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.

Rick Perry & The Earthquake That Rocked DC

Texas Governor Rick Perry has clearly caused significant rumblings amongst the Washington elite. Both the Democrat and Republican establishments are flummoxed by the Governor’s ascendency. Neither party fully grasps the popular appeal of this anti-establishment candidate.


Mr. Perry’s attacks on the loose-money policies of the Federal Reserve are cracking the fault lines of Wall Street. His hostility toward the federal government’s accumulation of power is a threat to DC officialdom. The Governor’s convictions concerning tort-reform, the 10th Amendment, federal deregulation and the dominance of the U.S. dollar are the bedrock of establishment nightmares; the ground is shaking beneath them, the clouds are looming overhead.

So is Rick Perry to blame for the earthquake that recently rocked DC? Did his staunch conservatism, Texas swagger and pride of country roil the Potomac River and rattle the eastern seaboard?

Political parties are, by nature, disciplined and coordinated entities. They choose candidates based on fundraising capabilities, electability and, most importantly, the candidate’s willingness to tow the party line. These establishments are disinclined to favor strong individualists; they fear what they can’t control. Rick Perry is such a figure, unpredictable from the viewpoint of his own party, a “Cowboy” in the eyes of his enemies. He represents the real America, the fierce individualism, self-sufficiency and thirst for competition that’s buried beneath the entitlement-state.

Consider the threat that Perry poses to the powerful DC lobbies. It should come as no surprise that the politically connected and highly influential trial-lawyers’ lobby is attacking Mr. Perry. After all, in his decade as Governor of Texas, Perry has championed numerous laws reforming the state’s legal system, limiting erroneous lawsuits and taming the litigating beast. Consequently, these reforms have spawned an influx of business startups and drastically lowered the cost of living in Texas; the power of the plaintiff has been minimized and the lobby is plotting revenge.

Wall Street speculators, among the largest donors of the Democrat Party, are likewise thirsty for blood. Governor Perry has created controversy by challenging the motives of the Federal Reserve and its loose-money/weak dollar policies. Though a strong U.S. currency would surely serve to boost the nation’s economy, it would likewise have a negative effect on the speculators. Free market capitalism, when not manipulated, cannot grant favors to politically connected industries. Hence, the broad-based attacks on the Governor’s focused message.

The old-establishment is feeling the pre-shock of Perry’s federalist convictions. In the Governor’s own words: “I’ll work hard to try to make DC as inconsequential in your life as I can.” From Karl Rove to Howard Dean, these words signal an existential threat to politics-as-usual in Washington, a crack in the fault-lines of the establishment.

Fortunately, the earthquake that rocked DC on August 23rd resulted in minimal damage, yet November, 2012 may very well produce some real and devastating aftershocks. The American people should significantly benefit relative to the intensity of the shock.