Introduction

A Plan to Renew the Promise of American Life

---

 previous plank | summary | contents | intro | next plank

---

Introduction

This is not your father’s plan to save America, although it might be your grandfather’s. I call it, immodestly, ‘a plan to renew the promise of American life.’ It’s really just a compilation of the results of a thought experiment and I hasten to say it’s not really a platform in the conventional sense. It gathers in one place my collected thoughts on how I think we could, without violence, make America America again — I mean America in her best and noblest sense.

The challenge I set for myself was to figure out how we might reverse America’s obvious and alarming decline. And I decided we can only do that by restoring the principles of the American founding to the center of our national life.

Some of my recommendations are sweeping. Some are trivial. A few are just practical advice or rules of thumb. To make things more intelligible, I gathered it all into fourteen broad categories, which, for want of a better term, I dubbed ‘planks.’

The thought experiment began around 2010, when I realized that just about every reform movement I had supported had failed and seemed hopeless. And I wondered why. And I decided the answer was that none of them had been serious. We had been addressing the symptoms rather than the disease.

It was not enough, I realized, to ‘elect the right people’ — although that, of course, is always necessary. (Isn’t it odd, by the way, how ‘our people,’ once in office, always seem to cease being our people?)

I decided it all comes down to the excessive concentration of power — government power, economic power, institutional power.

By ‘America’s decline,’ I mean the obvious problems that fill the headlines. I’m thinking of the signs of economic weakness and the hollowing out of the middle class. The slow but steady fading of free enterprise, the endless expansion of government-by-fiat. The failure of our institutions, their corruption, and the maddening results of our health care, education, and welfare ‘systems.’ The culture wars.

I’m thinking of the undeniable loss of individual liberty and privacy and the growth of censorship and cancel culture. The feeling that our elections aren’t always trustworthy.

I’m thinking of the alarming degradation of our global power, reputation, and respect. The flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border. The sense that we don’t always live up to our own principles, either at home or abroad.

Most of all, I’m thinking of the growing enmity and distrust within our domestic politics. The demonization of our neighbors and fellow citizens as as enemies of democracy.

It all comes down, I suppose, to a quarrel over that term, ‘democracy’ — a quarrel over how we should live together. These days, it seems as if we aren’t content to live together in peace.

And the biggest source of that disagreement, I believe, is the excessive growth and centralization of government power, and in particular the relentless growth of socialist wealth redistribution: taking property from A and giving it to B without A’s consent. Which, if you think about it, flows from a disregard for individual natural rights.

In disrespecting natural rights, we’ve let government become a power unto itself. And increasingly it is like a hostile foreign power, hostile to the popular will and to the common good. The biggest threat to democracy is big government.

A friend of mine once joked, ‘Our ancestors would be shooting by now.’ Probably! But are things really that bad? I say not. I say there’s always hope. We can resolve our differences peacefully. We can live together as friends and fellow citizens.

And yet.

I refuse to be too optimistic. Something is rotten in the land of the free. Even if you don’t blame big government, it stands to reason that current trends will continue until we try something different. If we keep going down the same road, we’ll keep arriving at the same place — having the same quarrel. And that could lead to violence.

To make America America again, we need to change direction, take a turn. But in which direction?

The ‘solution’ I landed on is not capitalism or conservatism or liberalism, all of which have their merits and demerits, but to restore the American Idea. Doubtless that term may sound highfalutin, perhaps even a non sequitur.

But I’m just talking about popular sovereignty, which is when the people rule the rulers and not the other way around. In its ideal form, popular sovereignty means the people rule wisely and well, with equal justice for all and special privileges for none — with governments ‘of laws and not of men.’

Popular sovereignty in this ideal sense gives freedom and happiness room to flourish. Heck, it’s hard for them not to flourish. It entails elements of what we today think of as capitalism and conservatism and liberalism of the classical variety. And it’s not just a good thing, it’s essential. We have a right to it, a right that arises from nature, or, if you prefer, from God.

Popular sovereignty says, I was born a sovereign, and so were you. You may not rule me without my consent. You may not trample on my individual natural rights without my permission. Especially my property rights, which help protect my other rights, such as speech, conscience, privacy, travel, and so on.

If you do trample on those rights, I have a right to resist. If you think you have a right to rule me, on what basis do you have it? If you have no just basis, don’t be surprised when I push back.

