A Crossroads of Judgment

October 5, 2025October 3, 20251 Comment

October 5, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Last week, I wrote about some of the themes in Jill Lepore’s recently published book We the People. This week I wanted to explore some examples using a type of mapping technique I used in The Intersection of Politics and Philosophy two weeks ago.A cartographer uses two axes, latitude and longitude to locate a position on the globe. A similar technique can help us understand human behavior and institutions. Again I will use the progressive and conservative ideologies on one axis as I did earlier. The other axis will be whether the constitution is alive or dead. I hope to understand some similarities and contrasts in ideology and interpretation.

First, let’s explore the conservative – progressive axis. I left out the category of liberal, an umbrella term that captures political ideologies to the left and right of center, depending on the writer or speaker. In my mind, a key characteristic of centrist liberalism is a presumption of “live and let live.” I will discuss that next week. For now, I will use conservative to describe those who are socially and economically conservative. A progressive is the opposite.

A conservative recognizes formal or informal social and economic classes in society. A progressive regard classes in society as an aberration, a fault in the ideal of an egalitarian society. A conservative believes that government institutions should make small and gradual changes to optimize society’s welfare. A progressive believes that institutions should take aggressive action to correct the economic and social problems that diminish individual welfare and the society as a whole.

Let’s pick a spot on our map, the intersection of a conservative who regards the Constitution as dead. This was the approach of Justice Antonin Scalia who died in 2016. As I wrote last week, Scalia championed a form of originalism which Jack Rakove called “public meaning originalism” (Source). In her concurring opinion in U.S. v Rahimi, Justice Barrett noted the two foundational premises of originalism. The first was “the meaning of the constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification” (Source). The second premise was that the history and tradition at the time of ratification is more authoritative than later history. The Constitution is dead. A justice’s task was to understand the public meaning of the text when the Constitution was written and ratified. Later on, I will discuss Justice Jackson’s challenge to this textual analysis.

Scalia authored the majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller (2008). In Heller, the Court held that the Second Amendment represented an individual right to carry a firearm. The amendment reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Scalia read the first half of the amendment as a prefatory clause subordinate to the main text granting individuals the right to bear arms (Source). This reading of the amendment contradicted more than 200 years of judicial interpretation, holding that the bearing of arms was defined, or circumscribed by an individual’s militia duty. Scalia ignored the several briefs written by noted historians that disagreed with his interpretation. Not only had the Courts understood the amendment that way, but states and localities had enacted many gun laws in the 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th centuries. This clearly demonstrated that the public understanding of the amendment was that the right to carry arms was not an individual right. Scalia regarded his Heller opinion as a major achievement of his time on the bench (Biskupic, 2009). With co-author Bryan Garner, Scalia (2012) wrote a book defending his reasoning against many criticisms.

Back to the map and imagine a progressive who viewed the constitution as dead. In oral arguments in a 2023 Second Amendment case U.S. v Rahimi, Supreme Court Justice Jackson questioned the methodology of the “text, history and tradition” approach (Source). We regard domestic abusers as “dangerous” and subject to disarmament regulations, she noted. Those in the founding era, writing laws for a select few property owning men, did not regard abusers as dangerous. Should justices use the current meaning of “dangerous” or the public meaning of the word when the Second Amendment was written? There are a variety of answers to that question and this helps us understand why there were so many separate opinions written by the concurring justices in the Rahimi case.

Let’s turn to a conservative and progressive stance on a live constitution. A conservative stance would be that of Justice Gorsuch in the case of Trump v United States. A federal grand jury indicted Trump for his attempts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election (Source). It was the first time that a former President had been indicted on criminal charges. Although an originalist, Gorsuch looked to the consequences of the court’s decision. In oral arguments, he said “I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.” He continued that the court was “writing a rule for the ages” (Source). This pragmatic approach is more typical of a justice like retired Justice Stephen Breyer who wrote that he gave greater consideration to the consequences of a particular judicial interpretation (Breyer, 2024, p. xvii). While Scalia largely ignored consequences in writing the Heller opinion, Gorsuch and other conservatives on the bench did consider the consequences in this case. The goal of the originalist methodology was an objective method of judicial interpretation that left policymaking to the other branches, not the judiciary. However, justices must make choices and judgment calls that affect the analysis and conclusion. Judges make policy. It comes with the job.

Lastly, a progressive is at home with a live Constitution just as Scalia was with a dead Constitution. Breyer paid attention to the text, but particular attention to the purpose of a statute Is the Constitution a contract between a government and the people it governs? A contract is an ongoing relationship of mutual responsibility between the parties to a contract. The keywords here are ongoing and mutual. The document itself, the declaration of the powers and limits of government, occurred at a particular time in history. However, it created an abiding covenant between the government and the people. The Constitution is very much alive.

Both progressives and conservatives use their interpretation of the Constitution as a compass point in their reasoning. The Constitution was ratified but the debate over its meaning was never resolved. Justice Breyer wrote that the tension between the two sides created an uneasy balance of interests and values. It is the duty of each generation to carry on that debate with words, not guns.

//////////////////

Photo by Einar Storsul on Unsplash

Biskupic, J. (2009). American original: The life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Breyer, S. G. (2024). Reading the Constitution: Why I chose pragmatism, not textualism. Simon & Schuster.

Scalia, A., & Garner, B. A. (2012). Reading law: The interpretation of legal texts. Thomson/West.

The Clamor of Many Voices

September 28, 2025September 27, 2025Leave a comment

September 28, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

This week I have been reading Jill Lepore’s recently published book We the People. She writes about our legal and legislative institutions and processes, but it is very much a book about people. What became clear to me while reading the book is that we deny others agency and rights in order to protect our own agency and interests. We defend our values and point of view in defiance of accusations of prejudice.

To keep this within a reasonable reading length, I will break this down into two parts. This week, I’ll discuss the topics in Lepore’s book. Next week, I will use some examples in Lepore’s book to explore the similarities and contrasts in political ideology and judicial interpretation.

Lepore explores the history of trying to amend the Constitution. Only a few of the more than 12,000 amendments proposed to Congress in the past 225 years have been ratified. Throughout the country’s history there have been repeated attempts to amend Article 5 of the Constitution, the article that sets the rules for an amendment’s ratification. An amendment must win two-thirds of the vote in both houses of Congress before it is sent to the states for ratification. Three-quarters of the states must ratify it before the amendment is added to the Constitution.

Leverage of power by a small minority had weakened the colonies under the Articles of Confederation and led to the drafting of the Constitution. Because of the three-fifths rule that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person, slavery gave the southern states excessive representation in Congress and in the Electoral College. Naturally, the slave states wanted to expand slavery to new territories and states to preserve and enhance those advantages. As the country expanded after the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, the framers knew that the ratification requirements set out in Article 5 were too onerous. The southern states and the newer states commanded far more legislative power despite their smaller populations. They used that power to block any amendments that threatened their advantage.

Throughout the country’s history, the amendment process has produced a lurching effect. Long periods of Constitutional inaction are followed by several amendments when there is a shift in popular sentiment and one party gains an electoral advantage strong enough to complete the obstacle path of ratification.

In the first part of the 19^th century, sixty years passed without an amendment jumping the high hurdle set by Article 5. The deaths of 600,000 soldiers in the Civil War changed that political landscape, and the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendments were passed. Another 45 years went by before the four amendments of the so-called progressive movement passed during the Wilson era. These included the 16th amendment permitting the federal government to tax income, the 17th amendment enacting the direct election of senators, the 18th amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol, and the 19th amendment, giving women the right to vote.

Lepore notes that there are two ways to amend the constitution. The first is by actual amendment and ratification. The second is through judicial interpretation. Because ratification is such an arduous process, each party tries to amend the constitution through judicial interpretation. There are two types of constitutional interpretation, statutory and contractual. A statutory approach reads the text of the Constitution as though it were a statute. A contractual approach regards the Constitution as a contract between states. Understanding the intention of the parties involved is key to deciding case law. That understanding may require the use of historical documents and other secondary sources.

Who decides how to interpret the Constitution? Jefferson and Madison favored a contractual reading, which emphasizes the mutual consent of the parties to the contract. The sanctity of contract was so important to the framers that Section 10 of Article I prohibits the states from passing any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts” (Source). Both men were advocates of the principle of nullification, that a state had a right to nullify any federal law that the state thought was unconstitutional. Hamilton and Adams preferred a statutory approach, relying solely on the text (p. 149-150. Note: any references I made with just page numbers will be to Lepore’s book).

Lepore writes, “Early Americans talked about their Constitution the way the English talked about theirs, less as a bucket of words than as a bag of principles. As Protestants, they considered any claim to an exclusive authority to interpret the meaning of scripture to be an act of religious oppression” (p. 149). A decade after the ratification of the Constitution chief Justice, John Marshall disagreed.

In the 1805 landmark case of Marbury versus Madison, Marshall established the principal that it is the Supreme Court that determines the meaning of the Constitution. Jefferson was President, and Madison was Secretary of State at the time of the decision, and neither agreed with this reasoning but Marshall’s decision scored a win for the administration so they did not protest. Under this principle, a few people, usually men, decide what the Constitution means. The formal process of amendment ratification requires thousands of people to agree.

Because it is so difficult to amend the Constitution, Congress and advocacy groups have tried to amend the constitution through judicial interpretation. The Executive and the Senate align to appoint federal judges and justices on the Supreme Court who will interpret the law in accordance with a political ideology. As early as 1801, a lame duck Federalist Congress reshaped the judiciary and Federalist President John Adams rushed to fill new positions in his last days in office (Source).

A strong disagreement with a Court’s decision has sometimes been the impetus for the passage of an amendment. The 14th amendment overrode the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision that all Negroes, slave or free, could not be American citizens (Source). The 16th amendment was passed to override the Supreme Court’s 1895 decision that a federal income tax was illegal (Source).

Let’s say that there are two broad types of judicial interpretations. One of those is that the constitution is fixed or, in Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s words, “It’s dead. Dead, dead, dead!” (p. 527). This type of interpretation tries to minimize any reliance on what the text implies, to “read between the lines.” Scalia adopted a form of originalism which Jack Rakove called “public meaning originalism” (Source). This school of originalism uses historical sources to understand the public meaning of the text of Constitution when it was written. This is essentially a statutory approach that I mentioned earlier. In the 1875 case Minor v Happersett, the Court ruled that the 14^th Amendment did not guarantee women’s suffrage. In a strict textual interpretation of the amendment, the Court decided that suffrage was not explicitly included and could not be implied in the general phrase “privileges and immunities.”

