What Does Populism Mean?

There’s this word, populism, that keeps showing up. Here’s a basic definition from an online dictionary:

Populism: A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

The word doesn’t show up in my 1980s dictionary, although Populist shows up as the name of a US political party from 1891-1904. It’s also not in the 1820s dictionary. I did some minimal research online, and definitions and examples are all over the place.

Super lawyer Robert Barnes uses the term freely to describe Donald Trump, along with others in such a category (including VP candidate J. D. Vance). I’ve noticed some anti-establishment leaders around the world, although I hadn’t attached the word to them. These would be Bolsonaro in Brazil, the entire Brexit movement (I thought Boris Johnson might be one, but he caved during COVID), a couple of Latin American leaders—Bukele in El Salvador and Milei in Argentina. There’s Meloni in Italy, and possibly Orban in Hungary. These do not necessarily represent “populist” parties in various countries, although they can. But populism seems to be more about the individual leaders than any party.

Examples are of bold, charismatic leaders, who are by definition popular. That is, the people like them, prefer them, vote for them. They are, then, democratic, in that the will of the people expresses its favor toward them. They are not installed or foisted upon the people by some behind-the-scenes cabal, or even by rising in any existing party or faction. In fact, these populist leaders seem to rise up in opposition to the powers that be. But they are not simply popular people; they are popular for what they are trying to do.

Oddly, some of the online definitions refer to them as typically authoritarian. Here’s this from a Britannica article:

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics. Populist politics, following this definition, revolve around charismatic leaders who appeal to and claim to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate their own power.

The article later lists some examples: Juan Perón (Argentina), Getúlio Vargas (Brazil), and Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). In that same paragraph it adds Donald Trump:

In the United States, according to some historians and political scholars, the administration of Republican Pres. Donald Trump (2017–21) also displayed some aspects of authoritarian populism. Among them were conspiracy mongering, racism toward African Americans and nonwhite immigrants, distrust of democratic institutions among Trump’s core supporters, and the subservient position of the national Republican Party. Perhaps the most powerful indicator of the existence of authoritarian populism under Trump was his incitement of a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election (see United States Capitol attack of 2021).

Except, at last count, every conspiracy theory attached to us Trump supporters (and anyone else who didn’t support the administrative state’s controlled narrative) has turned out to be conspiracy fact. Every example of racism was invented without actual examples—because such examples don’t exist. I’ll grant you distrust of various democratic institutions—which have given us plenty of reason to distrust them. Finally, we know that Trump did not incite a mob; the vast majority of people at the capitol on January 6, 2021, were asking for a fair look at the widespread evidence of fraud in the 2020 election, but the rioters stopped them from getting what they were asking for; and we now know the mob was infiltrated with literally hundreds of government assets. Hmm. Trump had offered National Guard and greater security simply based on the large numbers expected; Pelosi and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser refused the offer.

In short, their attempts to attach the authoritarian label to Trump—after a 4-year term in which he was for less government regulation, greater economic freedom, less foreign entanglement, etc.—is another example of their doing what they accuse their opposition of doing.

A recent example offered by the Webster’s online dictionary shows this quote from an article in Source Journal last week:

The populist positioning pitted Harris against monopolistic conglomerates, firmly entrenching her on the side of average businesses and consumers. “I believe competition is the life blood of our economy, more competition means lower prices for you and your families,” she said.

It appears the Harris campaign is “positioning” her as a “populist” to make her seem like a champion of the little people. Except, while she is authoritarian (see example here), she is—or was, until her campaign invented a suddenly “popular” version of her—vastly unpopular. It was as if she were chosen as VP as insurance that Biden would be left in to avoid having her take over. And, no, she is not in any way on the side of consumers. I think she would be hard-pressed to summon up even the most basic vocabulary for sane economic policy. She thinks taxing us on our “unrealized gains” is a good idea.

