So tonight we get to hear the State of the Union, and it will no doubt follow the usual storyline of glossing over the bad, highlighting the good (if there is any?), but in the end not really providing us an honest evaluation of where we stand right now, January 27, 2010. With all that has happened in the past year, I sincerely hope the President will address the nation honestly and openly.

Since January of 2009, we have seen the growth of the government like almost no other period in history: the government takeover of General Motors, government takeover of financial institutions, the massive bailout (that was actually a goody bag for special interests and has done zero for increasing jobs), the explosion in government spending (can someone explain why federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% during the last 18 months? And here I thought there was a recession . . . ), and now government is 40% of GDP, which means since government is bigger, it can insert itself even more into our lives. And I haven’t even mentioned the healthcare bill of 2009, which was a crass grab by our political class to control 1/6th of the American economy.

So what I’d like to see done tonight is just an admission by the President:

“Yes, America, we think the state needs to grow. We think that the increased role of the government in your lives is obviously a great thing (i.e. statism). We think we know better than you.”

Although I do not agree, at least then he would be telling the truth about where the state of our union really lies.

What about you? What would you like to see discussed?

I’m going to make another comparison between the current tea party movement and the Founding of this nation. We all know about Valley Forge, and the trials and tribulations George Washington and the Continental Army faced during that brutal winter with the cold, sickness, and lack of food.

What is not as well known is the role of Baron von Steuben that winter. Washington knew that for the colonies to be victorious, the Continental Army had to become better trained and more proficient. For lack for lack of a better term, the Continentals had to become a professional fighting force. While in the early days there had been some success with the state militias, Washington knew that if the men fighting were just purely volunteers, the British army would continue to beat them.

So that winter at Valley Forge, Baron von Steuben began training and drilling the Continental Army, whipping it into a more proficient fighting machine. Von Steuben was an interesting character, who actually couldn’t speak English (he would swear at the men in French and Prussian, and then have his translator swear at the men in English), but he knew how to train and drill men. At Valley Forge, he actually took a small group of men, trained them, and then had them turned into trainers so they could accelerate the process. The first signs of success were played out at in 1778 as the Continental Army became a much better fighting machine.

Now I’m not saying it was all smooth sailing after that for Washington and the Continental Army. They were still ill-equipped and fed, and were facing the finest army in the world at the time. But it did allow them to go toe-to-toe with the British, beat them at times, but approach the conflict with more discipline.  And three years later, we of course know that the Continental Army, with the help of the French, beat Cornwallis at Yorktown and effectively ended the Revolutionary War.

The point I want to make is that in 2009, many of the people coming out to the tea parties and 9.12 events were doing so for the first time. I was just at an event in Dallas for organizers and asked, “For how many of you was 2009 the first time you really did anything?” I would venture to say 80% of the people in the room raised their hands. So you have people who are very passionate, but very new, to the process. If the tea party movement is going to be successful, and make the impact it can, and should have, the people in the movement need to become even better at what they do, from organizing, to messaging, to leading. What if the millions that showed up last year all became better at engaging online, building effective grassroots coalitions, became proficient at enforcing accountability on their elected officials, and even identifying and training new leadership from the movement to run for office? Can you imagine the impact the movement can have, not just in 2010, but beyond?

My hope is that in 2010, the tea party movement does take the time to get trained and even better educated, because quite frankly, the left knows the movement is coming, and if the tea partiers are going to beat the left in this country, the time to get better is right now.

I think it’s clear that what we’re seeing is something new in politics with the tea party movement, and especially with what took place last night in Massachusetts. It’s not about people choosing this party or that party, nor is it just about the anger of independents. It’s people looking for leadership that will actually do what it says, and that will look out for their interests, not the interests of the politicians or big business. They want government that is responsible, not invasive. People don’t like the fact that the absurd spending and bailouts are all taking place on their backs, out of their pockets. As a friend said, “People know the fix is in with big government and big business and they’re not going to take it anymore.”

But after last night, I want to throw something out as a topic of conversation: does the tea party movement need a central leader/and or leadership? I have been quoted as saying I believe local tea party and 9.12 organizers should stay independent, while remaining on the same page with like-minded leaders from across the country. Quite frankly, I’m not convinced about some of these so-called “national” tea party organizations. I either question the leaders’ motives, or their strategy (which is to suppose they even have a long term strategy beyond the next protest). If those reading find those words provocative, so be it. Regardless, the question remains: is leadership needed for the movement to be sustainable in the long term? And I’m not talking about an election cycle or two, but fifteen, twenty, even thirty years or more. 