In contrast, Chief Justice Roger Taney supported his opinion in the 1857 Dred Scott decision with a school of originalism that searches for the original intent of the framers (p. 212). That school relies less on the Constitutional text itself and more on traditional practice (Maltz, 2007). Taney wrote:

When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its “people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being “citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. (Source)

The second interpretative approach is that of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who regarded the Constitution as a living document of values, principles and purposes, a contract between people and the governments who represent them (Breyer, 2024, p. xvii). The text of the Constitution points to the issues in the debate and cannot be the final word. As Jack Rakove (1996) pointed out in his book Original Meanings, there were inconsistencies in the wording of the hand-copied texts that were sent to the various states for ratification. In Breyer’s view, a judge’s task is to balance individual rights and the objectives of government policy.

Scalia and Breyer often debated in public (Breyer, p. 33). Scalia thought Breyer’s approach was ungrounded and arbitrary. Breyer thought that Scalia’s approach was too mechanical. He argued that an originalist approach did not achieve the objectiveness it aimed for. Since Scalia’s death in 2016, the Court’s conservative justices have struggled to apply an originalist interpretation in a consistent manner. They pick and choose the history that supports their opinions and reject the research and opinions of historians who come to different conclusions.

In Chapter 13, Lepore details this conflict in Second Amendment cases. After Justice Thomas invented a “text, history and tradition” test in writing the majority opinion in the Bruen decision, lower courts struggled to apply this multi-faceted analysis that combined both a textual emphasis and a historical-traditionalist approach. The confusion prompted another case, U.S. v Rahini, in which most of the conservative justices wrote separate opinions either concurring or dissenting with the majority decision (Source).

Lepore’s book is both informative and entertaining. She introduces us to long dead historical figures whose legacy affects our everyday lives and institutions. She takes us to seminal moments in history to give the reader a sense of time and place. She provides insightful analysis into the impassioned conflict between interests and principles. Next week, I will compare and contrast some of the judicial opinions and justices in Lepore’s book. Until then, baseball fans will have to content themselves with the start of an exciting playoff season!

/////////////

Photo by Rob Curran on Unsplash

Breyer, S. G. (2024). Reading the Constitution: Why I chose pragmatism, not textualism. Simon & Schuster.

Maltz, E. M. (2007). Dred Scott and the politics of slavery. University Press of Kansas.

Rakove, J. N. (1996). Original meanings: Politics and ideas in the making of the Constitution. Knopf.

The Intersection of Politics and Philosophy

September 21, 2025September 18, 2025Leave a comment

September 21, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Last November, I first introduced Abel and Cain as a narrative device to explore two sides of an issue (Substack, Innocent Investor). I hope readers have enjoyed some of the arguments, whether you agreed with them or not. I often found it difficult to adhere to the discipline of reaching for arguments and reasoning that I did not agree with. Could it be that there was a bias in my thinking? Perish the thought! The boys are going fishing for a while as I analyze opposing perspectives in a more traditional format.

In politics, we contrast progressive and conservative ideologies. In philosophy, we contrast subjective and objective viewpoints. Let’s combine these two axes of comparison and look at some intersections. What does it mean to be conservative and subjective? Someone like Adam Smith might fit that description. The free market was an emerging consensus of individuals and businesses trying to satisfy their needs. He believed that this exchange, despite its flaws, would improve the general welfare of society.

What about progressive and subjective? Progressives want to manage the agenda in schools to instill the “correct” social attitudes in children, to steer their subjective experience along a progressive ideology. In his recently published book The Progress Trap, Ben Cobley (2025) writes that schools manage their reading lists and curricula to ‘decolonize’ the subject matter students are exposed to. Books that tell a historical narrative from the viewpoint of the colonizing nations are removed from the curricula. Is this a version of Fahrenheit 451?

Conservatives act to implant their ideology in the subjective experience of the population. In 2022, Florida passed the “Florida Parental Rights in Education Act.” After amendments in 2023, the policy required the removal of books with any gay character in them from K-12 school libraries (Source). Like the progressives, conservatives want to instill the “correct” attitudes in children.

Can conservative and progressives agree on what are the “correct” attitudes? It seems unlikely. In the preface to his book, Cobley identifies one cause of the policy failures and disagreements we have. We assume “that we are right and good and can only cause good to occur in the world, while our opponents can only cause bad” (p. vii). He notes that progressives rely on social science as their authority. They see the world in a mechanistic way of cause and effect, oppressors and victims. Arnold Kling (2017) has written about the three languages of politics and echoes the same point. Conservatives rely on cultural and religious traditions as an objective authority. In Kling’s typology conservatives view the world as a struggle between civilization and barbarism.

Is there a middle ground, an alternative authority that might resolve their differences? People form groups based on an allegiance to an authority, and group allegiances are not easily changed. There are several methods to effect change, some directed toward the subjective, others employing a more objective approach.

Subjective methods use persuasion to get others to change their authority allegiance. These include essays, videos, and debates that appeal to rationale as well as emotion. A more negative type of persuasion is ridicule, often used to silence opposition rather than convert opinion. Activist groups on both the right and left organize ridicule campaigns on social media to attack unwanted behavior and opinions.

In an objective approach, interest groups win control of civil institutions to exert change by legislation or policy. The Florida law mentioned above is an example of civil force by conservative groups. On the left we see mandates of diversity, equity and inclusion training in college curriculums. Copley writes that progressives have a “comforting illusion that things will inevitably get better so long as they and their allies are in control of things” (p. vii). Conservatives have a similar illusion but a different goal, the preservation of civil and moral order.

Critical to any human society are its resources. Progressives promote policies and investments that preserve the environment. The costs, both in terms of money and convenience, are a small price to pay for the benefits of a healthy ecosystem. The resources that conservatives care about are cultural and religious. These are the glue, the connections that evolve between members of a society. If preserving the environment means the sacrifice of these community connections, then conservatives would rather preserve those connections rather than the environment.

In a large multicultural democracy like ours, groups compete to design or control those institutions which shape the subjective experience of people in society. Since children are so impressionable, school curricula can become a battleground for ideologies.

Beginning in the 19^th century, schools in states and local districts have struggled to control the religious traditions of students in their charge. A Wikipedia article has a history of the conflict over school prayer (Source). Since the 16^th century, Protestants and Catholics have quarreled over Christian text and doctrine. Today, the Catholics include the Apocrypha, early Christian writings, in their Biblical canon. Most Protestants do not. Catholic doctrine holds that God inspired the authors of the Bible. Some Protestant sects believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

Naturally, these two religious denominations brought their disputes into the schoolroom. Ending the practice of prayer in schools came not from a Christian denomination but a Jewish family disturbed that their son was forced to pray in a Christian manner. In Engel v Vitale (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that publicly funded schools must not promote any particular religion. They based their decision on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that prohibited the federal government from favoring a particular religion (Source). The Fourteenth Amendment extended those prohibitions to the state governments as well. The Legal Information Institute at Cornell University writes that it is “one of the most unpopular decisions in Supreme Court history” (Source). Numerous attempts to amend the constitution have failed to reach the required two-thirds majorities in Congress. Lastly could the current conservative court overturn that decision? In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), it allowed private prayer in public places, but it has reaffirmed that 1962 precedent prohibiting state-sponsored religious practice.

Is this the familiar battle between science and religion or between secularists and religiously affiliated? According to Pew Research, 70% of Americans are religiously affiliated and 90% of those affiliated are Christian (Source). In the battle between Christian sects for control of the classroom, Christians have lost the battle to secularists. Could the many Christian sects join together, agree on some central canon, then pass an amendment to the Constitution? Agreement over religious doctrine is a tall hurdle and amending the Constitution is particularly difficult.

In addition to persuasion, ridicule and civil regulations, governments can enforce ideologies through police force. In the former Soviet Union, the KGB suppressed unwanted thought by arrest and exile to the Gulag. In Nazi Germany, neighbors were encouraged to “rat” on their neighbors if they suspected any anti-Nazi opinion or behavior. In the three decades following World War 2, Red Guards in Maoist China punished their citizens for incorrect thinking by beatings and re-education in labor camps. Today, the citizens of North Korea are brutally tortured for expressing disloyalty to the Kim family who rules the nation.

What drives human beings to replicate their ideologies? While they may lack substance, they promote social cohesion among the followers, and endow the leaders with economic benefits. In his book The Social Conquest of Earth, E.O. Wilson (2012) described a critical aspect of human societies, their eusociality. First coined in the 1960s to describe bee colonies, Wilson expanded the term to describe the ability of human beings to build multigenerational societies and cultures. Biological organisms evolve through discrete or sporadic genetic mutations that provide an adaptive advantage. The evolution of ideologies is not discrete, but a continuous adaptation to social, cultural and political pressures.

In E. O. Wilson’s analysis, human societies evolve through the conflict between group cooperation and individual competition. Individuals struggle within each group to define the group’s shared values and outlook. As I’ve shown above, there is also individual cooperation within each group to win the competition between groups for control of a society’s institutions. The tension between the individual and the collective, the subjective experience and the objective shared environment, drives change in any human society.

////////////////////

Photo by Dimmis Vart on Unsplash

Cobley, B. (2025). The progress trap: The modern left and the false authority of history. Polity Press. Available from Amazon

Kling, A. (2017). The three languages of politics: Talking across the political divides (Rev. ed.). Cato Institute. Available from https://www.cato.org/three-languages-of-politics

Wilson, E. O. (2012). The social conquest of earth. Liveright Publishing.

A red brick and pale rose stucco wall in a basement. In the upper portion of the wall, the brick is exposed

The Walls Within Us

September 14, 2025September 12, 2025Leave a comment

September 14, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain discuss political divisions. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Abel tucked some butter between his pancakes. “I usually turned off Charlie Kirk a few minutes after listening to him, but I was shocked when I heard he had been shot. His family must be devastated.”

Cain sighed. “You know, we come up with ideas every week. It’s another thing to have the energy and guts to follow through. Kirk was like 31 when he died. He started the Turning Points USA organization when he was 18. He walked the talk.”

Abel argued, “Kirk was a professional provocateur. Whether right or left, it’s not my style. I didn’t like the way that TP went after professors and universities.”

Cain shook his head. “Look, democracy is a fight to gain control of the agenda of a country’s institutions. The liberals had a lock on the educational institutions in this country. Kirk helped expose that and bring the policy pendulum back toward center.”

Abel smirked. “The pandemic lockdowns did that. Parents finally paid attention to their kids and what they were learning. Some parents weren’t pleased. Organizations like TP used that momentum to go after education at all levels. Critical theory, a graduate level course, became a punching bag for parents angry about what their third graders were reading.”

