Episode 39 January 3, 2020 CLP topic category: Irreconcilable Differences. Polarization and the Inevitable Disunion of America.

Episode 39 January 3, 2020

CLP topic category: Irreconcilable Differences.

Polarization and the Inevitable Disunion of America.


Our podcast today expands on Zack Beauchamp’s article, “The Constitution Was Not Built For This,” to explain that the ideological polarization in America will lead to a civil disunion.

We argue that Beauchamp, a socialist writer for Vox, is correct that Madison’s Constitution of 1787, was not built to resolve the growing polarization between socialists and natural rights conservatives over the nation’s mission and purpose.

We argue that socialists promote class conflict and racial polarization as a strategy to overthrow the government in order to replace the current government with socialism,

Typical of the left wing hope for polarization is the article by Sam Tanenhaus, The Promise of Polarization, where he argues that “Ideological division was once seen as the solution to America’s political gridlock.”

In leftist language, “gridlock” is when socialists cannot convince Republicans to collaborate with Democrats.

Beauchamp writes,

“Republicans’ in the House who did not vote against Trump’s impeachment reveals a broken system — and a democracy at real risk of failure. … the GOP’s willingness to back the president to the hilt, in spite of clear and obvious evidence of abuses of power, speaks to an urgent threat to American democracy: Our constitutional system is ill-equipped to withstand extreme polarization.”

Beauchamp makes the same observation as Bill Maher that the result of polarization is that the two sides see each other as ultimate enemies, not a citizen-compatriots.

Beauchamp writes,

“Under conditions of extreme polarization, the two camps start to see the other side as not merely a political opponent, but an existential threat to the American way of life.”

For Beauchamp, the impeachment is simply a necessary first step in removing the voting rights of 63 million conservatives, in order to make progress to a hoped-for one-party socialist tyranny.

His argument is that Republicans in the House, who did not support the left’s drive for impeachment, are intolerant and are contributing to polarization.

In our first section, we argue that Madison’s Constitution was designed to ameliorate commercial and financial conflicts between the natural aristocracy and common citizens.

Madison assumed that all citizens understood that the purpose of the Revolution was liberty, and did not design the rules to resolve the first principles of the national purpose.

In our second section, we explain why Madison’s Constitution is inadequate in solving ideological polarization. We argue that Madison’s Constitution is a failure that cannot be fixed in order to ameliorate the divisions in America.

Victoria Nourse, a left-wing law professor at Georgetown University, explained her concept of a crisis, as opposed to a constitutional failure,

“A constitutional crisis is a fight among branches of government in which neither side backs down, and there is no clear resolution within the constitutional system.”

She is right that Madison’s Constitution offers no solution to polarization, but mischaracterizes the impasse as a constitutional “crisis.” Madison’s rules assume a national consensus among citizens that does not exist, and is a failure, not a crisis.

The socialists have a coherent strategy of using polarization to divide American citizens in order to implement a socialist state.

In our third section, we extend the comments of Beauchamp to include a representative range of left wing opinion to demonstrate that the desired outcome of polarization is the implementation of a one-party socialist state.

We conclude our podcast with the observation that natural rights conservatives must begin to see the Democrat socialists as an existential threat to individual liberty.

The only non-violent solution to polarization is for conservatives to create a new democratic republic, with a new constitution, that establishes individual liberty as the end goal of the nation.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for January 3, 2020.

Our podcast today is under the CLP topic category Irreconcilable Differences and is titled, “Polarization and the Inevitable Disunion of America.”

The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.

The Flaws of Madison’s Two-Party, Two-Class Constitution

Madison feared the “people” in their collective capacity as citizens, and his representative republic sought to limit the citizen’s influence in the day-to-day operations of government.

Madison stated that his representative republic was based upon “the delegation of the government…to a small numbers of citizens, elected by the rest.”

Madison wrote that his system would work well, if “there was unequal access by those without power to adjudicate justice by making claims against those who had institutional power (natural aristocracy).

Madison over-weighted the authority of the natural aristocracy in his constitutional arrangement so that the elite could make collective decisions for the benefit of the entire society.

Under Madison’s rules, the elites (natural aristocracy) had the power to make the laws, and the citizens (hurly-burly) had the duty to obey the laws made by the elites.

Dan Sisson cites George Washington’s farewell address about this unequal treatment of common citizens,

Washington stated,

“the very idea of the power and right of the people to establish government presupposes a duty of every individual to obey the laws of the established government.”

Charles Beard explained that, for Madison,

“The primary objective of government is the making of rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to be determined perforce obtain from government.”

