If you were reading left-leaning media in the lead-up to the 2024 election, you almost certainly came across pundits expressing concern that the election of Trump would bring about the dark night of fascism to America, that this would be the final election, and that Trump would rule as a dictator. Nearly all of this criticism focused on Trump as a uniquely malicious individual and neglected to explore the underlying issue: that Trump, or any other president, can only rule as a dictator to the extent that the Executive Branch is allowed by Congress and the Supreme Court.

This extent does, however, seem to grow with every administration. The vast administrative state, of which the president is the Chief Executive, comprises of somewhere around 440 agencies, each regulating and advising upon seemingly every aspect of our lives and businesses. Concerning judicial precedent has been set to criminally prosecute former presidents and giving the Executive Branch wide latitude to interpret the law that underlies its regulatory power.

No wonder that each election cycle assumes the stance of a fight over a loaded gun. The power of the State is so great and can be so freely exercised to torment ones opponents that the taste for vengeance coupled with fear of retribution seems to have led to a sort of political arms race. Once in power, they seek to use whatever means are available to advance their agenda, even if reversal by the courts or a future administration is all but guaranteed. Once in power, parties attempt to set up structural advantages to stay in power in the hopes that the power they are leveraging against their opponents will not later be used against them.

This short-sighted power struggle is fueled by an apocalyptic vision of the other party: anti-democratic means are seen to be justified if it is in the service of preserving democracy, a construction that I find wholly unconvincing.

Neither party has made a compelling case that they will be responsible stewards of his great nation. So perhaps, rather than putting all of our eggs in one basket and hoping that one party will win control of the loaded gun, we should work to unload that gun and roll back the influence that the federal governments have in our life.

This so-called “third way”, neither Left nor Right, but towards political disarmament and reconciliation, involves advocating for the resuscitation of the system of checks and balances in our constitutional structure. The Supreme Court has gone some way towards reigning in the Executive recently, notably by overturning Chevron deference and blocking the blatantly unconstitutional eviction moratorium and student loan transference orders. Congress can and must reassert itself as well.

In the federal sphere, we can advocate for deregulation, closing or limiting the jurisdiction of federal agencies, and delegating more of the work of governance to our state and local authorities. These will all limit our vulnerability to an objectionable Chief Executive and increase accountability between the citizenry and our elected officials.

The federal government is no deus ex machina, it will not solve all of our problems, especially those which are at root, cultural problems. The simple fact is that there are no shortcuts to a better, healthier society. Our society is the sum total of all of the individuals that comprise it and no amount of regulation, coercion, or judicial force will change that fact. We must hold our officials accountable by first holding ourselves accountable.

As John and I discuss in this conversation, we can start by learning how to have healthier conversations with people with whom we have significant disagreements. Few people hold the extreme beliefs that the opportunistic media highlights and holds out to have broad popular support amongst “the other side.” Most policy issues are more nuanced than we are led to believe and a respectful conversation will often reveal better motivations than one might have guessed from the conclusion they reach.

John’s recommendation is to invite someone you have disagreements with over to your house and make them dinner. Talk, but importantly, start by talking about anything but politics. The antidote to dehumanization is humanization. Finding commonality and rapport before diving into the tricky conversations will go a long way.

Thanks for reading Inheritance of a Thousand Generations! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Corrections

* The Springfield Ohio immigration narrative is a bit more complicated than we covered in the podcast. See “Resources” for more context.

* It was estimated that 4-5 of the 20 points in the 2024 Republican platform were related to immigration. Only 3 are directly related to immigration.

Resources

* Two papers on social mobility in America

* Stanford

* Cato

* More context on immigration in Springfield, Ohio

* Reuters

* Chevron deference

* Loper Bright v Raimondo

* Presidential immunity

* Trump v United States

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit inheritanceofathousand.substack.com