[I’m not fully going down that rabbit hole today, but here’s a good metaphor to explain her proposal, from Tom Woods’ daily email August 28:

Here's what it means (mathematical example shared with me by a friend):

(1)   January 2020, you buy 100 shares of Zoom stock at $75 per share.

(2)   That stock ends the year at $350, which means you made a gain of $27,500. But it's an unrealized gain, because you didn't sell the stock. You still have it.

(3)   Kamala would tax you 75% on that $27,500 that you don't actually have.

(4)   Since you don't have the cash to pay it (you never sold the stock, remember, so you never actually experienced this "gain"), you withdraw from your savings.

(5)   You hold the stock until August 2024, when it's only $60 a share.

(6)   You decide to sell because this is the most you think you'll ever get for the stock. You sell at a loss (remember, you bought it at $75) at $60.

(7)   Oh, and those taxes on your "unrealized capital gain"? Well, you ended up with a loss, not a gain, but Kamala keeps your money anyway.]

In short, if you want to understand actual populism today, you can’t go to the standard sources; you’ve got to ferret out the meaning yourself.

So, am I a supporter of populism—as Robert Barnes says he is? I am not. I am a skeptic. Maybe that’s a leftover suspicion of popularity from long-ago high school. Popular often meant inauthentic, unkind, and prejudicially disdainful. But, granted, popular can also mean something good, something or someone that a majority of people have discovered and express their approval of. You can’t dismiss the choices of the masses out of hand. But you also don’t have to accept them.

found on Facebook stories

One of the things about the populous is that it is susceptible to manipulation by the media. That’s what makes pure democracy so dangerous.

In our time, the current populists, particularly Trump, seem aligned with my values: I’m a constitutional conservative. That is, I want the US Constitution conserved, and its laws and principles applied as intended—as far as we can ascertain what was intended; there’s a lot of historical writings to inform us on that (The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, writings by the founders, notes from the Constitutional Convention, etc.)

That’s the standard I use for any candidate. I’ve pretty much discarded all Democrat candidates, because they do not believe in limited government, and their interference makes things worse. [While I would not have wanted RFK Jr as my president, I do see him as anti-establishment old-time Democrat, and he has, I think, integrity. We can work with such a person.] Beyond that, the current Democrat Party is unlike the sane but wrongheaded party of some decades ago, which claimed to be for working people, etc. Now they are something of a death cult, with control over the media to lie to the public to cover their real motives, which you can discern by listening carefully to what they say and what they try to do.

I haven’t written off the Republican Party as a whole. At the top, I don’t have much use for them. But at the state and local level, here in Texas, it looks to me like a majority of those active in the party support constitutional conservative principles—and we’re all about spreading that wherever we can.

So, if a populist candidate comes around—if they’re Democrat, assume they are authoritarians, since that is the standard in that party. But if they are Republican, you may have to test them somewhat deeper.

image posted by Tom Glass on Facebook

Back in 2015-16, Trump was saying things I agreed with. But I didn’t believe him. It took a couple of years of him actually abiding by the Constitution—better than I’d seen done since Reagan—and doing it under great pressure, that I finally realized he wasn’t what he’d been portrayed to be. He still may be a very rough stone, but I believe he is someone God can use for the good of our nation, and the world.

There are test questions, if you can get a chance to ask them of candidates, which I’ve shared before (2013 and 2021). But, here we are in another election season, so they might be worth repeating. These come from the Spherical Model idea that you can differentiate between freedom and tyranny in the political sphere, between prosperity and poverty in the economic sphere, and between civilization and savagery in the social sphere. I recognize some limitations to this list: you’ll hardly ever get to ask them of a national candidate, where the US Constitution is the law they need to be limited by. Maybe you’ll get lucky and ask them of a congressional candidate. But the questions will still help you get to know the mind of a more local candidate. And maybe, by listening closely to debates, press conference, and stump speeches, you might get some of these answered even by a presidential candidate. I haven’t provided the “right” answers here. Some may not have a right answer. Some definitely have a range of better answers than others. If you’re actually a constitutional conservative, you can probably imagine what those might be, so I’ll leave you to it. Or, you might want to check out the Spherical Model website and read the rather long articles there on the three spheres.