In his book, The Articles of Confederation, Merrill Jensen states that Madison’s Constitution,

“Adopted a theory of the sovereignty of the people in the name of the people, and erected a nationalistic government whose purpose was to thwart the will of the people in whose name they act.”

Madison’s arrangement was based upon the false assumption that the natural aristocracy knew better than the citizens themselves, what was in the best interests of the “people.”

Like Marx, Madison saw society as comprised of two social classes. He viewed “the working class” as an undifferentiated collective mass, not as individual citizens.

Gordon Wood, in The Creation of the American Republic, cited Hamilton in Federalist # 35 on the logical justification of elite rule.

“What justified elite rule, together with the notion of virtual representation, was Hamilton’s sense that all parts of the society were of a piece, that all ranks and degrees were organically connected…the state was a cohesive organic entity with a single homogeneous interest in a chain in such a way that those on the top were necessarily involved in the welfare of those below them.”

Madison’s arrangement was based upon a false assumption that wealthy citizens possessed the moral quality of virtue.

His logic in giving the natural aristocracy more power than common citizens was the idea that the quality of virtue would prohibit the aristocracy from exploiting common citizens.

For Madison, the quality of virtue possessed by the more rational elites existed because the elite owned property.

Because the elites owned property, the common citizens could trust elites to make good decisions on behalf of non-elites, in a type of virtual representation.

Madison’s representative republic created a static, two-class interpretation of society, leading to a static, unchanging two-party political system.

The entire purpose of his political system was to protect the legal property contracts and property rights of the elite, and to enforce the repayment of debt in gold and silver.

Madison thought that, in his more perfect union, the ideological principle of individual liberty did not need to have a political party because, he falsely assumed, that all citizens shared a common cultural allegiance to individual liberty.

In Madison’s conception, individual liberty was not a “faction,” worthy of legal status in the constitution, in the same sense that the financial interests of the working class and the elites were a faction.

In his two class political system, common citizens had their own political party (faction) to represent their economic class interests, only at the moment of an election.

After the election, common citizens had no method of protecting their rights or interests, unlike the lobbyists in Madison’s “spoils system,” who used money to buy special interest legislation, after an election.

In other words, after an election, as the anti-federalist Centinel asked, in 1788,

“If the people are sovereign how does the opinion of citizens direct the policies of government?”

The 37 wealthy citizens, who met in secret in Philadelphia, to write Madison’s Constitution, had their own money, and already had their own political party, to promote their financial and commercial interests.

Madison allowed the elites to create constitutional rules that provided the institutional framework for social stability in economic and judicial exchanges between elites and non-elites (aka the working class).

Madison’s rules were designed to ameliorate economic conflicts, not ideological conflicts.

In Madison’s conception of government, the apparatus of government is a neutral guardian between the two competing class interests that his constitutional separation of power was designed to check and balance.

In other words, Madison’s constitution is non-ideological, and thus, incapable of resolving ideological conflicts that are not about property rights.

His constitutional arrangement was stable, as long as citizens could vote every four years, for President, and every two years for representatives of the House.

The lynchpin that holds Madison’s two-party system together is that both common citizens and elites had sufficient trust in the government operations to follow the rule of law.

  1. B. MacPherson, in The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, stated that in the natural rights republic, faith and trust in constitutional political exchanges creates a shared sense of civic obligation.

The flaw in Madison’s Constitution is that property rights, under Madison’s Constitution, could be obtained in an orderly manner, without the benefit of shared faith or obligation that served to protect natural rights and liberty.

Protection of property rights did not provide an essential set of conditions for pro-social rule adherence involving trust among citizens and leaders.

When the set of cultural values and beliefs is pervasive throughout the society, allegiance to the rule of law can be resilient, spanning generations, even surviving historical periods in which the rule of law is disobeyed by government officials.

When the cultural beliefs are not pervasive, and not widely-held, however, the rule of law will be weak or non-existent, leading to tyranny, and rule evasion in political and legal exchanges.

Under the current conditions of polarization, socialists do not share cultural values with conservatives. Socialists can never be expected to obey the rule of law because they do not share the cultural values of the Revolution.

In Madison’s system, the shared cultural values of individual freedom were replaced by the crony capitalist values of shared plunder. The two-party spoils system devolved into a centralized national power that operated without the consent of the citizens, and was beyond their power to amend.

Madison’s Preamble, “more perfect union,” can be as easily adapted to mean a more perfect socialist nation, as a more perfect union of protecting property rights.

The flaw in Madison’s plan is that, in his Preamble, he omits the statement of the shared cultural values of the new nation, because he disconnects his rules from the principles of liberty stated in Jefferson’s Declaration.

In the absence of the purpose of government, in Madison’s Preamble, there is no basis for trust and faith in the government.