It follows from our mutual sovereignty that all legitimate governments, whatever their external form, must rest on consent — the consent of the whole people, as expressed in the will of the majority. Consistent, of course, with the rights of all.

Implicit in this logic is a right to rebel, a right of revolution. As sovereigns by nature, we may say no to those who oppress us. We may overthrow a despotic government that won’t reform itself.

The American revolution was lawful, no matter what King George said, because his rule over us required our consent, and, by violating our rights and withdrawing his protection from us, he had thrown away his right to that consent. We were absolved of our obligations to him.

Of course, the flip side of sovereignty is responsibility. Popular sovereignty entails duties. It implies self-government. Each of us must govern himself.

And the upshot of all these facts is that the government must be limited.

And who must do the limiting? Well, look in the mirror.

And here, we come to a striking fact. if all these self-evident truths are true, then that’s final. There is no ‘progressing’ beyond them. No progressing beyond the truth of human equality. No progressing beyond the fact of inalienable rights and the necessity of limited government. Or I should say, there’s no progressing beyond them without going backward, back toward oligarchy and servitude. (Perceptive readers will see I’m stealing shamelessly here from a wonderful Calvin Coolidge speech — a great president.) Our modern progressives are in fact regressive.

To make a long story short, I decided that the most important source of American decline is over-centralization. And so the remedy must be — wait for it — decentralization.

So, we need to break things up. Break up the monopolies, public and private. Break up the excessive concentrations of power, corporate and governmental. Be pro-market and not just pro-business. Stand with the citizen and the consumer against faceless bureaucracy. Rule the rulers. In short, disperse economic and political power into as many hands as possible, within reason.

In more mundane terms, I realized, we have to restore good old things like federalism and the separation of powers and the rights of property and contract, without shortchanging equal justice and civil rights.

To some, those old-fashioned concepts may seem outdated and boring. But that’s a mistake. What could be more exciting than self-rule? I don’t think those old ideas have been tried and found wanting. I think they have been tried and found successful — and, for some people, inconvenient.

So, dispersal of power is the only way back to national and individual happiness. Decentralization is only way to reverse American decline.

Along the way, Michael Farris, founder of Patrick Henry College, pointed out to me that government’s purpose is simple, laughably so, I realized. The purpose of government, he explained, is to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property, and to punish those who violate those rights — and that’s it. Government does not exist to take care of our needs. It exists to protect our right to take care of our own needs. Boom.

What’s the purpose of the Constitution? To preserve our Revolution — the revolution from a monarchy to a republic, or what we today call ‘democracy.’ And not only that. Its purpose is to enshrine the universal principles on which that revolution was based, the principles so eloquently stated in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

My reading on the Constitution has made me aware that the document rests on four pillars and, I believe — and this came as a welcome discovery — only four. They are: republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, and enumeration of powers. Every word in the document can be traced to one of these four principles. But the flip side is that, like real pillars, they depend on each other. Knock one out — any one — and the others cannot stand the strain indefinitely. All will fail. And there goes your Revolution!

So, we need a popular revolution to reclaim popular sovereignty to renew the promise of American life. That’s my thesis.

Which brings me to the ‘plan.’

It ended up containing fourteen planks, as I say, with dozens of specific recommendations. But the three most important planks — the super-planks, if you will — are the ones concerning judicial reform, tax reform, and honest money. Secure those three and I think most of the other planks eventually follow — some more or less automatically.

And if I had to choose just one, I’d go with honest money. Without that, I’m not sure the others are sustainable. It’s hard to permanently limit a government that retains an unlimited power to extract resources from the people. So, let’s limit that power. Force it to prioritize. End its ability to expand the money supply at will. What will happen? A general retrenchment of government activity, and eventually, balanced budgets. It’s as close to a mathematical certainty as you can get in these things.

And then watch what happens! Power starts to flow back to where it belongs. Back from the non-legislative branches to Congress. Back from Washington to the states. And ultimately from the monopolies back to you and me, the people.

Okay, I’m not saying it’s inevitable, but I am saying it’s more likely, and in any case I can’t think of another way.

To be sure, without unlimited resources, the feds will shift to doing more through regulations and mandates. When they can no longer take all our property, they will try to control what we do with it. So, we’ll need to cut them off at the pass. And I think we can — with a pair of simple constitutional amendments.

