My daughter Katie was just 20 years old, a college student filled with dreams and a bright future ahead of her. Tragically, on January 19, 2025, she was visiting a friend in Urbana, Illinois, when a drunk driver slammed into the back of the car she was riding in. The driver was speeding at nearly 130 mph, and Katie, along with another young woman, lost their lives that day. Three others suffered serious injuries.
Like any parent who experiences such a loss, I found myself asking why this happened. Over the past year, I’ve dedicated countless hours to investigate not just the individuals responsible for the crash, but also the policies and institutional failures that allowed this tragedy to occur. It became clear to me that this is not simply about one person’s mistakes, but rather a failure of accountability on a larger scale.
More concerning is how this situation reflects a broader trend in American politics, where institutions and ideologies seem to take precedence over the welfare of individual people. The significant political discussions throughout the 20th century revolved around power—specifically, how much power should be held by the government and leaders, and what occurs when those in authority believe they know what’s best for everyone else.
Typically, economists are viewed as distant or uninterested, reducing human life to mere data points. Yet, some of the most profound warnings about the dangers of concentrated power come from economists who recognize that individual freedom is essential for human dignity and flourishing.
Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell didn’t just advocate for market freedom; they defended individuals against the tendency of governments and organizations to subordinate lives to political visions or collective aims. Hayek’s life was dedicated to cautioning against this danger. He raised insightful questions about why the worst often rise to leadership positions, not because all officials are corrupt, but due to systems that require authority and control, which can attract those eager to impose their will on others.
Looking back, we see numerous instances in the 20th century where governments, claiming to act for groups, have stripped individuals of their dignity and freedom. Time after time, political leaders promised equality and security, but it was often everyday people who faced the consequences.
Milton Friedman emphasized the same notion, stating that concentrated power can’t be justified merely by the good intentions behind it. This is crucial because political movements are frequently assessed based on intentions instead of outcomes. Although good intentions may inspire lofty goals, the repercussions of misguided policies can’t be ignored.
When leaders don’t acknowledge these outcomes, accountability falters. This became painfully evident after Katie’s passing. Several politicians who have backed policies reducing cooperation with immigration enforcement or dismissing public safety concerns seemed indifferent to whether their decisions played a role in avoidable tragedies.
Instead, conversations often shift focus from the victims to defending existing systems. The emphasis becomes less about preventing future losses and more about justifying past actions.
Sowell has long warned against this mentality, famously stating that there are no real solutions—only trade-offs. His underlying message was that every policy yields consequences, and every decision carries costs that deserve honest consideration.
However, contemporary politics often treats certain policies as untouchable, where questioning them feels insensitive, and discussing their costs is seen as dishonest. Consequently, real people start to fade into the background; Katie becomes just another statistic.
Families are reduced to anecdotes. Victims serve merely as reminders that public policy can have dire consequences, a realization that should invoke compassion.
Compassion begins with acknowledging the value of every single life. It’s vital to recognize policy failures and admit when mistakes have been made. This requires leaders willing to prioritize truth over protecting their public image or sustaining a political narrative.
The lessons of the 20th century are not solely about corrupt leaders; they also reveal that systems built on concentrated power can leads to the empowerment of those who might misuse it. This isn’t merely a case of bad leadership; it’s the structure itself that often incentivizes the repression of individual freedom and dignity.
Moreover, such systems tend to alter how individuals are perceived by society. When the collective good overshadows individuality, lives are assessed only in terms of their utility to broader political objectives. Human worth becomes secondary to the preferred narrative.
This is precisely why societies centered around collective outcomes struggle to confront the real human costs of their policies honestly. Recognizing these costs might jeopardize broader political goals. Victims become unfortunate exceptions, and their losses are seen as necessary sacrifices within a greater strategy. Human suffering is contextualized instead of faced directly.
Katie’s story is crucial, not to validate a political stance, but to challenge us to confront uncomfortable truths about the policies we choose to support.
She wasn’t just a statistic. She wasn’t collateral damage or a trade-off in a political narrative. Katie was a daughter, a friend, and a person with her own inherent dignity.
A society that aspires to be free ought to start from the recognition of individual worth—not as a collective but as a collection of unique lives. The 20th century illustrated the dangers of placing institutions and power above people. Katie’s journey underscores that the cost of abstraction is paid by real families, each filled with hopes and futures that can never be regained.
Ultimately, if society overlooks the significance of even one life, it risks losing sight of the worth of all lives.