The political, economic, and social spheres of the Spherical Model

Political Sphere

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government, and what are the limits?

·        Do you have favorite portions of the US Constitution, and/or any portions that you think ought to be changed, clarified, or improved?

·        When the US Supreme Court makes a ruling that you believe is at odds with the Constitution, what do you think the executive and/or legislative branches should do in response to the ruling?

·        What do you believe is the proper balance between public safety and individual freedom, and what do you believe government needs to do to reach that balance?

·        Who are your favorite examples of a good president—since 1900—and what about them do you admire?

·        How do you define extremists, and what views do you think are examples of extreme?

 Economic Sphere

·        What do you believe is the optimum percentage of GNP that should be taken in taxes?

·        What do you believe is the government’s role in contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession (as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?

·        What do you believe is government’s role in the distribution of income when there’s a wide discrepancy between the poor and the wealthy?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in charitable help to the poor and suffering?

·        What do you believe are the purposes and limits of the commerce clause of the Constitution?

·        What do you believe is the role of the Federal Reserve, and how/whether it is benefiting the economy?

Civilization Sphere 

·        What do you believe about the connection between moral values and the law?

·        Which institution is most responsible for raising a generation that will benefit society, and why: schools, government, churches, nonprofit organizations, sports teams, families?

·        Which constituency’s desires is public education best accountable to, and why: US government, state government, local government, teachers, students, parents/taxpayers?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in homeschooling, private schools, charter schools, and school choice?

·        What do you think is government’s role in defining marriage, and why? 

 

The original list (2013) included some issue-related questions. And in December 2021 I added some new questions. Let’s see if they’re still relevant (the subpoints are my current comments):

Specific Issue Questions

·        What are your feelings concerning Obamacare, and what do you think should be done?

o   I still think it’s wrong. As with just about any program that gets passed, it’s very hard to untangle and extricate ourselves afterward. No one is talking about it this year. But we do have Kamala Harris blathering about taking away private insurance from everyone—calling it Medicare for all, although she sometimes hides from that policy statement.

·        What do you believe are the motivations of people who support traditional (man/woman) marriage and family?

o   The woke agenda is receiving a lot of pushback from people who are sick of the LGBTQ agenda being shoved down our throats. But the fight against gay marriage is pretty much lost. Now it’s a matter of keeping our children safe from the indoctrination.

·        What are your beliefs about border security and immigration?

o   This is still a huge issue. Suddenly Harris, the border czar who has done nothing but facilitate illegal entry is talking about closing the border as soon as she’s elected.

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government concerning climate?

o   This is still an issue for Dems, but it’s not gaining traction among conservatives, who view the draconian rules as more about control than climate.

·        What do you see as the US role in the world, and what is your view of the UN?

o   Warmongering Dems and Republicans are on the opposite side from the populists on this issue. Trump didn’t start any wars and got us out of some. Biden/Harris are ready to give our entire military budget to Ukraine, and they are not exactly dedicated to Israel nor exactly against violent Palestinians.

·        What are your opinions on national debt, national deficit, tax increases and/or cuts, and national budget?

o   If we could just get back to some free market principles, that would be nice.

 

New Questions This Year (end of 2021, going into 2022 primary)

·        It is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade this year. How do you see Texas and the United States moving forward on this issue?

o   Something actually got done! Now it’s an issue for the states. The Dems keep claiming Trump will do more, but he has not indicated any intention of doing more at a national level.

·        In the Declaration of Independence, we dissolved political bands, not for “light and transient causes,” but for a “long train of abuses and usurpations.” Assuming that restoring and preserving our Constitution is the goal, could there be a catalyst for dissolving political bands, intended to be indivisible, and returning Texas to an independent nation? What would trigger such an action after the long train of abuses and usurpations we’re already seeing?

o   This is a Texit question. I still personally wonder what the catalyst might be. If we get through this election with a peaceful transfer of power, then maybe we won’t need to face it anytime soon.

