This month brought us Yoni Appelbaum’s “Stuck,” a historical account of the forces that have produced the current housing crisis and its social and cultural effects.

Marc J. Dunkelman’s new book, “Why Nothing Works,” is an intellectual history that describes the ideas and values that first drove people like Moses to act the way they did and the values that drove the next generation of activists to oppose them.

These three books have significantly altered the way I see our current political morass. (Klein, Thompson and Appelbaum are colleagues of mine at The New York Times and The Atlantic.)

Dunkelman summarizes the history perfectly: “In ways big and small, Jeffersonian protections have prevented the movement from expanding the nation’s housing supply, delivering high-speed rail and replacing carbon-emitting power with clean energy. We’ve become so terrified of Hamiltonian figures making bad decisions that we’ve curtailed government’s ability to make tough calls.”

Appelbaum describes the way all this stasis has enervated American life. He points out that our housing crisis is not just a cost crisis; it’s a mobility crisis. In the 1940s and 1950s, about a fifth of Americans moved. Then came the zoning and other regulations that progressives championed. Today, only 1 in 12 Americans moves every year.

People can’t afford housing in the places where opportunity is plentiful. That means fewer Americans are moving to improve their lives and fewer are climbing the social ladder. When people move to new places, they join churches and civic organizations to meet new people. When mobility slows, social and civic life, paradoxically, deteriorates. More Americans are, as Appelbaum puts it, stuck.

In their book, Klein and Thompson usher in a mood shift. They inspire hope and enlarge the imagination by describing the good things that are actually within our grasp: abundant energy, cheaper housing, affordable cities, shorter workweeks, lab-grown meat so that we no longer have to use 25% of global land to raise livestock.

“What is needed here is a change in political culture, not just a change in legislation,” they write.

Will the abundance movement take flight? There are some obstacles. A lot of people, especially rich Democrats, like having the power to block development around them. Public sector unions tend to instinctively defend bureaucracies and the regulations promulgated within them. The abundance folks call for both deregulation and more spending. Many progressives hate the former and many conservatives hate the latter.

The more troubling obstacles may be cultural. If anything, Americans have grown more cynical and more distrustful of authority than they were even in the 1970s. In an essay in The New Atlantis, American Enterprise Institute scholar Yuval Levin points to a “willful paralysis that oddly passes for sophistication in our elite culture now.” Americans now have trouble thinking about the future in the way previous generations did.

Levin continues: “It often bespeaks a kind of vanity unable to imagine the world without ourselves in it, and to take pleasure in benefiting our successors. The future, after all, is the home of other people — people who will follow us when we are gone. To build durable infrastructure for future prosperity is to build for those other people. And the inability to value those other people and judge them worthy of our work and sacrifice is a characteristic failing of a decadent society.”

Yet I strongly believe the abundance movement will form an important faction within the Democratic Party and maybe in the Republican one too. Democratic politicians including Kamala Harris and Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts have seized some of its ideas. There is a natural tendency in our country to move in a Hamiltonian direction after a period of Jeffersonian ascent, and such a shift is overdue. Most important, the arguments these authors make are utterly compelling.

It’s interesting to read these books during the Trump Anschluss. In some ways President Donald Trump can be seen as an extreme response to a government that can’t get anything done. The problem is he’s skipped over the Alexander Hamilton model of centralizing authority and gone straight to the Vladimir Putin model. If we still have a country when he is done, we’re going to need a better establishment.

So I’d close with some questions for educators:

Every society on Earth has a leadership class of one sort or another, so are you educating your students so that they can build a better establishment? Are you arming them with sensible views about authority so that they don’t childishly dismiss all forms of it? Are you training them to be in touch with their fellow citizens, so that they don’t rule imperiously from above? Are you training them to embrace the obligations that fall on them as leaders, to serve the country and not their own kind? Are you trying to inculcate in them both the humility to know what they don’t know and the audacity to reach for abundance?

David Brooks writes a column for the New York Times.

Related Articles

Other voices: Trump team made mistakes, but Europe needs to take heed

Lisa Jarvis: Measles outbreak was avoidable

Ryan Young: Pare back presidential power

Bret Stephens: America’s most shameful vote at the U.N.

Allison Schrager: Trump risks making the same economic mistakes as Biden