The tea party movement began as an organic movement, literally exploding from the grassroots and taking the political stage by storm in 2009. However, the problem with organic movements is that they are highly de-centralized. There are positives to be gleaned thus far from the movement. For example, demonstrating the true grassroots nature, thousands of tea parties and 9.12 groups are in existence today, with many flourishing despite having existed for only a year’s time (stop and think about the amazing nature of that: January, 2009. No tea parties. No 9.12 groups. January, 2010. Thousands of local tea party and 9.12 groups). And  despite being de-centralized, the local tea parties are working well together, for the time being. In Massachusetts, tea parties from New Hampshire, Connecticut, and New York City were working jointly with the Massachusetts’ tea parties to get grassroots workers to help Brown.

The negative, however, is that history tells us that highly de-centralized movements do not succeed in the long run unless they give way to some sort of unified, and dare I say, centralized leadership. Before you write the idea off, think about the newly independent United States in the 1780s. Every one of the 13 states thought and acted like a sovereign nation. They’d all played nice with each other during the war with Great Britain (well, sort of). But once the threat of Great Britain was gone, and they were independent, things started to sour with the United States. Within a matter of years following the Treaty of Paris, the United States actually stood on the brink of total collapse, with fierce internal dissension and bickering, from thirteen different currencies to repressive trade policies between the states. And we shouldn’t forget, the states were also dealing with continuous external threats from the European superpowers: Britain, Spain and France, each circling like wolves, waiting to strike.

The miracle in Philadelphia saved the United States from disaster. The Constitutional Convention took the thirteen states, each like a thin reed, and bound them together, increasing the strength and stability of all. There was give and take, with compromises struck, deals reached, with ultimately a new national government put in place. Each of course remained its own independent state, but they were now in union with the others. It is my opinion that without this, the states would never have survived, ultimately falling prey to petty in-fighting and greed, and eventually to one of the European powers. 

Now, in 2010, we are again faced with a pivotal moment to ‘Unite or Die.’ What if the thousands of tea parties and 9.12 groups around the country decided to come together? What if they really formed a legitimate, national structure, not something arbitrarily attempted by those seeking personal glory, and certainly not by one individual, but rather a circle of principled leadership. I’m becoming more and more convinced that if we do not begin working together strategically, the movement will melt away; people will not continue to protest ad nauseam.

What the election in Massachusetts last night showed is that if the tea party movement works together, amazing things can happen. But the serious problems facing this country will not be solved, and the country fundamentally, changed unless the tea party movement becomes better organized and more long term in its vision.

I’m not entirely sure what that would look like, but that is why I am asking the question. It seems that I am constantly seeing new “characters” emerge as self-proclaimed leaders of an organic, de-centralized movement – which I find odd. Each appears more inclined to profit from the movement than the one before. Now is the time we invest in the movement, instead of profiting from it. 

My hope is that this year, and in the years to come, the tea party movement evolves into a legitimate, sustainable political force; not a party, but a force, that dictates the direction this country takes. How this happens or what this will look like remains to be determined and so I ask again: Is it time to start thinking about leadership within the movement?

By now, most of you know the news: Scott Brown has won Massachusetts’s special election for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Although his platform was one of transcendence and accountability, the fact still remains that Brown is a Republican. A Republican in a seat that had been a liberal shade of blue for over three decades. One can also argue that Massachusetts remains one of the most liberal states in the Union. So what does this all mean?

I would argue that Washington has a lot to fear. Not just Democrats, but Republicans alike. Remember that Brown’s campaign was built largely around an anti-establishment platform. Like him or hate him, Brown represents the “every man.” As we saw in Sarah Palin, and will continue to see in 2010, the people have seen the path taken by liberal elitism, choosing to support the honest, relatable candidate instead. The American majority has discovered that the power does indeed lie with them and they have only just begun to exercise it.

Given the recent elections and the growing fear among the Left, it appears that history does indeed repeat itself. The contemporary tea party movement was sparked by the same government reach and growing bureaucratic policy that initiated the original act on December 16 of 1773. Originating in the harbors of Boston, the American people once again stand defiantly in the belief that the individual deserves the freedom to choose what is best for their family, unobstructed from a disconnected government. The tea party movement has returned home, to its roots, to secure a powerful electoral victory in Massachusetts. If there was any doubt on that cold December day about what the colonists were fighting for, they have now been laid to rest on this cold January morning…

The tea party’s rallying cry is clear, “We will support principle over party. We will support candidates that stand for fiscal discipline, Constitutional restraint, and a government accountable to the American people. If you do not stand for these things, you better stand aside.”