I started out determined not to amend the Constitution. There’s nothing in the document itself that’s fundamentally flawed. We already have the guide book for national happiness, we just have to follow it. (A wag once suggested that all we need to do is just insert, after each sentence in the Constitution, the phrase, ‘and we mean it.’)

But I reluctantly realized we do have to amend it. Our rulers won’t follow the guide book until forced to do so, that is, until their incentives change. So, we must change their incentives.

And that’s where the two amendments come in. They would shore up the four pillars. They’d set in motion a virtuous cycle. They are:

A majority of the state legislatures may repeal any federal law or regulation

and

A majority of the state legislatures, representing a majority of citizens of the United States, is needed to approve an increase in the national debt

That’s it.

Of course, each amendment would need some additional words, to prevent misinterpretation and to guide implementation. (We’d want, for example, to prevent states from repealing state admission acts.) But this is the essence.

Why the states? Because they’re the only element in the system that can exert pressure from the outside, like a flying buttress. The three branches can’t do it.

Why such a tight leash on the debt? Because Uncle Sam won’t reform his ways voluntarily. He needs an accountability partner, a co-signer. And again, the states are the only entity that can be trusted, and have the incentive, to provide that service.

Now, if it turns out I’m wrong, and we add these amendments and they don’t work, then I reluctantly conclude that we may need a third and final amendment — but, to be clear, only as a last resort, and only in a scenario where the federal courts are the real roadblock. Something along the following lines:

Each state fills one seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, with each justice serving no more than, say, twelve years.

(This, too, is from Michael Farris.)

Now, I strongly suspect this one will never be needed. With the first two amendments, the courts will get the memo. Congress and the president will have both the ability and the incentive to resume their proper roles — and drag a recalcitrant Court along with them. But if things don’t pan out that way — well, then, I’d reluctantly break the glass and call in the states to install another flying buttress.

And if that doesn’t work — God help us.

Ideally, the amendments would be proposed by Congress. Realistically, they’ll have to be proposed by the states, through an Article V convention. I’ve explained elsewhere why I think fears of such a convention ‘running away’ and ‘totally rewriting the Constitution’ are entirely misplaced.

P.S. I also suggest three lesser constitutional amendments. These relate to specific policy matters, namely, national lands, D.C. statehood, and social security. I suggest them only because they seem unavoidable to get right with the Constitution — to fully align our practice with our principles. If we could address them with ordinary legislation, I’d prefer it.

Additionally, I suggest three constitutional changes that I think are not strictly necessary but would be good to have, namely, one to restore consent-based citizenship, one to remove Congress’s power to impose income taxes, and one to revise the dates of federal elections and swearings-in, in order to eliminate lame duck sessions and shorten presidential transitions. But again, these are not essential.

So, for readers who have lost count, I am suggesting a total of nine amendments, which I classify as follows: two essential, three recommended, three optional, and one reluctant (only if needed).

There’s more to the plan, as you’ll see. A lot more. Immigration. Ballot integrity. The territories. Government reorganization. Updating the federal calendar. Pardon my sprawl!

But the three super-planks and the two ‘flying buttress’ amendments are the heart of the thing. Give me those, and as far as I’m concerned, our work is done.

Does this seem crazy? I suppose it must. But then, we live in a crazy age!

In the context of American history and the present crises, I think my plan is pretty darn moderate. To be sure, it is radical, in the sense of going to the root. But then, it seeks a balance between the minimum that’s needed and the most that’s achievable. It represents an incrementalist approach to a comprehensive ‘program.’ But again, it’s not a political program in the conventional sense, despite my use of the word ‘planks.’

We do not have to make every reform happen. But we have to do something. And we have to start somewhere. I say let’s push a first domino and see what happens. The more institutions we decentralize, the more quickly the magic of decentralization can do its work.

Have I answered my starting question? I’ll let you judge. But if my recommendations are not the right ones — help us find better ones.

Renewing the promise of American life will not be easy. It will be hard. It will require effort and patience and sacrifice. But if we succeed, the benefits for ourselves and our posterity will be awesome.

And given the alternative, well, do we have a choice?

---

Revised: April 19, 2024.

Published: June 21, 2013.

Author: Dean Clancy.

previous plank | summary | contents | intro | next plank