Cain argued, “Look, advocacy organizations throw a bunch of ideas and tropes against the wall and see what sticks. Liberal or conservative, that’s how these organizations work. So don’t pick on TP for using the same tactics.”

Abel shrugged. “Ok, good point.”

Cain continued, “We criticize these public figures but it takes a lot of courage to put yourself in harm’s way in public like that. Like Kirk, Trump was standing on stage when he got shot. That guy just missed. Robert Kennedy and Malcolm X were both sitting ducks on stage. JFK was in an open car. Martin Luther King on a balcony. All vulnerable to some nut with a gun.”

Abel shrugged. “Like I said, I felt bad for his family, but I didn’t like the way he milked hate.”

Cain argued, “Come on, promoting one’s values is not ‘milking hate.’”

Abel tilted his head slightly. “I disagree. He was contentious because he wanted to arouse divisive sentiments in his audience. The audience was entertained by that vitriol. Some people like to listen to hateful talk radio. Strong emotions help people feel they’re alive.”

Cain looked over his glasses at Abel. “And liberals don’t have strong emotions?”

Abel shook his head. “So many liberal talk radio stations have failed. It’s remarkable that a progressive like Thom Hartmann has survived (Source). A 2007 study found that 91% of talk radio stations in the largest markets were conservative (Source). Why? Liberals actually want to find solutions. That may be informative but it’s not entertaining. Conservative talk radio feeds the anger monkey in people.”

Cain smiled. “Oh, like liberals don’t have an anger monkey. Come to think of it, I don’t know when I last listened to talk radio. Too many commercials. I think I’ve become less tolerant of advertising in my listening stream. I don’t miss the days when all we had to listen to was radio stations while at work.”

Abel paused in thought. “I wonder if technology will advance enough that public figures will appear as lifelike avatars on stage. Already there are hologram recreations of past performances (Source). Combine AI technology to create a live performance? The day may be coming.”

Cain replied, “Politicians are reluctant to do townhall meetings. Sure, some would like to avoid protesters but also partly because of the security concerns (Source). 9-11 was sudden. After that, security precautions affected our lives. Tight security protocols at airports and on public transportation. A before and after moment. The increased targeting of public figures may mark a more gradual trend to ‘democracy by Zoom,’ or something like that. It might just become too risky to appear in person in a public venue.”

Abel woke up his phone. “I was reading a working paper published this year by the United Nations. The authors, Patricia Justino and Melissa Samarin, identified two dimensions of public trust. One is a trust in society’s institutions and government. The other is an interpersonal trust (Source).”

Cain interrupted, “Interpersonal like with people you know? Work mates and family?”

Abel replied, “Trust in dealing with strangers. Like, how well can you trust people in your daily life? Anyhow, that level of trust affects how we comply with laws and regulations, and how we cooperate with others. They cited a World Values Survey that’s been going on since the early eighties and they say there has been a decline in trust the past two decades.”

Cain asked, “Institutional? I get that. 9-11, the financial crisis, the pandemic.”

Abel nodded. “It’s global, not just in this country. The biggest declines are in Africa and Latin America.”

Cain asked, “What about the U.S.?”

Abel replied, “The U.S., U.K. and Australia decreased slightly. In China and Vietnam, institutional trust has increased.”

Cain frowned. “I think there’s also a decrease in trust between the states, between government institutions. Texas is suing New York over the mailing of abortion pills. Reminds me of the controversy over fugitive slaves. The non-slavery northern states did not honor orders from a slave state to return a slave that had fled into a northern state. There are sanctuary cities which won’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.”

Abel sighed. “Yeah, immigration is one issue. The abortion pill thing is different, I think. The states don’t regulate the mail. The federal government does. Congress has passed laws against mailing lottery tickets into some states but hasn’t passed a law against mailing prescription medicine (Source – Title 18 U.S.C. 1301). Besides, most mail-order prescriptions get sent from a California pharmacy so that involves California even if the controversy is between New York and Texas. This is an issue for Congress unless this activist court steps in and issues yet another decision with no explanation.”

Cain said, “Back in the sixties, people in southern states used to hang Chief Justice Earl Warren in effigy. They didn’t like the court’s decisions requiring them to desegregate schools, or allow marriages between consenting adults, regardless of race.”

Abel smirked. “Rural folks did not like ‘one person, one vote,’ something we take for granted today. Apportionment in a lot of states negated any population growth in urban areas and ensured rural control of state legislatures (Source).”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, that was the Warren court too. Another 5-4 decision that affected the balance of power. I’ve been reading Rick Perlstein’s book Before the Storm. It’s about the birth and growth of the conservative movement in American during the 1950s and early 1960s. It’s like a month by month account of what was going in in America during that time, seen through the lens of political ideology and alliances.”

Abel frowned. “Did he write Nixonland? Or am I thinking about Robert Caro?”

Cain replied, “Perlstein wrote that. He also wrote on the Reagan years. Caro did the biography of Johnson.”

Abel shook his head. “It’s weird. Both Johnson and Nixon were melancholy men. Why did Americans elect melancholy candidates during the 1960s? Kennedy’s election was aspirational, uplifting. He was assassinated in 1963. The 1964 election was a memorial to Kennedy in a way. Sometimes we elect people who reflect ourselves. Other time we elect those who seem to represent something we aspire to be.”

Cain nodded. “Maybe it’s a struggle between those two forces. Kennedy worried whether he could win reelection. He campaigned in Dallas to help shore up support in that state. According to Perlstein, the south was already turning away from Democrats. Nixon’s so called ‘Southern Strategy’ really began with Goldwater’s campaign in that election. Goldwater was so popular that he filled Dodger Stadium with people who paid to see him.”

Abel looked quizzical. “I thought Johnson trounced Goldwater in that campaign.”

Cain nodded. “He did (Source). Johnson ran his own election campaign and he used every bit of Presidential power to tarnish Goldwater. But all of the deep south states went with Goldwater, a total flip from the 1960 election. It wasn’t just folks in the south who were unhappy with decisions from the Warren court. The reaction to integrated schools and busing, another Warren court decision, was strong in northern cities. Big protests in New York City against busing. In Chicago, union activists protested affirmative action policies. They were afraid they were going to lose their jobs to black workers. In the 1968 election, the industrial Midwest states flipped red (Source).”

Abel sighed. “I think this country will ever be cursed by slavery. Trump wants the Smithsonian to put away some of its slavery exhibits. A ‘stick your head in the sand’ approach to solving problems. I think a lot of people thought that by electing Obama, a bi-racial candidate, America would finally put the issue to rest.”

Cain smiled. “Yeah, like China would adopt democracy and laissez-faire capitalism after being admitted to the World Trade Organization in the early 2000s. Like the country would play by the rules of free trade and floating exchange rates. Fat chance.”

Abel replied, “I think the International Monetary Fund supervises exchange rates, not the WTO. Actors within the system get away with murder because regulation and supervision is separated among different organizations. The U.S. complained about it a lot, but these international organizations are toothless.”

Cain argued, “I think they’re constructed to have weak enforcement capabilities so that they do not threaten the sovereignty of the more powerful countries who set up these organizations in the first place. Every country complains about the anarchy that’s inherent in the international system, but no country wants to recognize any authority greater than their own.”

Abel laughed. “It’s the rule of self-interest. If a country wants help, then they are all about consensus values in the international community, blah, blah, blah.”

Cain frowned. “Back on the subject of slavery. Perlstein’s book reminded me that there have always been regional differences in this country. Madison worried about factions in general. Factions based on religion, culture, social class, economic self-interest (Source). As the country spread westward in the first half of the 19^th century, he worried about factions based on geography, particularly North and South, and the issue of slavery (Source). While slavery was no longer an issue in the 20^th century, racial prejudices run like an undercurrent through our history.”

Abel nodded. “I liked your idea a few weeks ago. Having four regions within each party. Fight faction with more faction. Formalize the regional differences in this country so that they are not just categories in some economic or political study. Let the divided interests speak and compete within each party. Otherwise, I’m worried that we are coming to blows.”

Cain stood up. “I feel bad for Kirk’s family, his wife and kids. His parents. No parent should see their child die. If I got to make one rule in the universe, that would be it.”

Abel looked up. “Like I said, I was shocked. I didn’t want to give you the impression that I lacked sympathy for his family. We’ve both been there. We know the hole that an early death leaves in our lives.”

Cain pursed his lips. “Yeah. Hey, I’ll see you next week.”

Abel said, “Here’s hoping to better news next week. See ya.”

///////////////

Photo by H&CO on Unsplash

Who Writes the Rules?

September 7, 2025September 6, 2025Leave a comment

September 7, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain discuss immigration and the limits of Presidential authority. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Abel said, “I was reading that the National Parks are so understaffed after all the DOGE cuts, there is no one at the entry stations to collect admission fees. People were stealing artifacts from one exhibit in Yellowstone (Source).”

Cain frowned. “The world will never be rid of free riders. A lot of people on the right view illegal immigrants as free riders. They skip the immigration line, bring their kids here to get free health care, free education and then they say that they don’t want handouts.”

Abel put down his fork. “My whole point was that the Trump administration is losing more money in admission fees than they are saving with these personnel cuts.”

Cain nodded. “I get that. I am drawing an analogy between unrestricted admission to National Parks and unrestricted immigration at the southern border. The Biden administration understaffed border patrol and told officers to help immigrants disobey the law. So which problem is worse? A few thousand people who don’t pay at National Parks this summer or several million people coming into the country, needing medical care, education and legal services? I think we need to keep things in perspective.”

Abel argued, “I think a key distinction of free riding is that a person is not doing anything illegal. They are benefiting from some common resource without contributing to the cost (Source). People who drive into a national park without paying a fee are not breaking the law if the gates are open and there is simply no one there to collect the money. Immigrants seeking asylum are not doing anything illegal.”

Cain replied, “Most of these people are not asylum seekers. They are lying to stay in the country until their case is heard years later. The cartels in Central American countries teach these people what to say. Smuggling people is more profitable than smuggling drugs (Source). The Biden administration was facilitating cartel profits. Trump shut that down.”

Abel smirked. “Despite all the conservative rhetoric about the ‘immigration surge,’ migration in 2023 was less than it was during any year in the Bush administration except one (Source). For most of that time, Republicans held the Presidency, the Senate and the House. So its OK to let immigrants in when Republicans are in power but not so for Democrats. The right wing media has fooled the public and Democrats were too clueless to combat it.”

Cain shrugged. “Bush increased funding for more fencing along the southern border. He called on Congress to pass immigration reform and they just can’t get the job done (Source).”