·        One of the actual responsibilities of the federal government is protection of our national borders. When the federal government fails in that duty, what should our state do to protect our sovereignty?

o   This is another pertinent question for Texas leaders.

·        When the government deprives a person of property, such as a business, as it did during the pandemic shutdowns, what is the government’s obligation to restore that property to those who were deprived of it?

o   I’m still waiting for an answer—while the Biden/Harris administration is giving housing, income, and education to illegals. They just got shut down from using our taxes to pay off college loans (buy votes).

·        Is there anything that can/should be done about election law crimes of the past election? And what do you see as the way to restore election integrity going forward?

o   The Republicans are still concerned, with good reason. In Harris County, one judicial candidate won a lawsuit, and the judge is requiring a new election for that race; we haven’t heard when that will be. The term is now half over. And nothing was done about the other 23 or so cases from that election.

·        While conservatives generally support freedom for business, what can/should we do when large monopolies censor certain points of view on their platforms, or companies make requirements for employment or attendance based on private health decisions?

o   This is gaining in importance as the evidence of censorship and other social engineering by companies comes to the surface—along with the pressure from government on those companies.

 

 

 

Bonus Questions

Harris and Walz, image found here,
photo credit to Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Thursday night, while I was writing this, was the first interview with candidate Kamala Harris, who brought along her VP choice, Tim Walz. I won’t review that here. But in preparation, Breitbart offered “31 Questions Dana Bash Should Ask Kamala Harris, Walz in First Interview,” in categories such as the economy, immigration, freedom, foreign policy, and questions for Walz. Here’s a sampling:

17. Your party has claimed the mantle of “defending democracy,” but you were appointed as your party’s nominee despite never having received any vote as a presidential candidate in any primary. In what way did your nomination process reflect democracy?

22. Is there a fixed limit in your mind of how many U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to Ukraine, or is your sentiment “as many tax dollars as it takes?”

(for Walz) 29. You ran a hotline for Minnesotans to report their neighbors who violated your lockdown orders during the coronavirus pandemic. How is that compatible with your mantra of “Mind your own damn business?”

My guess is that Breitbart will not be tapped to host a debate or do an interview, as entertaining as that might be.

Less entertaining, but possibly effective, there’s another list, this one from Daily Mail, of 25 “Questions CNN’s Dana Bash SHOULD Ask Kamala Harris in First Interview.”   The first question is:

1.     Were you the 'last person in the room' with President Joe Biden as he prepared to enact his evacuation plan in Afghanistan, and did you voice any concerns about his strategy?

 

National Review also offered a list of questions that won’t be asked but should be, here. 

 

Ah, if only we didn’t have to invent the questions and the answers. If only real journalists could get near the candidates, as you would possibly see in a populist-led constitutional republic.

 

Fascism Isn’t Right or Left; It’s South

Earlier this week Ben Shapiro wrote a piece called “Fascism Isn’t Right-Wing.” It's in response to a typical question from media, this one from Jake Tapper to Chris Christie, asking whether support of Trump is a sign of authoritarianism. Shapiro explains a few things rather clearly, which I’ll share. But, as with many attempts to explain fascism and other ideologies, I think, “This is clearer on the Spherical Model.” Every now and then it’s worth re-sharing that model—after all, it’s what the blog is about—so I’ll do some of that today, after what Shapiro brings up in his piece:

Authoritarianism is not what people in the media think it is. They think authoritarianism is Donald Trump tweeting. But there are many forms of authoritarianism. In fact, fascism is an element of both Left and Right. It is not merely a Right-wing action. Authoritarianism can just as easily be implemented by a series of executive orders that go outside the Constitution, that radically re-shift the balance between people in the government, something Joe Biden does with alacrity.

It's likely Churchill didn't actually say this, but the
quote will do for today's post. Found here.