For Part 1 of this article, please click here.

It did not take long for disagreements to ensue between the states and federal government.  Quite contrary to Madison’s prediction, the lines of jurisdiction between the state governments and the national government became increasingly blurred.  The country quickly divided into camps officially known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists.  Generally speaking, the Anti-Federalists were supporters of states’ rights while the Federalists were proponents of a strong national government.  Significant early Federalists were Hamilton, Washington, and Adams.  Noted Anti-Federalists were Jefferson and Madison.  Yes, you read that correctly – Madison, under the influence of his mentor Jefferson, became an Anti-Federalist and strong advocate for the state sovereignty point of view.  In his Virginia Resolutions published in 1799, Madison stated, “…in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of evil…”

 One would assume that Madison, Jefferson, and the other states rights believers intended to utilize the Tenth Amendment as the crucifix by which to the exorcise the demons of excessive national power.  If so, it is a pretty good strategy, especially since it never hurts to have the Bill of Rights on your side.  However, in doing research for this post, I came upon a fascinating essay by Walter Berns in the book, A Nation of States.  The piece is entitled The Meaning of the Tenth Amendment.  In the piece, Berns believes that the state sovereignty argument in terms of the Tenth Amendment holds little weight when viewed through the lens of the Constitution.  The reasons are thus: A) the states did not intend to be ultimate reviewer on federal power, B) if they did intend to be the judge on the limits on federal power, they would have insisted on such provisions in the Constitution, and C) if the intention of the states was to be the ultimate judge on the federal government’s power, there would be no need for the Tenth Amendment. 

 In essence, if the states were to be the ultimate judge on federal power, they would have outlined this in the Constitution.  However, this was not their intent as the founders had experienced just such regulations under the Articles of Confederation.  The government under the Articles of Confederation was impotent and the founders did not wish to recreate a scenario in which the states were free to act fully on their own. 

 Berns sums up his argument this way:

 ”The Tenth Amendment would make no sense as an admonition addressed to the states.  It can be understood only as an admonition to the Supreme Court that the federal government may not legitimately exercise all of the powers of government.”

 Now, the problem with the Tenth Amendment (if you choose to view it that way) comes into focus.  It has no teeth.  There is no way, other than by petitioning the Supreme Court, to ensure that the federal government plays on its side of the playground.  It’s a guidepost and a warning, one which even the founders viewed as superfluous.  When taken into account in light of the “necessary and proper” clause and the commerce clause, the Tenth Amendment becomes even weaker.  Over time, Congress has used the ambiguous language of these clauses to pass legislation pertaining to all manner of things designated of national importance. 

 Nevertheless, the states did not intend themselves to be at the complete mercy of the Supreme Court.  Quite the contrary, actually.  A key event which weakened the Tenth Amendment even further and diluted the power of the states in relation to the national government was passage of the 17th Amendment.  The 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators.  Previously, senators were chosen by the state legislatures with the purpose of representing the interests of the state in the U.S. Congress.  The U.S. House of Representatives was the only body in the bicameral legislature directly elected by the people and tasked with doing their will at the federal level.  This is why the states currently find themselves at the mercy of the federal government.  There is no group vested with the responsibility of ensuring that the spirit of the Tenth Amendment is upheld.  Instead, we have unfunded mandates and states begging for handouts from the national government because their original advocates in Congress are now beholden to the people.  Unfortunately, the people do not care about the line between state and national power.  They care that their lives are made easier, even if that comes at the expense of the state’s Constitutional jurisdiction and perhaps, their liberty.

One of the best bits of advice I got when I was younger was that, “Readers are leaders, and leaders are readers.” I send the AM staff a book a quarter that I feel will help them become better at what they do.

1. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert Murphy. A quick and easy read, but with some nice “sound bites” on the free market system. Murphy’s book is good for those that aren’t going to dig into Hayek, Mises, etc., but still want to have a better idea of what the free market is all about. Took me maybe a few days to read thru it.

2. The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Fulsom. Not a long book, but an interesting look into the misconceptions about the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers of this world. Fulsom really lays out the difference between political entrepreneurs, or crony capitalists, and the real market entrepreneurs. The book really does give a better appreciation for what the real free market entrepreneurs accomplished, and how they made people’s lives better.

3. The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged in 2008, and of the two, Atlas is my favorite. While I dismiss Rand’s objectivism, I think both are worthwhile reads.

4. Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman. A classic that everyone interested in knowing more about the free market should read. Took me awhile to get into it, but once I did, flew through it.

There were others I read, like Founding Characters, which explores the lives of some of the key Founders, that I would also recommend.

This year, American Majority will be launching its Patriot 2.0 training program, Gulp…..

As we trained around the country last year, the same questions and comments were being made, “Can the government track me through Facebook?” (“Ma’am, your life is not that interesting.”) and “I don’t use social media because it’s for Liberals!” (“Sir, with that reasoning, I could be a liberal, and you should leave now before brainwashing begins.”) There was even a few, “How does the CIA’s facial recognition software work?” (“Once I get my top secret clearance, I’ll let you know.”) Needless to say, these statements left most of us bewildered and shaking our heads wearily. This also got me thinking – why are Conservatives so far behind the technology curve? Why did we not embrace social media sooner?

After months of talking about it with trainees and asking others in the field, here is what I have come up with…

Politically, Liberals Believe Social Platforms Can Affect National Change
At the core of liberal philosophy…or progressivism, or whatever the title is they give themselves to avoid the inevitable term of ‘Socialist,’ is the belief that freedom did not come from nature or God, but instead is a product of the state. Essentially, the state is a reflection of the people and the people a reflection of the state. So when a communication platform comes along that embraces the many-to-many model, it would seem a natural fit for groups looking to mold society by either influencing enough people to mimic national support or coordinating mass pressure on public officials to influence the people. For these reasons, the Left was an early adopter of such technology.

Politically, Conservatives Will Not Embrace Social Platforms for Individual Decisions
My mother and father are good examples of why new media has not been adopted readily by the conservative base. As my father has said many times before, “If I know someone, they are in my cell phone.” As he would argue, “I have so much to do locally, why do I need to talk to someone half way around the world?” and to some extent, he would be right. Conservatives tend to believe that individuals are capable of making personal decisions best suited for themselves and their families. Creating a massive, online movement via Facebook to change the local sewer standards in one’s town doesn’t make much sense under conservative philosophy. As the mindset goes, “If conservative politics is local, where is the political advantage in starting a Facebook Page?” For these reasons, the Right is a late adopter to such technology.

Now What?
But, where does this leave us? I would argue that the time for excuses and debating over the issue has passed. The decision has been made for us. Understandably, emerging technology and dramatic change can be scary, but with increased communication comes increased influence; over 80% of those under 30 find the majority of their information online. Don’t you want to engage the next generation of leaders on issues? I equate conservative involvement in national politics to the old saying, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?” I am here to tell you that yes, yes it does make a sound, a very loud, crashing ‘boom.’ The same goes for bloated, over-reaching government. Because you do not participate does not mean it will not grow and it will not find you; you either do politics, or politics will do you. And if you are doing the politicking, you’re on the offense. If politics is doing you, you’re on the defensive, and you can only play defense for so long before losing.

It is time to understand what the Left is doing and rise to the occasion, if not for you, then for your children. Conservatives maintain the majority status in America and unless our voices are echoed online, we will fail to influence, mobilize and win in coming years. To me, this is unacceptable. It is time to leave our comfort zones and take our Sunday conversations online, helping win the battle for hearts and minds in communities unknown and with allies yet to be realized.

This is the first of two blog entries on the Tenth Amendment:

If you follow the news at all, you’ve probably heard accounts of state legislators, governors, members of Congress, Tea Party groups, and others call for a return to the principles of limited government.  Most recently, these fires have been stoked by the health care legislation currently making its way through Congress and the economic bail outs which were doled out to auto companies, banks, and insurance companies at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009.  The argument for limited government tends to be accompanied by the state sovereignty view of the U.S. Constitution.  In other words, the states are viewed as completely autonomous entities with the power to nullify federal legislation and decrees which are deemed outside the bounds of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.  To that end, the Tenth Amendment is cited which reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

These arguments spurred my thinking on the subject and compelled me to look deeper into the history of the Tenth Amendment.  I wanted to find out why is was adopted and what power, if any, it contains to truly ensure the federal government plays within its given sphere of influence.  Before I do that, however, I think a bit of a refresher on history is necessary.