Abel said, “A big stumbling block is that employers don’t want to be held responsible for any immigration violations. Sometimes, employers hire employees through a staffing agency for seasonal or temporary work (Source). The benefit of this arrangement is that there is some legal distance between the employer and the employees. They technically work for the staffing agency who deals with the immigration stuff like the I-9 form (Source).”

Cain nodded. “The immigration raid at the Hyundai plant in Georgia this week was an example. Most of those who were arrested, it was like almost 500 people, were not employees of Hyundai. They were contractors or subcontractors (Source).”

Abel replied, “Yeah, we talked about this a week or so ago. Employers classify workers as subcontractors to avoid paying employment taxes.”

Cain shook his head. “I think a bigger problem is there are too many immigrant advocacy groups that don’t believe in national borders. Major immigration reform was like in 1986, I think. If immigration policy can’t be resolved over several decades, then there are influential constituencies who don’t want to resolve it.”

Abel laughed. “They are making money from seeking a resolution, not reaching a resolution. And politicians know how to cover their tracks. They can look like they are working on a solution while taking steps to sabotage the effort.”

Cain nodded. “Well, all I know is that these immigrants are costing a lot of money. New York City estimated a cost of $12 billion over three years (Source). Where does that money come from? Reduced services and higher taxes. The Congressional Budget Office released a report this summer estimating the three-year cost of the immigrant surge. A net cost of $9.2 billion in fed, state and local services after accounting for higher sales tax receipts from these immigrants (Source).”

Abel thought a second. “Look, I’ll grant you there are some short term costs but don’t forget the long term gains.”

Cain interrupted, “Any long term gains are offset by higher house prices. Immigrants increase demand for housing. House prices go up. Econ101.”

Abel shrugged. “It’s hard to argue that immigrants are responsible for higher home prices. Another false flag that conservatives raise is that immigrants were taking jobs from Americans. That didn’t happen. By the end of 2021, less than a year into Biden’s presidency, construction employment recovered to its pre-pandemic level. By the time he left office, construction jobs were up more than 600,000 (Source). So that surge had little measurable effect on construction jobs.”

Cain argued, “Conservative economists like Oren Cass argue that illegal immigrants drive down the wages of lower skilled construction employees (Source). The number of employees won’t tell you that.”

Abel checked his phone. “Well, it does show that demand for labor remained strong. Hold on, I looked at wages too. Here it is. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks the hourly wages of production and non-supervisory employees. That will give us a good approximate picture of any impact on wages. There was a short time in 2022 when real wages for those employees declined (Source). That was during the inflation surge. It quickly recovered. If there is any effect, it was small. The data just doesn’t support conservatives’ claims about the effect of immigration.”

Cain protested, “Look, the bottom line is that most of these people are lying and jumping the immigration line. The cartels are using people as a distraction from the transport of drugs and guns across the border and taxpayers are indirectly funding the cartels.”

Abel asked, “Do you agree with Trump that he can go after these cartels as though they were terrorists or paramilitary groups? This week, we just blew up a ship in the Caribbean that was supposedly run by the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.”

Cain shrugged. “Hey, I’m not a lawyer but I agree that these cartels act like paramilitary groups. We should treat them as such.”

Abel asked, “No trials? No evidence? No oversight? What if Trump adopts the same policy as Duterte, the former president of the Philippines (Source). Trump could start sending hit squads into American cities to kill drug dealers. Is that OK? Where is the line?”

Cain shook his head. “No, that’s on American soil. That’s entirely different.”

Abel asked, “So a Border Patrol officer could just shoot someone on the Mexico side of the border if he suspected that person of being a cartel member? Like I said, where is the line?”

Cain nodded. “Ok, now you’re sounding like a lawyer. The boat they blew up was in international waters. That’s entirely different.”

Abel sighed. “I don’t know why conservatives hesitate to define boundaries for this President. He pardoned the January 6^th rioters that tried to kill members of Congress, including the Vice President. What does this Republican Congress say? Silence. Edmund Burke, the 19^th century founder of conservatism, would be ashamed of this Republican Congress. Society is bound together by morals, conventions and institutions as much as laws (Source). This Republican Congress has abandoned those standards for political expediency.”

Cain nodded. “Fear for their personal and political safety, I’d guess. What’s happening is that the MAGA crowd is trying to overturn policies set largely by Democrats when they controlled the House during the twelve years of FDR’s presidency and for forty straight years from 1955 to 1995 (Source). Immigration is a big one. What are the limits of Presidential Authority and can he declare emergencies without consulting Congress? Another contentious issue. Who was the first President to grab extraordinary power after declaring an emergency? FDR, a Democrat (Source). It’s ironic that Trump is using the same mechanisms to undo Democratic policies that began with FDR.”

Abel frowned. “The court ruled against FDR in the Humphrey’s Executor decision. They ruled unanimously President cannot fire members of an independent agency at will (Source). The court has recently loosened that restriction (Source) and Trump wants to fire Powell, the Fed chairman. The question I have is whether a President can undo 80 years of Congressional policy? Who writes the rules, Congress or the President? This court seems like they are ready to confer kingship on the President under this judicial theory of the Unitary Executive. I mean, even if Congress does pass immigration reform, what does it matter if a President can ignore the law?”

Cain argued, “Well, nobody said the President can ignore the law.”

Abel replied, “The court has deferred to the President’s interpretation of the law (Source) and Trump has shown a willful disregard for Congress and the law in general. I mean we all saw him on the debate stage in the 2016 campaign. He has an open disdain for politicians and both parties as institutions. I mean, this guy is not a conservative.”

Cain sighed. “I’ll grant you he has undermined conservative principles and taken over the Republican Party.”

Abel smirked. “And these supposed Christians who support him. Compassion is a hallmark of the New Testament in the Bible. There are too many Christians who lack compassion for anyone outside their group. Immigrants, blacks, liberals, mainstream Republicans even.”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “Their sympathies remind me of Christians during the Crusader era. Lots of fire and retribution. Protect Christendom from the infidels. That type of thing.”

Abel laughed. “Everyone who doesn’t agree with them is an infidel, I guess. There has to be a way to bring all these political groups together in this country or this nation is going down in fifty to a hundred years.”

Cain asked, “Going down or splitting up? We’ve got oceans on both sides, a tremendous amount of resources and weak neighbors to the north and south. I doubt if we are going down.”

Abel smiled as he stood up. “Ok, splitting up. We’re already split along partisan lines. People in one party don’t trust those in the other party. I think that trend will continue. Trump is just precipitating the break up of the country.”

Cain leaned forward. “A few weeks ago, we talked about each party electing candidates from regional partitions with the party. For decades, voters are sorting themselves out by region. Democrats on the Northeast and West coast. Republicans in the Midwest and South (Source). It may be the only way to keep this country together.”

Abel nodded as he moved his chair back and stood. “You may be right. Madison wrote in Federalist 10, I think it was, that the best way to curb the power of factions was to pit them against each other (Source). A ‘fight fire with fire’ approach. That’s why I think the Unitary Executive theory is not in the spirit of the Constitution.”

Cain asked, “Maybe we could talk about that next week. You heading out?”

Abel nodded. “I promised Claire I’d help her move some furniture around this afternoon.”

Cain laughed. “You don’t sound too excited. I’ll see you next week.”

//////////////////

Photo by Seongil Park on Unsplash

Note: Real wages. Average hourly wages are FRED series CES2000000008. The Fed’s favorite inflation gauge is PCEPI series. Subtract the annual percent change of one from the other to get the percent change in real wages.

A Clearer Vision?

August 31, 2025August 29, 2025Leave a comment

August 31, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain discuss several political theories as they try to make sense of current events. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Abel said, “I was reading this week that there are now more GenXers than Boomers in the House. The Boomers still control the Senate by a good margin, though (Source).”

Cain poured a bit of syrup on his French toast. “Next year, the first Boomers are going to turn 80. I mean, don’t they have anything else to do? Are they all going to die in their seats like Diane Feinstein?”

Abel shrugged. “I think they get into politics because they want to make a difference and they get addicted to that sense of importance. The office comes to define them. They can’t let go.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, I can understand that, but why do voters keep putting them back in office? Feinstein served about thirty years. Most states have term limits for governors (Source). We have term limits for the President, but none for the House and Senate? Come on, we need a better system.”

Abel replied, “Congress rewards seniority. The oldest members get key assignments. They chair legislative committees that control what legislation gets to the floor of either chamber. Let’s say someone challenges a sitting Senator who chairs the committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Right now, that’s Mike Lee from Utah, a Republican. Through him Utah voters can steer policy. If the challenger wins, he doesn’t get to chair the committee. Utah voters lose that power. Why would they want that?”

Cain stabbed at his French toast. “The problem with that system is that it allows special interests to ‘capture’ a Senator or House member. What do they call it? An Iron Triangle. Special interests, key committee members and some executive agency all work together to steer policy to the benefit of the special interests (Source). For example, ranchers band together as a group to lobby for below market grazing fees for their cattle.”

Abel smirked. “What are you going to do? Stop people from being people? Sure, Senators and House members are supposed to represent a broad constituency but there are a lot of interests within that constituency. Interest groups have to compete with each other for representation. That’s just politics.”

Cain replied, “There’s a guy called David Pinsof who developed what he calls Alliance Theory. Political beliefs are not based on principles or moral maxims but are simply arguments that a coalition uses to cement alliances. His theory helps explain a lot of contradictions.”

Abel asked, “Like what?”

Cain looked up at the ceiling as he searched his memory. “Conservatives say they respect authority but they can disregard authority if they think a regulation is unfair (Source). They champion the free market but actively lobby for subsidies.”

Abel laughed. “Subsidies are in the best interest of their stockholders. Regulations are not.”

Cain smiled. “Exactly. Another example Pinsof gave was a distrust of foreigners but conservatives should trust Putin when he said that he did not interfere in the 2016 election.”

Abel laughed, asking, “Any contradictions on the liberal side?”

Cain thought a second. “Oh, yeah, here’s one. CEOs should not make so much more than their workers but it’s OK for stars in Hollywood to make way more than most working actors. What else? Liberals criticize those who stereotype Mexican immigrants as criminals but hold onto the stereotype that a lot of voters in southern states are racist.”

Abel nodded. “Like I said, it’s what people do. So what’s Pinsof’s theory?”

Cain replied, “Don’t waste time trying to find inconsistencies in political arguments. It’s just spin. The opposition points out those inconsistencies as a way of signaling to their own coalition. No one expects that the other side will change their mind when someone points out a contradiction in their argument.”

Abel frowned. “Trump instinctively knows that its all about alliances. That’s why he will say anything, do anything. He asks, ‘does it strengthen my alliances and weaken those on the other side of the political aisle?’ It’s just so, so…”

Cain asked, “Nihilistic? Is that the word you looking for? Cynical, transactional?”