So, fascism = authoritarianism. The error is in assuming it’s always right-wing authoritarianism and that the left wing could never be that. Later in the piece, he says this:

The truth is that fascism as an ideology is closer to the American Left than it is to the American Right. Fascism is an ideology that was generalized in response to communism, but it drew from Marxism, Hegelian politics, and progressive-era ideas, which is why many of the early supporters of Mussolini were members of the Left, including people who had worked in Woodrow Wilson’s administration who went on to work in the FDR administration.

So we know that fascism means authoritarianism. And it’s related to Marxism, which spawned communism and socialism, also progressivism and probably a few more -isms as well—each one authoritarian, meaning coercion and top-down control.

But what do we mean by Right and Left?

Common belief says that fascism is right. Far right. So, to stay as far away from that as you can, you go left. Maybe all the way to communism.

Is communism as far as you can get from fascism? Because communism is authoritarian. And, didn’t we say earlier, fascism = authoritarianism?

On August 29 Glenn Beck was talking about authoritarianism as well. First he quoted the entirety of a piece by Emma-Jo Morris, the political editor for Breitbart: “Morris: The 2024 Election Is Going to Be a Vote of Defiance.” Here’s the first paragraph of that piece:

Leading up to the 2024 election, there are a number of pressing issues Americans will consider—rampant illegal immigration, skyrocketing inflation and price of living, violent crime marring cities—but those issues are now against the backdrop of a palpable shift toward authoritarianism. And a vote for Trump in 2024 will be a vote of defiance.

Her assertion is that people will be voting against the authoritarian regime that has been imposed on them. And she offers plenty of examples of that authoritarianism—that tyranny that we’ve been tolerating, hoping it was just something that would pass, but that we can no longer tolerate.

Then Glenn Beck responds, with a warning about an overreaction.

Now, I think that there are real ways that can be done constitutionally. But I warn you, there is going to come a time where, even on our side, many will say, “Screw the Constitution. There are things we have to do.” That is always trouble. Always a sign you don’t want to be in that group.

Please, be aware of this. There are forces, on many fronts: on the left, who wants to destroy the Constitution; and those now posing as the right, but they’re not the right. They’re the fascistic left.

In America the choice is not right or left. It is either anarchy or complete control.

I’ve heard him use that last line before, changing the left/right model from communism to fascism, and instead labeling the far extremes as either anarchy or complete control.

I’m not saying he’s wrong. And neither is Ben Shapiro. I’m saying the Spherical Model can clarify. It offers more perspective on the relative closeness or distance of various political ideas, or ways of governing. I’ll just review it quickly (repeated from here, and from the website).

 

Political conversations tend to describe the far ends as extreme, assuming there’s some virtue in being balanced in the middle. And we refer to our nation as center right—just a little more conservative than exactly center.

But what are the extremes? Do we assume communism or socialism at the extreme left, and fascism at the extreme right?

That can’t be right, because communism and fascism are both totalitarian statist tyrannies, just slightly different flavors. Nazi means “national socialist party” and the communist Soviet Union’s name was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

So if Nazism and communism aren’t diametric opposites, then what are the logical extremes?

How about total government control, or tyranny, versus total lack of government control, or anarchy?

That’s better. Then freedom is that perfect balance in the middle.

But wait; there’s a problem with this model too: It’s common in history for people suffering in anarchy to turn for relief to total government control—anything for security. But in this model, as a people move to the left, they have to pass through that balanced freedom section. You’d think that it would be very common for someone to stop and say, “Hey, this freedom is good. Let’s stop going leftward and stay here.” Yet that pretty much never happens. But going directly from chaos to state control is historically common.

Plus, notice that there’s not that much difference between the tyranny of the state and the tyranny of anarchy. Total government control means the state has all the power—the police, the military. The state can do what it wants, and the mere citizen is without any rights except what the state decides to grant.