After the United States won its freedom from Britian, the prevailing task at hand was to form a new government.  Rightfully wary of a strong national government, the sovereign states (think of each state as a nation unto itself at this point) entered into a pact called the Articles of Confederation.  This arrangement was similar to today’s European Union or the Confederate States of America from 1861-1865.  At that time, our founders didn’t identify themselves as Americans, but rather as Virginians, Georgians, etc.  For example, when Thomas Jefferson wrote letters to friends indicating his desire to return to “my country,” he was speaking of Virginia.  The Articles of Confederation contained very few enumerated powers.  In fact, the legislature had no power to tax, raise an army, or control interstate commerce.  The legislature could not pass laws, but instead were limited to resolutions which required 9 of 12 votes for passage.  With such stringent guidelines for action to occur, the U.S. was not able to effectively address numerous problems, not least of which was the substantial debt from the Revolutionary War.

Our brilliant founding father, James Madison, recognized the issue and realized that the U.S. would be dissolved just as quickly as it was formed if decisive action was not taken soon.  Perhaps his greatest feat, Madison convinced George Washington to come out of retirement and chair the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  Washington reluctantly agreed as he was not keen on the idea of risking his place in posterity for what could be perceived as a fool’s errand.  Had Washington not agreed to participate, it is highly likely that the convention would have never occurred.

Seeking to bolster their argument for a stronger national government, Madison and Hamilton wrote the bulk of what we know today as The Federalist Papers.  Not ignorant to the fact that many were quite disturbed by the idea of a bolstered national government, they sought to allay the fears.  Federalist 45 pointed out that the national government’s powers were “few and defined.”  It went on to note that the powers given to the states were essentially without limit.  In Federalist 46, Madison pointed out that the state and federal governments had such different purposes that it was difficult to conceive of the notion that they would encroach on each other’s territory.

After the Constitution was ratified by the States, those fearing excessive national power advocated for the Bill of Rights.  The Tenth Amendment was proposed in 1789 in the First Congress.  Based on arguments previously mentioned in Federalists 45 and 46, both Madison and Hamilton viewed the amendment as redundant.  Thomas Jefferson, however, had quite the opposite opinion.  He viewed the amendment as absolutely necessary in order to prevent the encroachment of federal power into the arena reserved specifically for the states.

During debate on the Amendment, a representative from South Carolina sought to change the wording to read, “The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution…”  On the surface, this distinction seemed inocuous, but Madison objected, noting that implied powers were necessary for the national government, otherwise the Constitution would become quite a burdensome document with every granted power spelled out in triplicate.  The issue died when no other representatives supported the change in wording.  The amendment ultimately was not contested by Madison or Hamilton because they did not view it as harmful to the new federal government’s mission or enumerated powers.  As we all know, the amendment was ratified by the states and became a permanent part of the Constitution.

That’s only the beginning of the story, though.  Stay tuned for Part 2.

People will sometimes ask what I read. Here are some of the books I read in 2009, and would recommend.

1. Economics in One Lesson  by Henry Hazlitt. A really concise read on free market economics in layman terms. Couple hundred pages long, so not a heavy read.

2. The Essentials of Economics by Faustino Ballve. A little tougher read, though just over a hundred pages. But Ballve, a Spanish economist, has gems like this: “. . . the free market is the most obvious expression of the sovereignty of the people and the best guarantee of democracy. Individual guarantees stated in writing in the constitution are of no use to a nation if it is not the people, but a third party, whether government or trade-union, that fixes prices and wages . . . for in that case the people, in being deprived of their right to free choice in the market, i.e. their right to assign everything the rank and the value it suits them to give it, from being sovereign are reduced to the status of slaves.”

3. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes.  Shlaes does an excellent job of really taking another look at the history of the Depression, FDR’s policies, and some of the impacts, short term and long term, of those policies. Really good read. Little longer, but worth it.

4. The American Cause by Russell Kirk. Not a long book, but a must read for those wanting to better understand who we are as a nation, what the principles are that have made us great, and why they’re worth fighting for. 

More recommends tomorrow.

There are a lot of groups out there these days trying to get off the ground purported doing the Lord’s work for the advancement of freedom. Not all of them make it. Some of them are questionable. I pray very hard these days for God to give me some sense of discernment between the groups worth standing on the bridge with and those not worth it.

I won’t always be right and sometimes will be had. That’s life.

But over the past year I have fallen in love with one new group that has yet to disappoint and that frequently excites me. It’s American Majority. Those of you who attended the RedState Gathering last August know them well. They helped sponsor the event and made a presentation.

Slowly and carefully, American Majority is raising up a new batch of conservative leaders at the local level. Their goal is not to find the next conservative for congress, but to find the next conservative for the school board, the town council, the county commission, etc. They intend to rebuild the conservative farm team.

And they do fine work. They are a solid group I’m pleased to promote and partner with whenever I can.

[UPDATE:] Cross posted at Redstate.com