The true thought leaders in today’s political battles
Now that most recent political campaigns are history, it’s a propitious time to consider what is really happening in our nation’s political history and, importantly, in its future.
Many observe these campaigns as a “battle” between Republicans and Democrats. Others perceive confrontations between conservatives (who favor a small central government with limited powers) and liberals (who prefer a large government leading to socialism).
Both perceptions are correct — but only on the surface. For each to be more accurately understood, we need to drill down to their roots rather than view only their surface indicators. Many (including me) view this as a conflict between coastal elites versus middle-America populists.
Who are these elites? Elites are those who lead our coastal states and national government, non-elected (unaccountable) government bureaucrats and embedded federal regulators — overall, those who are part of “The Establishment” or “Deep State” — plus Ivy League university graduates, mega-wealthy residents on both coasts, Hollywood celebrities and those prominent in the progressive movement
Populists are the rest of us “outsiders” who live in middle America — frequently described as “fly-over states” (and counties including Kern) — where we are of little interest to the elites.
So, why do elites have it so wrong? Two reasons.
First, they erroneously pursue a large central government. Our U.S. Constitution is unmistakably clear that the size of our federal government is intended to be small. Only 18 “enumerated powers” are granted to Congress (Article 1, Section 8). To strengthen this restriction, our Constitution’s 10th Amendment says, “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.”
We call this “federalism” and it works wonderfully despite (as former Congressman Bill Thomas told me several years ago) political elites working to “water down” this constitutional amendment.
A recent example of federalism is President Trump’s total absence of authority to quell riots and looting in major U.S. cities. He can do so only when requested by a state’s governor. Some governors did so, others did not and their outcomes were disastrous.
This brilliant concept recognizes the multiple differences between many of our states. This is even more valid today now that the number of states has grown from 13 to 50. Some federal “cookie cutter” solutions may be effective in a few states but highly ineffective in all others.
As many (including Jefferson) are purported to have said, “That government is best that governs least.”
Second, elites regrettably are predominantly secular (some even atheistic) in their belief (or non-belief) in God. This may seem irrelevant to some but of great significance to most others of us — and to our nation’s founders.
Our Declaration of Independence, First Amendment, Pledge of Allegiance, currency and national motto include multiple references to Americans’ faith in God: endowed by their Creator; protection of divine Providence; no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; government officials and judicial witnesses swear to God with their hand on the Holy Bible (or Quran) for performance of their official duties and veracity of their witness; one nation under God; and In God we trust.
In case you’re wondering, the contents of Jefferson’s letter on “separation of church and state” to the Danbury Baptists are nowhere to be found in our Constitution. Moreover, such contents have been grossly misconstrued by — mostly secular — political groups.
The growth of secularism is prevalent in socialism. Just ask any former citizens of Cuba or Venezuela — or any communist country — about the absence of God in those governments.
As Ben Franklin admonished, “We have a republic, if we can keep it.” The issue boils down to our choice of a democratic republic’s protection of our personal freedom and liberty versus socialism’s destruction (or “watering down”) of such constitutional promises.
Which is your preference?
John Pryor, CPCU, ARM is a local management consultant and local, national and international risk management author. He is a long-term member of Trinity Anglican Church of Bakersfield and charter co-chair (with Chairman Warren Carter) of Kern Leadership Alliance, an organization of local clergy and their churches’ lay leaders.