Anarchy, on the other hand, means that power belongs to whoever is stronger and meaner than the next guy. If you threaten to beat people up (or kill them) if they don’t give you all their belongings, and you’re strong enough to mean it, then you have power. If someone else is stronger or better armed than you are, then you have to yield power to them.

In other words, anarchy, while less organized, is power in the hands of the strongest and best armed—just like a tyrannical government.

So maybe government tyranny and anarchic tyranny are pretty close to the same thing. When I show this, I use a ribbon, labeled at the ends, and fold it in half, so it looks something like this:

Tyranny and freedom are really the opposite extremes.

Not bad. But it puts all those different kinds of tyrannies in the same location, and maybe there are differences.

A simple line doesn’t give us the dimensions we need.

So, how about if we use three dimensions—a sphere? If we draw a line at the equator, we can separate freedom (northern hemisphere) from tyranny (southern hemisphere). And then we can draw a longitudinal dividing line, with more local interests in the western hemisphere and larger interests—from state to nation, to international, in the eastern hemisphere.

I call this the Spherical Model.

The Political Sphere

Down in the south, you can see that one side of tyranny is the chaos of anarchy, and the other side is the totalitarian control of government tyranny. It’s easy to get from one to the other—which is what much of world history has shown us. You can have communism, socialism, and Nazism as separate patches in their quartersphere, based on how much control they exert on their people (southern direction), or how far they plan to expand (toward the eastward extreme of world domination).

Up north in the freedom zone, location is mostly a matter of whose interest. Free people don’t yield power to a governing authority beyond the appropriate interest. Families make their own decisions about the care, upbringing, and education of their children. Communities on up to cities and counties decide on local law enforcement and protection needs. States (or provinces) deal with their particular infrastructure and laws. Only very limited powers are granted to a nation—as are enumerated in the US Constitution. And that sovereignty would never yield to an international power, but would cooperate with other free sovereignties concerning international issues.

 

OK, so, you find Nazism/fascism, communism, and socialism all in the south—toward tyranny and away from freedom. And they’re all in the bottom section we call statist tyranny, because the tyrants are the government, rather than simply mob bosses, as you’d see in chaotic tyranny. Either way, you have coercion of people by those in charge—and they’re in charge because they have the power to force their will on others.

Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all statist tyrannies.

Why does this matter today? Because authoritarianism—that is, tyranny—is not Donald Trump tweets (or Xs, or Truths, depending on what you call the platform he uses). A tweet doesn’t coerce anyone to do anything against their will. It’s just an expression of a few words. They may or may not represent an idea that you like. But, unless they come from a person in power with commanding force behind them, they’re just words.

But there’s been a consistent mislabeling of Trump as a fascist—because he’s “a right-wing extremist”; i.e., a Republican. And we know the worst fascist was Hitler; ergo, Trump = Hitler. And, they think, we have to do anything to stop today’s Hitler from getting power.

What do they mean by anything? Keeping your vote for him from counting. Stopping you from expressing your opinions in the marketplace of ideas. Using lawfare. Suing him—and anyone supporting him. Lying about him. Covering up crimes of those he opposes. Instigating powers over the people, particularly over the people supporting him. In fact, anything includes any fascist and/or corrupt anti-Constitutional thing you can think of. (See examples here, from a couple of years ago, before we were seeing this year’s attacks.) 

So, if you put the opponents of Trump on the sphere, they’re definitely in the southern hemisphere of tyranny. And they’re mainly on the statist side of the tyranny hemisphere.

Meanwhile, the one they call the authoritarian: in reality, his ideas, and his followers resemble a lot of ideas you find in the northern hemisphere—the freedom hemisphere.

How do you know? You ask questions about the ideas, rather than throw out epithets about the person. You find out if those ideas coincide with freedom. And a good gauge is whether they adhere to the US Constitution.