Abel replied, “Yeah, nihilistic, unanchored to any moral principles.”

Cain nodded. “It’s the morality of me, me, me. I think Pinsof borrows some elements from Skepticism as well as Pragmatism, a philosophy that understands ideas by looking at the effect of those ideas in the world (Source).”

Abel interrupted, “Reminds me of Milton Friedman’s paper saying that an economic model was valid if it made good predictions, not whether it was realistic or consistent (Source).”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “Talking about economics, Trump said that he had fired Lisa Cook, one of the Fed governors.”

Abel frowned. “Yeah, he’s attacking the independence of the central bank. When I read that, I thought, ‘How much has the stock market gone down on that news?’ I glanced at the SP500 index. Nothing. No reaction. What the heck?”

Cain shook his head. “Hard to figure. Traders are betting that there will be a standoff. Trump is pushing. Cook and her lawyer are pushing back.”

Abel asked, “Yeah, but I read that she is off the job for now. The Fed meets again in mid-September to decide interest rates. Has Powell said anything about Cook’s firing?”

Cain replied, “I don’t think so. Anyone that Trump wants to put in her place will need to be approved by the Senate.”

Abel asked, “Has the Supreme Court said anything?”

Cain said, “Cook’s lawyers would need to file something with a district court. If the judge rules against Trump, the lawyers with the Department of Justice would need to file an emergency application with the Supreme Court asking for immediate relief. It’s called the Shadow Docket (Source).”

Abel shook his head. “I think of Trump in control of interest rates. Tariffs are already driving up prices. He said he wants interest rates to be like three percent less. Such a huge drop in rates would increase inflation, a tax on everyone. This guy’s got more ways to tax ordinary people while giving the rich big tax breaks.”

Cain sighed. “Well, the key interest rate, it’s called the Federal Funds Effective Rate, is set by a committee called the FOMC. They have 12 members. There are seven Fed governors, the president of the New York Fed bank, and a rotating panel of four presidents from the regional Fed banks. Even if the Supreme Court said that Trump could fire one of the Fed governors, he can’t fire any of the presidents of the regional banks because they are employees of their banks, not the Federal government (Source).”

Abel asked, “So let’s say Trump gets five governors to do his bidding. You’re saying there are still seven governors who could vote against policies Trump wants.”

Cain nodded. “One of those governors is the Chair, Jerome Powell. Earlier this year, the Court indicated that Trump could not fire the Chair (Source).”

Abel frowned. “Trump pushes boundaries. That’s his brand.”

Cain shook his head. “Trump wants what he wants. He doesn’t recognize the validity of boundaries. That’s his brand.”

Abel sighed. “He is going to provoke a final crisis. I was re-reading Generations by William Strauss and Neil Howe. They wrote that book back in 1991 and predicted a major crisis during this decade.”

Cain squinted. “Didn’t we talk about this a few weeks ago?”

Abel nodded. “Oh yeah. I think I was talking about their second book, The Fourth Turning. This first book goes into the history of the generational cycle. They trace the pattern in America starting in the 17^th century.”

Cain interrupted, “I’m skeptical about these grand cyclic theories. There are some stock traders who claim that the stock market works on Fibonacci cycles (Source).”

Abel argued, “Like Friedman said, does the theory make good predictions? If not, it’s not a good theory. Strauss and Howe predicted an inciting event sometime around 2005 that starts this two decade period called the fourth turning. It shakes the foundations of society before a final breaking point.”

Cain asked, “So, 9-11 or the financial crisis might have been those events? I don’t know. Seems like that would be fitting history to the theory.”

Abel replied, “Let me finish. Strauss and Howe thought the breaking point would come this decade. The last three turning points have been the Great Depression, the Civil War and the founding of the United States.”

Cain replied, “Ok, maybe it’s not just fitting data to a theory. A few weeks ago, we talked about legal turning points. I think I mentioned Richard Epstein’s book The Classical Liberal Constitution. He wrote about those turning points in Constitutional interpretation, or jurisprudence, I guess you could call it. Under the Fourteenth Amendment the Bill of Rights protections now applied to the states as well as the federal government.”

Abel interrupted, “Fat good it did down in the south. Jim Crow laws persecuted blacks.”

Cain sighed. “Yeah, these Constitutional protections don’t enforce themselves.”

Abel argued, “It was a failure of the Supreme Court, I think.”

Cain nodded. “Anyway, then there as a turning point Supreme Court decision in 1937 that set a precedent for big government. Helvering v. Davis upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act under the General Welfare clause of the Constitution (Source). A major expansion of the power and scope of the federal government.”

Abel said, “FDR was threatening to ‘pack’ the court. Increase the number of justices and put his own people in there.”

Cain agreed. “Yeah, FDR was a strongman, just like Trump. Unlike Trump, FDR had a clear electoral mandate from the 1936 election. He whupped the Republican candidate, taking all but a few votes in the electoral college (Source). He had a supermajority in the Senate so he would have been able to get his nominees for the court confirmed (Source).”

Abel asked, “Wasn’t the court all FDR nominees by the time he died?”

Cain nodded. “Yeah. No one should have that much power.”

Abel interrupted, “Trump is trying to expand his personal power under some Unitary Executive theory. The scary part is that some of the conservatives on the court support that theory (Source).”

Cain shook his head. “Hey, I’m all about checks and balances. This administration is all about consolidating power and I’m against that. In 1945, F.A. Hayek wrote a landmark essay The Use of Knowledge in Society that explained why central planning would fail. Those in control cannot get or process enough information to make successful decisions (Source).”

Abel smirked. “DOGE is a great example of that. Even with sophisticated computers and data tools, they made a mess of things.”

Cain sighed. “The question is how much damage will Trump do. So, why do these turning points come every eighty years or so? Something to do with the human life span?”

Abel replied, “Strauss and Howe separate out four generations within that life span. Each has different characteristics as they move through their life cycle from youth, to rising adult, to middle age and then the final stage as elders. It’s the combination, the sequence of generations that causes the turning point, I think is what they say. There is an idealist generation that precipitates the crisis. This generation has a historical impact late in life.”

Cain shook his head. “What are some examples? It’s hard to follow.”

Abel nodded. “Lincoln, FDR, and Trump were all part of an idealist generation. Strauss and Howe identify several tendencies within each generation. Idealists think their principles are transcendent and they have unyielding opinions (page 11).”

Cain looked skeptical. “I don’t think of Trump as an idealist.”

Abel argued, “Well, he’s been saying the same crazy things for decades about criminals and immigrants.”

Cain interrupted, “Unyielding opinions? The guy changes his mind from day to day. He exaggerates most of the time and doesn’t care. And yes, don’t say it. I voted for him. It wasn’t my idea to have two old-timers run against each other in the 2020 election or the 2024 election. That’s why I want to change the system. The bosses in both parties are hurting the American people.”

Abel nodded. “Yeah, I agree. Most voters get herded into one of two corrals when they would prefer more alternatives. The whole election process is designed to suit the party bosses and the fundraising effort. It’s not about empowering voters.”

Cain laid his napkin on the table and stood up. “We said earlier that no law enforces itself. Principles of governance don’t just happen. The question is how does a system change without a civil war or an absolute economic catastrophe like the 1930s? It’s not a question I like to think too much about.”

Abel looked up. “See you next week.”

Cain turned. “Till then.”

//////////////////

Photo by Josh Calabrese on Unsplash

A New Set of Rules

August 24, 2025August 23, 2025Leave a comment

August 24, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain explore new election rules for electing representatives in the House. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Cain opened the conversation. “Did you hear that the Air Canada flight attendants ended their strike?”

Abel shook his head and he unfolded his napkin. “Didn’t know they were on strike. What for?”

Cain replied, “They wanted to be paid for boarding time.”

Abel frowned. “What, they’re not paid until they step on the airplane?”

Cain laughed. “Not them boarding. The passengers.”

Abel tilted his head slightly. “They’re standing there welcoming passengers as they walk on the plane. They’re not paid for that?”

Cain shook his head. “Apparently not. It’s been an ongoing practice for decades. Airlines did not pay flight attendants until the airplane’s doors were closed. A few years back, Delta was the first to pay for boarding time, then American Airlines and Alaska Airlines started similar policies (Source).”

Abel looked incredulous. “How can it be legal to not pay employees when a company requires them to be there?”

Cain sighed. “It’s not. A company I knew got busted for requiring some employees to be at a construction site to unload deliveries but not paying them until the truck showed up and pulled up to the building ready to unload. On a busy site, a delivery truck might have to wait in line.”

Abel asked, “And the employees just stood there waiting and not getting paid?”

Cain nodded. “A state auditor told me he regularly visited companies who shaved time off an employee’s paycheck like that. It’s illegal. The Department of Labor makes two key distinctions based on a 1944 Supreme Court case (Source). There’s a category called ‘engaged to work’ where the employee is under the control of the employer. ”

Abel interrupted, “Flight attendants waiting on a plane while passengers board means they are under the control of the airline, the employer.”

Cain laughed. “Obviously. There’s also the category of ‘waiting to be engaged.’ That’s where the employee is free to do whatever they want.”

Abel smirked. “Let me guess. Airlines have insisted that the flight doesn’t start until the plane’s door is closed. The airlines have paid flight attendants as though the attendants have been waiting to be engaged.”

Cain sighed. “Probably. These past few weeks, we have been talking about changes to election rules. I thought this story was a good example of how often people and companies don’t play by the rules. In a lot of cases, it’s more cost effective to bend the rules, then have your lawyers negotiate a settlement with a regulating agency. We need a new set of rules that encourage people to follow the rules.”

Abel nodded. “Don’t ask permission. A rule we learned as kids.”

Cain continued, “So let’s say all fifty states change their laws to give voters more representation. How likely is that the major political parties will play by the rules? Not likely.”

Abel finished chewing. “Texas is redrawing their districts in mid-decade to get five more seats in the House. Now California is planning to do the same. It’s a race to the bottom that does not represent the will of the people.”

Cain said, “We were talking about that last week. Drawing congressional districts in a straightforward manner. There’s an economics professor at Harvard, Roland Fryer, who suggested making districts as compact as possible while making allowance for county borders (Source). In 2011, he developed an index that measures how much a state’s districts are gerrymandered (Source). A score of 1 is like a benchmark that means that the state has totally compact districts.”

Abel asked, “What does that mean?”

Cain glanced at this phone. “The boundaries of the district have not been tortured to create an advantage for one party. Here’s Fryer: compactness … measures how much voters’ choices can move the scoreboard.’”

