An Ethical Tug-Of-War

There are times in the history of a nation when cultural ideals and national identity eclipse the particulars of politics. Now are such times in America. The debt ceiling, Obama-Care, high-profile government bailouts, the individual mandate: These issues, and the contentious dialogue that they spawn, represent an underlying friction that has always existed in America - a tug-of-war for who controls the balance of power in our nation. What differentiates America’s present battle from those of past generations is the sheer enormity of the stakes. The nation is at a tipping point, the balance of power is the prize. Either the people or the government will ultimately prevail; one must be beholden to the other.

In many ways, this climactic battle has been in the making since the framing of our Constitution. While all facts point to the Founders’ vision of a government beholden to the people, they were also aware that the powers granted to the federal government, though necessary, limited and enumerated, were susceptible to abuse and usurpation. Note James Madison in Federalist 41: “In every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused.” Madison explains that the Founders’ efforts to counter such threats with a system of checks and balances would serve the people as a permanent shield “to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.”

To further ensure that the people held the balance of power in American government, the Founders amended the original Constitution with a Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments of this bill serve to reaffirm the limited role of the federal government with relation to the states. It is important to note that in late 18th Century vernacular, to refer to the “states” was virtually synonymous with referring to the people as a whole. The “or to the people” that concludes the 10th Amendment was added as an afterthought by the “style-committee” of the U.S. Senate because they feared that future generations of Americans might not share the existing correlation between these entities, rendering the amendment incomplete. Fortunately for posterity, the final draft reads as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In the early 20th Century, however, two amendments to the Constitution served to permanently alter the balance of power in America, broadening the scope of the federal government and spawning modern Progressivism. The 16th Amendment granted Congress the power to tax discriminately, while the 17th Amendment stripped the states of national representation. From this point forward, the battle between public and private America would slowly rise to the surface, gaining relevance and picking up steam in ascension.

The hundred year battle between modern Progressivism and Constitutional Conservatism is approaching an inevitable climax. As the labels imply, one seeks to tip the scales of power in favor of the nation’s government, while the other aims to conserve and protect the original intent of the Founders, empowering the people and the states. In his first three years as President, Barrack Obama has championed the Progressive cause more effectually than any other president in history. Obama-Care, the Wall Street “reform” act, and the tremendous increase in the national debt, all have served to vastly broaden the scope of the federal government, pulling America ever-closer to a government-run entitlement state. However, modern conservative leaders such as Rick Perry, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, are diligently pulling back.

The elections of 2012, more than any elections in modern history, will determine who will hold the balance of power for many generations to come. Either the federal government will cement its control through intrusive regulations and increasingly higher taxes on an exceedingly narrow tax-base, or the American people will stand up and fight to preserve the intent of their forefathers. Irrespective of which side one is pulling for, there is no denying that the nation’s future lies in the balance of this ethical tug-of-war.