I was surprised as anyone to find Trump’s presidency mainly up in the freedom zone. His stated positions during his campaign said he would be, but I hadn’t believed him. Not everything got fixed. But, as you’d expect in a freedom society, economic security went up—for all demographics. That was after a decade of statist tyranny had tried to convince us America was in decline and all we could do was manage the decline.

I was never sure—I’m still not—that Trump fully understands and embraces the US Constitution, which is based on God-given rights. But I know the Constitution is up in the freedom zone. And he adhered to it better than we’d seen, at least since Reagan. The contrast between Trump and the current White House resident is stark—as different as north from south.

So what are the questions? What are the principles of freedom? I’ve provided a few lists over the years, depending on purpose. Here’s a list I quoted in 2016, from Benjamin Constant in 1816. I used only Benjamin Constant’s words, but I turned it into a bullet-point list to make it easier to grasp:

First ask yourselves, Gentlemen, what an Englishman, a French-man, and a citizen of the United States of America understand today by the word “liberty.” For each of them

·        it is the right to be subjected only to the laws,

·        and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals.

·        It is the right of everyone to express their opinion,

·        choose a profession and practice it,

·        to dispose of property, and even to abuse it;

·        to come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings.

·        It is everyone’s right to associate with other individuals, either to discuss their interests, or to profess the religion which they and their associates prefer,

·        or even simply to occupy their days or hours in a way which is most compatible with their inclinations or whims.

·        Finally it is everyone’s right to exercise some influence on the administration of the government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed.

 

That’s what it looks like to have freedom. If you’re considering policy—or the policies supported by a candidate that you’re vetting—then you might find this list useful:

·        Is the policy being debated something that an individual has the right to do, and therefore has the right to delegate to his/her government? For example, a person has the right to protect his own life and property. He can, therefore, combine resources with his neighbors and hire a government entity, such as a sheriff, to do that job for him. Similarly, the several states can combine to delegate the power of defending the nation to a national government entity. Conversely, a person does not have the right to take his neighbor’s excess grain production, for example, and bestow it on himself, because his neighbor was more prosperous in a particular season. He can, of course, ask his neighbor for charity, but he cannot coerce the neighbor to give. That would rightfully be considered theft. Therefore the person cannot delegate the redistribution of wealth to the government to do for him—that would place him too far south on the sphere.

·        Does the policy infringe in any way on God-given natural rights, such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Does the policy infringe on the free exercise of religion or try to establish a particular sect as a state religion? Is political speech hindered? Does the policy infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms? Does the policy constitute an illegal search or seizure? Does the policy deprive a person of life, liberty, or property when the person has not committed a crime for which that deprivation is the just sentence? Does the policy try to claim for government a power that was not specifically granted in the Constitution? etc. If the policy infringes on the God-given rights, then government cannot take that power without usurping power from the people—which is too far south on the sphere.

·        Is the idea being debated a proper role of government: some aspect of protection (including national defense, protection from interstate crime, enabling international and interstate commerce, standardized weights and measures and currency to protect the value of wealth, the judiciary that guarantees the protective laws), as enumerated in the Constitution? If not, then accepting the idea is outside the Constitution—and is too far south on the sphere.

·        Is the perspective appropriately local? It is important that any issue be handled at the most local level possible. Parents should decide the means, methods, and curriculum for educating their children, for example. An issue that affects a state should be handled at the state level, not the national level. National decisions should not be ceded to some international body. An inappropriate interest level is too far south on the sphere.

We’ve only talked here today about the Political Sphere. There are two other spheres that overlie the political sphere: the Economic Sphere and the Social Sphere. For the Economic Sphere, the polar opposites are north/prosperity and south/poverty, with the same east/west lines. For the Social Sphere, north is civilization and south is savagery, again with the same east/west lines. 

There are additional questions for these. You can read them here. 

Pending a theoretical book someday, the largest explanation of the Spherical Model is the website: SphericalModel.com. While I don’t have the illusion that this obscure website and blog will change people from thinking with the right/left model, I nevertheless think it would be a better way for people to understand abstract ideas that they only think they understand.