Abel nodded. “Like voters actually make a difference.”

Cain replied, “Yeah, parties are spending a lot of money so they want predictable outcomes. They want to minimize competitive races so they redraw district boundaries to move voters around like they are poker chips. A score of three suggests that the districts have been extremely gerrymandered. There are some states with high scores like Tennessee, Texas, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Fryer has a number of state maps so you can see the difference between an ideal and the actual districting in a state (Source).”

Abel sighed. “Trump says he wants to get rid of mail-in ballots. Claims there is massive fraud. No evidence of that, of course. A few isolated cases but not enough to matter. I love the convenience of mail-in voting.”

Cain shook his head. “Yeah, he’s blowing smoke. For Republicans, the problem is that mail-in ballots make it easier to vote in densely populated areas. In less than a decade, the number of polling places has fallen by more than 50% (Source). There are far fewer places to vote in urban areas and minority neighborhoods, where people usually vote Democratic. Georgia closed ten polling places in districts with large black populations (Source). Why? Most black voters pull the lever for Democrats. It’s a game of power.”

Abel sighed. “Reminds me of Garret Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons. The dominant party in each state has an incentive to gerrymander and to make it more difficult for the other side to gain power. What makes sense to each individual state, though, is bad for what we have in common. It’s eroding the public trust in our political process. If the political process is just a game played by party bosses, that only creates more cynicism and alienation.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, that’s what I want to reverse. But the fact is that voting is like war. A vote for A is a vote against B. Voters on one side are firing bullets at voters on the other side.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “Boy, that’s a bleak analogy. Not exactly the rah-rah democracy we learned in school.”

Cain shrugged. “It’s the reality of the voting process. As General Patton said, winning a war is getting the soldiers on the other side to give up their lives for their country (Source).”

Abel smirked. “Voters are not killing each other.”

Cain laughed. “Voters aren’t, but their votes are. It’s a war of attrition. My vote cancels out your vote. That type of thing. We have a winner-take-all system in this country. Voting is about winning, not representation. Just like war. I want to change that. That guy Fryer said that we should have almost 600 House seats to keep up the growth in population over the past century.”

Abel asked, “Yeah, when were the number of House seats capped at 435? I don’t remember that in the Constitution.”

Cain shook his head. “It’s not there in the Constitution. There’s a minimum of 30,000 voters for a representative but there’s no maximum. Congress couldn’t agree on reapportionment after the 1920 census, then capped the number of House seats in 1929 (Source). Today each House seat represents like 750,000 people. There’s 174 million registered voters so that’s about 400,000 voters per House district (Source).”

Abel asked, “What about Great Britain? How many voters does a seat in the House of Commons represent?”

Cain fished in his shirt pocket and withdrew a small piece of paper. “Yeah, get this. The U.K. has less than a third of registered voters, like 48 million. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons, England’s equivalent to our House (Source). That’s about 75,000 voters per seat, less than a fifth of the constituency size in the U.S. Canada has a little over 80,000 per seat. We need a new set of rules. Voters in this country get poor representation because there are too many people per House seat. If there were 600 House seats, that would lower each constituency to about 300,000 voters. It’s better, but not great.”

Abel said, “Voters would get better representation if we had proportional representation. Make the districts bigger and have multi-member districts where several House members represent the district in proportion to the number of votes they receive. This past January, the New York Times had an article comparing what the House would look like under both a single member system like we have now and a multi-member system (Source). Under a proportional representation system, the House would look at lot more like the voters and their political preferences.”

Cain grunted. “Well, you’d have to overturn a 1970s law that made single member districts mandatory for House elections. For the past thirty years, various members have introduced bills to allow multi-member voting. They’ve gone nowhere (Source).”

Abel argued, “Hey, it’s not an amendment to the Constitution. It’s doable.”

Cain asked, “And you’d need a Constitutional Amendment to change that 30,000 minimum. I mean, what if a Libertarian candidate gets a percentage of the vote that represents only 20,000 people? The Constitution says that person cannot be seated, I think. Heck, I’m not a Constitutional scholar.”

Abel shook his head. “Those votes could be apportioned according to the votes the other candidates received. The states could implement that on their own.”

Cain frowned. “Ok, like ranked choice voting does. I like that but, again, the problem is that all the states would need to implement that strategy.”

Abel sighed. “Yeah, that’s a problem. But let’s look at a purple state like Colorado, which has eight House seats split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. The cities along the Front Range vote Democratic but that vote is split among conservative Democrats, what used to be called Blue Dog Democrats, and then there’s liberals, socialists, communists, whatever. A Liberal Party or Socialist Party candidate cannot win a seat under our current system. That stifles the growth of alternative parties that voters might identify with.”

Cain laughed. “That may be a good thing. There are die-hard Communists on the left and staunch John Birchers on the right.”

Abel pushed back his seat and stood. “Yeah, but there’s the 30,000 minimum population rule in the Constitution. A John Birch candidate that represents less than that would have their votes spread around to the other candidates. The system would encourage alternative parties but not fringe parties.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, I like that. I think both of us are aiming for a multi-party system. Even if two parties dominate, other parties have a voice in governance. Australia, Canada, France and Germany have such systems. We fought a war against the British over representation. The system we have now is disempowering voters, making them less engaged.”

Abel laughed as he turned to leave. “Hey, we agree on something. A date that will go down in history.”

Cain smiled. “See you next week.”

///////////////

Image by ChatGPT

A Balance of Power

August 17, 2025August 14, 2025Leave a comment

August 17, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain continue to explore a different way to elect a president. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

After the waitress left with their order, Abel asked, “Remember that idea we were talking about last week? A new way of electing presidents.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, by congressional district. No popular vote, I think I suggested.”

Abel continued, “This week I compared a winner take all state and one that allots its electors by Congressional district.”

Cain showed interest. “Really. It’s something I’ve been meaning to do. Family stuff has kept me busy. So what did you come up with?”

Abel said, “Well, Nebraska votes by district. They call it the Congressional District Method, which they adopted in 1994 (Source). Each congressional elector is required to vote for the presidential candidate who received the most votes in their district. At-large electors representing the senators vote for the candidate that receives the most votes in the state (Source, page 46, 47).”

Cain frowned. “I was looking to eliminate the popular vote for president entirely. If a Republican House Member is elected, then that vote goes to the Republican presidential candidate. If a Republican Senator is elected …”

Abel interrupted, “Senators are elected every six years. A Senator might not be up for election in that year. What do you do then?”

Cain laughed. “Drop back five and punt. I forgot about that. The class system ensures that there is always one senator from each state up for election every four years, but not both senators (Source).”

Abel stared out the window for a moment as their food arrived. “What if that at-large elector voted according to the majority vote of the districts in the state? Like, if Colorado has eight districts and there was a tie, then the senator who was not up for election would become the tie breaker.”

Cain nodded. “I like that. It’s the same role that the Vice-President plays in the Senate, so it’s in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Even better would be a system where the party of the senator who was elected that year determined a tie vote. It would get a lot more voters out to the polls, I think. ”

Abel finished chewing, then asked, “Is that your intent? Get people more engaged in voting?”

Cain replied, “There were two things I was trying to accomplish with this idea. A balance of power between political parties and the people they are supposed to represent. Under the current system, the electoral count distorts the will of the people. For instance, we have a closely divided House, indicating that the will of the people is fairly split. But the electoral count in the 2024 election was 312 to 226 (Source). Sounds like a mandate, doesn’t it? Trump claimed it was a mandate. The guy is a blowhard, but he is not the first presidential winner to claim a mandate based on the electoral count.”

Abel asked, “Are you hoping to restrain politicians? Trump could win by a few electoral votes and he would still claim a mandate. He reports his fantasies about what should be, not any objective reality. He claimed DOGE found $52 billion in savings. An analysis by Politico found that the savings were less than $2 billion (Source).”

Cain shook his head. “I don’t know how much of what Trump says is dementia and how much is braggadocio.”

Abel interrupted. “He opens his mouth and blows thought bubbles like we did as kids with bubble soap and a wand.”

Cain smiled at the thought. “Anyway, the second point of my idea was to give voters more of a sense that they had a voice, give them a greater sense of engagement. Like I said last week, too many voters feel disenfranchised in this winner-take-all system and don’t bother to vote.”

Abel nodded. “That’s what I liked about Nebraska. It’s a red state, but the voters in Omaha vote Democratic and their electoral vote is recorded as such because Nebraska splits its vote.”

Cain frowned. “The Nebraska legislature is talking about ending that system before the next presidential election. Party leaders care only about power, not the will of the people. It’s like Machiavelli said 500 years ago. The majority always wants to persecute the minority. This country was supposed to be different.”

Abel sighed. “The problem is that the U.S. Constitution was written without a thought to political parties. In the House and Senate, party leaders marginalize their rank and file members. Most of them act like ducklings following their mother.”

Cain laughed. “Ducklings? No, they are soldiers following their generals into legislative battle to protect the principles of the American people.”

Abel joined in the laugh. “Get out the flag. Play some patriotic music. Ok, so Kansas is also a red state but they have a winner-take-all system like most states. In 2024, there were only three counties that voted Democrat (Source). Each of those three counties are in different congressional districts and the Democratic vote would not be enough to carry a majority in the district (Source). So, in Kansas, their four district specific electors would have still gone to Republicans.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, but Colorado has eight districts and four districts elected Republican House members. Colorado has winner take all, so those eight electors were pledged to Harris. Why? Because Harris got 54% of the vote in the state (Source). In Kansas, my proposed system would not affect the results. In Colorado, it would have a big effect. Four electors for Trump, four for Harris. Using your idea about the tie breaker, two at-large electoral votes representing the senate seats would have gone to Harris. In the end, Trump would have gotten four votes, Harris six. The point is that the electoral count would reflect the will of the people, not this prejudicial system we have now.”

Abel argued, “Ok, take Colorado. They have already changed their laws to go in the opposite direction. In 2020, they voted to join the National Popular Vote Movement (Source). In other words, Colorado would cast its electoral votes according to the popular vote in the entire country (Source).”

Cain replied, “I think they are going in the wrong direction but that movement shows how much people don’t like the winner-take-all system.”

Abel smirked. “Well, according to Gallup, 58% of people favor a popular vote over the Electoral College (Source). Democrats favor the popular vote. Republicans the Electoral College system.”

Cain asked, “But how many like the winner-take-all system? A bunch of legal scholars wrote a brief presenting a legal challenge to the constitutionality of a winner take all system under the 12th Amendment (Source). Contrary to the spirit of the Twelfth, winner take all disrespects and disregards the will of the people. They noted that, in the 2016 election, almost all of the campaign events occurred in 12 key battleground states. In the 2012 election, almost 100% of TV ads were in a small number of states.”

Abel argued, “And those battleground states want to keep it like that. Lots of advertising revenue every presidential cycle.”

Cain sighed. “Yeah, that too. Anyway, the text of the Twelfth states that the electors should “transmit” the votes of the people (page 24). A winner-take-all system does not do that. The authors made a good case in questioning the constitutionality of these systems.”

Abel argued, “Your idea would eliminate the vote for president and award the vote to the Presidential candidate of that party that won the vote in each congressional district. What if a member of the Communist party won a district and there was no presidential candidate from that party?

Cain replied, “Then the vote would go to the candidate who won the most districts in the state. As we discussed before, ties would be broken as we discussed before.”

Abel sighed. “There’s still a coordination problem. All fifty states would have to change their election laws. Democrats in Colorado wouldn’t want to give up four electors unless the other states enacted a similar scheme.”

Cain frowned. “An amendment to the Constitution is a high bar. We’re back to what we just talked about, a violation of the 12^th Amendment. Also, what about the 14^th Amendment? I think I brought up that possibility last week.”

Abel said, “A few weeks ago, I had suggested that each party could choose a candidate from each of four regions, then choose a candidate at their nominating convention. I found that there is also a scheme with eight regions (Source). I liked that one. They split the western region into Pacific and Mountain states, which makes more sense.”

Cain nodded as he laid his napkin on the table. “The reason I liked the scheme with four regions is that the electoral votes were more evenly split. Each region had about 130 votes or so. How evenly are votes using the eight region scheme?”

Abel sighed. “Good point. New England, the Great Plains and the Mountain states have far less representation than the other five regions.”

Cain stood up. “The whole idea of the Constitution was a balance of power among political institutions and between those institutions and the will of the people. I think any reforms should incorporate that principle. I like the way we put our heads together on this idea. I got to run and meet my daughter.”

Abel nodded. “Hey, good talk. I’ll see you next week.”

/////////////////////

Image by ChatGPT

A Way Forward

August 10, 2025August 9, 2025Leave a comment

August 10, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain try to separate facts from evidence and restore trust among the American people. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Abel laid his napkin on his lap. “A recent survey by Pew Research found that 80% of people thought that voters in both political parties can’t agree on basic facts (Source). No wonder there is so much distrust in this country. It got me to wondering what is the distinction between facts and evidence?”

Cain stirred his coffee. “Good question. We often treat the two words as synonyms. Evidence supports facts. I think of a fact as something that is verified by evidence.”

Abel interrupted, “Yeah, but eyewitness testimony is evidence and that is often unreliable (Source).”

Cain smiled. “The witness, though, regards their testimony as fact. Raises the question, if evidence is not reliable, how truthful are facts? If I am inclined to accept something as fact, I don’t need much evidence. If I am skeptical, then no amount of evidence is enough to convince me of a fact.”

Abel looked at his phone. “On that point, here’s Dirk Nies, a director of a research institute in Virginia who wrote into the British Medical Journal a few years back. He made an interesting distinction between facts and evidence. He said, ‘Facts have no purpose or agenda associated with them. Evidence always does.’ And further on he says that we select evidence as a subset of available facts (Source).”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “But politics is all about agenda. If you use that distinction, then there are few facts. Everything is just evidence.”

Abel argued, “Well, not really. ‘Donald Trump is president right now.’ That’s a fact with no agenda. It’s just a statement. ‘It’s hotter than average this summer.’ Another fact.”

Cain nodded. “Right, but if I use the fact that it’s hotter than normal to support a claim that climate change is real, then that fact is evidence to support my claim. The distinction between facts and evidence is not so clear. No wonder we use those two words interchangeably.”

Abel sighed. “The worst fear I have is another civil war.”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “You’re that worried? I guess it wouldn’t be unusual. Then whoever wins the war writes the history (Source).”

Abel said, “If I present a piece of evidence to support my claim, you might disregard it. Let’s say I claim that Trump is making inflation worse, the exact opposite of what he campaigned on. For instance, the average price of eggs was $2.60 in the first half of last year. I picked up a dozen brown eggs this week and it was $5.29. Those are facts.”

Cain shook his head. “Is last year’s average price a fact or evidence? How were those prices gathered? Lawyers try to discredit evidence or witnesses that hurts their client’s case. A Trump supporter might question the data.”

Abel interrupted, “Like tobacco companies who tried every trick in the book to discredit research showing smoking was dangerous.”

Cain nodded. “Good point. A tobacco company is trying to protect its profits. What is a political partisan trying to protect? Their beliefs, preference and opinions. That can lead people to question anything that challenges those beliefs. So, who figured up last year’s average price of eggs? Was their methodology valid? Was there some political agenda?”

Abel sighed. “It was the BLS, the same agency that produced the employment figures that Trump didn’t like so he fired the head of the agency. An agency, I might add, that Republicans have praised for its objectivity and methodology until a week ago when Trump didn’t like their figures.”

Cain shrugged. “Look, I agree with you. I’m just saying that we all become lawyers when we get into political discussions with people who don’t agree with us. We try to filter out or discredit evidence that attacks our beliefs and opinions. They are like our clients or children. We are protecting them from attack.”

Abel laughed. “So how do we manage to have these discussions? We keep it reasonable, I think.”

Cain smiled. “We’ve known each other a long time. We agree to disagree. I was listening to the Hasan Minhaj podcast a few weeks ago and he was having a conversation with Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Source). He asked Neil, ‘Is the glass half empty or half full?’ Neil answered that if you are filling up the glass, then it is half full. If you are emptying the glass, it’s half empty.”

Abel asked, “Yeah, but what if an observer comes along on a glass that has water up to the halfway mark? There is no one else around. Half empty or half full?”

Cain smiled. “Good point. Neil assumed that we know the process, but we don’t. If Democrats are in power, Democrats see the glass as half full because they think they are filling the glass. Republicans, however, see the Democrats as making things less so they see the glass as half empty. It’s the same phenomenon when Republicans are in power.”

Abel nodded. “So the process is the context. Nies, that guy we discussed earlier, said that relevance is a characteristic of evidence, not facts.”

Cain looked hesitant. “Yeah, but we can only understand things in context. Einstein’s thought experiment of the man in a closed elevator who doesn’t know whether the elevator is resting on earth or accelerating out in the depths of space (Source).”

Abel shook his head. “But imagine we’re all in the elevator together and arguing over which is true. If we all decide we’re on earth, there’s a hope that someone may come and open the elevator door. If we’re in space, we’re doomed. We may begin tearing each other apart.”

Cain frowned. “Reminds me of William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies. I hope they still assign that book in high school.”

Abel laughed. “I don’t know. There’s a cool interview with Golding and how the novel got rescued from the reject pile (Source). Anyway, last week, I was proposing that the Democratic Party choose a presidential candidate from each of four regions in the country. The winning candidate for each party would be chosen at a national convention. I thought it might attract more moderate candidates and a consensus within the party.”

Cain replied, “I thought it was a good idea. Grouping people by regions has its problems but its as good a way to divide up various interests as any. Better than the identity politics that has taken over the Democratic Party. How did those four regions vote in the last election? Last week, you said the southern states were all red and the western states voted blue. What about the other regions?”

Abel replied, “Southern states voted all red except for Virginia. Northeastern states were mostly blue except for Pennsylvania. The midwestern states were mostly red except for Illinois and Minnesota (Source). The four states with the most electoral votes are fairly predictable. California and New York are 82 electoral votes for Democrats. That’s almost a third of the votes needed to win the presidency. Texas and Florida are 70 votes for the Republicans, more than a quarter of the votes needed. It’s the states like Arizona, Pennsylvania and Nevada that decide these elections. They went for Biden in 2020, then Trump in 2024. Arizona and Pennsylvania went for Trump in 2016.”

Cain grunted with displeasure. “That’s what I don’t like. A relatively small number of people in a few key states decide a presidential election. The results depend on people who usually only vote in presidential elections. We’ve got to figure out a better system.”

Abel was puzzled. “You just said that you liked that regional system.”

Cain replied, “I liked that but your suggestion was within a political party. You know, a way that the party would choose a national candidate. I’m thinking of a change in the way that we elect presidents. I don’t like the way that each party has essentially captured the electoral votes in each state. They override the will of the people, the whole purpose of voting. Each House district should be able to have their vote counted for president. One vote per house district and senate seat.”

Abel argued, “But we would still need an Electoral College or else we would need to amend the Constitution. I was surprised to learn that the Electoral College has been consistently unpopular over the past 200 years. The public doesn’t like it and Congress has submitted over 700 proposals to amend or abolish the Electoral College (Source). I don’t think we can devise a representative system without an amendment.”

Cain shook his head. “Maybe there’s a way. Currently, the legislature in each state decides how the electoral votes for the state will be awarded (Source). In most states, electoral votes are awarded on a ‘winner-take-all’ basis. Whichever candidate gets the most votes, gets all the electoral votes. I think Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions.”

Abel frowned. “So you are proposing that if the voters of District 1 in Iowa choose a presidential candidate, then the elector for that district would cast their vote for that candidate. The problem is that the Constitution gives each state control of their electoral process.”

Cain interrupted, “Right but with exceptions for practices that discriminate against voters.”

Abel sighed. “Your system would involve all 50 states changing their election laws. Forget about that. The only alternative is a Constitutional amendment.”

Cain squinted. “Maybe not. If the Supreme Court ruled that the current practice of choosing electors was discriminatory in some way, then there would be no amendment needed.”

Abel rolled his eyes. “Congress might just pass an amendment to overrule that decision to preserve party power under the current system.”

Cain shook his head. “I don’t think so. I think voters would prefer that their district has a direct say in choosing the president. As it is now, voters in a rural district in a blue state like Colorado have no voice. The electoral vote that represents their district goes to a party and a candidate that they don’t like. Likewise, big city voters who vote blue in a red state suffer the same abuse. It’s perverse. It’s discriminatory.”

Abel nodded. “Ok, let’s say that electoral votes are cast according to the votes for House and Senate. There’s even more incentive for state legislatures to gerrymander house districts and that further marginalizes the minority.”

Cain winced. “Yeah, you might be right. The party system is so corrupt. I hate the idea of party elites having a voice in choosing a party’s presidential candidate. In 2016, ‘superdelegates’ represented 15% of the Democratic Party’s delegates at their nominating convention (Source). Republicans have about half that percentage and they have less discretion in how they vote but it’s still a problem (Source). Gives me a bad taste in my mouth.”

Abel argued, “Any alternative has to appear neutral to the two dominant parties. It’s hard to do. There would have to be an amendment that restricts gerrymandering. A computer could do the redistricting every decade that the Constitution requires. A simple rule like each district should have the smallest perimeter that encloses the representative population.”

Cain sighed. “Ok, let’s say that were to happen. Each party would propose a candidate chosen from each of the four regions in the country. A nominating convention for each party would choose a candidate. Electoral votes are cast by the House and Senate members who are elected.”

Abel asked, “So no more popular vote for President?”

Cain nodded. “Not directly. What’s the point? Yale University analyzed 2020 election data and found that less than 2% of voters split their ticket (Source).”

Abel asked, “So most Republican voters rarely vote for a Democratic president?”

Cain nodded. “And vice-versa. And this system I’m thinking of is not a radical change. A Republican candidate would have been elected in 2024 anyway because Republicans won more House and Senate seats. Democrats would have won in 2020 and Republicans in 2016 (Source). Nothing would have changed.”

Abel asked, “What’s the point?”

Cain replied, “More moderate candidates under the regional system you proposed. Then, using the new system for electing the president, voters in each district would have their vote counted. It’s transparent. No more guessing voters’ choices like what happened in Florida in the 2000 election.”

Abel smirked. “Yeah, one person on the Supreme Court cast the deciding vote for George Bush.”

Cain looked into the distance over Abel’s shoulder. “Whether you favored Bush or Gore, the Supreme Court should not get to decide the President. That decision was like a blot on this country’s soul, like a skin necrosis that grows until it eventually destroys a person.”

Abel’s eyes widened. “That’s a bit Shakespearian, don’t you think?”

Cain nodded. “Maybe a bit dramatic but what is happening to the people of this country is dramatic. Since that election, people don’t trust each other. Then the lies that got us into the Iraq war. Then the financial crisis and the elites in Washington bailed out the banks while hardworking homeowners lost their houses. Social media came along and amplified that distrust. Then the pandemic. The distrust is gnawing at our public spirit. We’ve got to have more transparency. I’m not saying that will fix things but it’s a step in that direction.”

Abel frowned as he pushed his chair back and laid his napkin on the table.. “One more thought. In every election, there are always several undecided House seats. The results of a presidential election could hinge on those.”

Cain shrugged. “Throw the undecided races out. In 2024, the deadline was December 11^th (Source). If a House or Senate race is undecided by then, it doesn’t count for either party.”

Abel stood up. “Let me think about that. I agree with you. We’ve got to do something to restore the public trust. Look, I’ll see you next week.”

Cain smiled. “See you then.”

//////////////////

Image by ChatGPT5

Note: here is the text of the 12^th Amendment (Source) and the history and interpretation of the 12^th at the Constitution Center (Source).

A New Turning

August 3, 2025August 2, 2025Leave a comment

August 3, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel tries out a new political scheme and a rebranding for the Democratic Party. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Abel set a small plate on his coffee cup to keep it warm. “It seemed like a lot of familiar names passed away these last two weeks. Some too young.”

Cain unfolded his napkin. “Yeah, Hulk Hogan’s death surprised me. I didn’t know he had leukemia (Source). And then Jamal-Warner’s drowning in Costa Rica (Source). The guy was swimming with his daughter and then boom, gets caught in an undercurrent. No lifeguards (Source).”

Abel replied, “They passed away before their time but it reminded me that the first of the Boomer generation turns 80 next year. Our president is old. The Congress is old. The average age in the Senate is 64 (Source). The average age of the founders was only 45 (Source). It just seems like we need some fresh perspectives and different alliances.”

Cain argued, “Yeah, but they didn’t live as long back in the 18^th century.”

Abel shook his head. “No, that was life expectancy at birth. About half of kids died before age five. Those who reached the age of 20 could expect to live to 65 or so (Source). A Boomer born in 1950 would be 20 in 1970. A guy could expect to live to age 70, according to the CDC (Source). That’s only a few years longer.”

Cain looked surprised. “Well, it would take an amendment to specify an upper age limit to run for Congress. I suppose the amendment could exclude re-election age requirements so that current members are grandfathered in. Congress might go for that.”

Abel argued, “A political party could institute a rule like that. An informal rule, of course. The Democrats should adopt that as part of their brand. In 1960, JFK appealed to younger voters. He was in his early forties and attracted voters in their twenties and thirties. Democrats need to reenergize and rebrand. Make the Republicans look like the party of stodgy old men that they are.”

Cain smiled. “I think both parties have become long in the tooth. You’re right. We need new blood.”

Abel paused as their food arrived, then said, “Back in 1997, William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote a book called The Fourth Turning (Amazon). They said that there was a cycle of four generations that lasted eighty to a hundred years. So this was before the Y2K scare in 2000 and 9-11. The authors predicted that the fourth cycle since the American Revolution would start like in 2015 or so. They predicted the start of a Crisis generation starting in 2005, reaching a climax in 2020 and a resolution in 2026 (page 299).”

Cain asked, “Like Trump in 2016 was the start of the fourth cycle? Wow. In 2014, Richard Epstein published The Classical Liberal Constitution (Amazon). He wrote about three stages of governance and constitutional interpretation. The first was from 1789 when they wrote the Constitution to 1865 or so when they passed the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War.”

Abel nodded. “Yeah, that was a major upgrade to the Constitution. Before the Fourteenth the protections contained in the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not the states.”

Cain continued, “Then the last ‘age’ was around 1937, when a few key decisions by the Supreme Court established a larger role for the federal government. Epstein is a libertarian who thinks the courts misused the Commerce and General Welfare clauses in the Constitution to expand federal powers.”

Abel asked, “Do you think Trump and the 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court are going to undo the entitlement programs of the past eighty years? Is that the project of the Fourth Turning?”

Cain sighed. “Something has to be done. The country’s debt was huge at the end of WW2, a debt to GDP ratio of 120%. After WW2, politicians could use Cold War rhetoric about fighting Communism to force high marginal tax rates on rich people. Today that debt-to-GDP ratio is the same but I don’t think Congress can reenact 70% tax rates in the current political environment.”

Abel shook his head as he stabbed at a sausage link on his plate. “That’s what I didn’t like about the big bogus bill they just passed. During the financial crisis and the pandemic, tax cuts could be appropriate. Today, the country has low employment and relatively low inflation. Tax cuts are just fuel for inflation. Instead of taxing rich people, the country will go into more debt and sell bonds to rich people. The federal government pays interest on the debt to the rich people. It’s exactly backwards.”

Cain smirked. “The haves get. The have-nots don’t get. Epstein wrote that this country was founded on a grand bargain, the redistribution of wealth from states with more population to those with smaller populations.”

Abel nodded. “Based on equal representation in the Senate.”

Cain agreed. “So, among the 13 original states there were two regions, the northern and southern states. The seven northern states were more populous and their economies were based on cottage industries and manufacturing. The economy of the five slave states was based on agriculture and was less populous. They were like two separate countries who came together for common defense and mutual economic gain.”

Abel asked, “Do you know which were the original southern states?”

Cain groaned as he covered his eyes with both hands. “I’m trying to channel my younger self. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Maryland was a slave state but they didn’t secede, if I remember right (Source).”

Abel lifted his eyebrows in surprise. “Better memory than me. But by the time of the civil war, the country had expanded into a 3^rd region, the Midwest. Indiana became a state after the country fought the British in the War of 1812. Iowa was around 1850.”

Cain replied, “Right. And the south was expanding westward as well to keep the balance between slave and non-slave states. Like I said, two countries.”

Abel continued, “Then, after the civil war, the country grew into four regions. There are eleven western states, excluding Hawaii and Alaska. Today, there are four regions, the Northeast, Midwest, West and South (Source).”

Cain looked puzzled. “Ok, good point. So, let’s tie this regional perspective to the ages thing. There were two regions when the Constitution was written. By the time of the Civil War, there were three regions including the Midwest. Then the Civil War amendments. When the Depression started in the 1930s, there were four regions with the western states. Then the role of government expanded. Another big shift. So what’s your idea?”

Abel stirred the little bit of syrup on his plate. “Something big has to change but I’d start small, within a political party. The Democrats could nominate a Presidential candidate from each of the four regions. A candidate from the south would be more conservative. More liberal from the northeast. At a primary convention, the four regions would vote on a candidate.”

Cain asked, “How would they break a tie?”

Abel replied, “Right. Some kind of tie-break rule. It would incentivize the regional factions within the party to bargain with other regions. Democrats would be recognizing the different cultures and interests in each region.”

Cain frowned. “That’s kind of a Parliamentary system within the party.”

Abel nodded. “I think Democrats would put out a more centrist candidate, someone who would have a broad appeal.”

Cain said, “In other words, national politics played at a regional level.”

Abel replied, “Exactly. I was looking at an electoral map the other day. The blue western states, including Alaska and Hawaii, had 130 electoral votes. That’s about a quarter of the 530 electoral votes. Democrats won 83 of those votes in this last election (Source).”

Cain frowned, “That surprises me. I always think of the western states as mostly red.”

Abel nodded. “On the map it looks that way but most of that is empty country and a small number of electoral votes in each state.”

Cain asked, “How many of those 83 votes came from California?”

Abel nodded. “Big impact. Fifty-four votes. They have the most in the country. The western states have some political balance. Not in the south. All Republican. Like I said, a candidate from the southern region within the Democratic Party would probably be more conservative. Someone who could compete in a region with strong Republican sympathies.”

Cain frowned. “So, younger candidates for state and local offices. A different nomination convention for Presidential candidate. Would there still be primaries?”

Abel shrugged. “I don’t know. What do you think? The modern primary system developed after World War 2 (Source). It consumes a lot of time and money. It’s like an ordeal by fire that screens out some otherwise good candidates that don’t want to expose themselves and their families to that ordeal.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, I like that. So what, maybe regional primaries? The downside is that candidates wouldn’t be able to spend much time in rural areas of each state.”

Abel replied, “No system is foolproof. Trump conducted both of his campaigns from the side of a plane. He flies in, holds a rally, and flies out.”

Cain laid his napkin on the table. “Well, I think you’re onto something. The party needs a new brand, new blood.”

Abel sighed. “So does the Republican Party. Unfortunately, that something new was Donald Trump, an extremist who has taken over the party’s dynamics. I hope that the Democrats can avoid the same situation or this country will be crippled.”

Cain slid out of his seat. “Let me think on this. I agree that the primary system is not working. It’s attracting special interests and fringe candidates. If your idea can help solve that, I’m for it.”

Abel looked. “See you next week.”

//////////////////////

Image by ChatGPT

Keywords: primary, election, regions