In the absence of trust and faith in the government, there is no reason to obey the rule of law.

Voluntary allegiance to the rule of law, noted Hamilton, depended upon a unique set of cultural values, to which citizens voluntarily adhere.

Madison’s separation of power would only work under voluntary allegiance to the rule of law, which depends on shared cultural values.

Madison’s guiding principle of the separation of powers is that each branch performs a unique constitutional function, and that no one branch may usurp or interfere with another branch’s performance of this function.


As Madison wrote in Federalist #48,

“It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments, ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that neither of them ought to possess directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others in the administration of their respective powers.”

The flaw in this arrangement is that socialism is a united ideology, across all branches of government. Once all the socialists convene in Washington, they operate a closed-political system, entirely for their own financial benefit, united by their common ideology, and entirely beyond the consent of the governed.

Madison’s rules of separation of power were the instruments to balance and check factional political power in order to insure that social elites, the natural leaders, who made important financial decisions on behalf of all society, were insulated from the democratic tyranny that could be imposed by the majority of people.

As Gordon Wood pointed out, Madison’s flawed ideas about protecting property rights did not result in the election of representatives of virtue, but the exact opposite.


The goal of the socialist’s polarization is to obtain political power insulated from the consent of the citizens.

Socialist Polarization Under Madison’s Constitution.

Gordon Wood, in The Creation of the American Republic, cited Hamilton in Federalist # 35 on the logical justification of elite rule.

“What justified elite rule, together with the notion of virtual representation,” noted Wood, “was Hamilton’s sense that all parts of the society were of a piece, that all ranks and degrees were organically connected…the state was a cohesive organic entity with a single homogeneous interest in a chain in such a way that those on the top were necessarily involved in the welfare of those below them.”

It is a very short logical step for the socialists to go from Hamilton’s synthetic, collectivism of the two class society, in Federalist #35, to seeing common citizens in collectivist socialist terms that allows the socialists to assume the powers of the natural aristocracy in Madison’s Constitution.

Marx’s two class society of workers and capitalists is the same as Hamilton’s two class society of common citizens and elites, and both conceptions of society can be used to create either a natural aristocratic regime or socialist regime, under Madison’s rules.

Socialism is not a commercial or financial faction, it is a unified philosophical view of the world. The ideology unifies power across all branches of government because the socialist all believe in the same philosophy.

As the socialists use the term in their propaganda, the ideology of socialism is aimed at a future state of “social justice.” The socialists believe that socialism is better than the existing capitalist system, which they believe  exploits the working class.

The socialists simply deploy the institutional arrangement of separation of power, created by Madison, and codified by Marshall, and apply their own cultural values on what they consider to be a more perfect union of “social justice.”

The goal of the socialist polarization is to create class divisions and hatred in order to ferment the level of social disintegration required to implement a socialist regime.

The socialists intend to use the mechanisms created by Madison to obtain power, and then use Madison’s institutional arrangement to create a permanent one-party monopoly.

The Democrat socialists possess a united national culture of socialist values, and if the socialist elites can control the election apparatus in each district, with no fear of term limits, it does not matter from which district the socialist representative is elected.

Once the socialist representative arrives in Washington, D.C., the national socialist values are all the same, across the Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary.

The unified, consolidated power of the socialists is protected by the federal judiciary, which is not subject to “limitation of the term of appointments.”

What Hamilton and Madison succeeded in creating was the ancient form of tyranny, where a powerful minority of socialist elites rule over the weaker social classes, whose interests are subordinated to the glory of social justice.

That ancient form of tyranny is what the socialists hope to inherit, from Madison’s Constitution, through polarization.

Keith Whittington, a professor at Princeton University, accurately described Madison’s flawed arrangement as being dysfunctional in both operation and shared values.

Whittington stated,

“I think a constitutional crisis is best understood to be moments when the constitutional system itself seems to be breaking down. This can happen in two ways: a crisis of operation and a crisis of fidelity. A crisis of operation occurs when important political disputes cannot be resolved within the existing constitutional framework. An effective constitution is one that provides a structure for contesting and resolving political disputes. When a constitution can no longer do that and our disputes spill outside the constitutional framework, then the constitution itself is in crisis. A crisis of fidelity occurs when important political actors are simply unwilling to adhere to the constitutional commitments as they understand them.”

Madison’s Constitution is flawed in both the operation of government, and in the creating fidelity and trust of the citizens to obey the rule of law. His Constitution is vulnerable to usurpation by the socialist strategy of polarization.

Impeachment and the Socialist Politics of Polarization


The socialists have a coherent strategy of using polarization to divide American citizens in order to create the conditions of social chaos required to implement a socialist state.

The Democrat’s strategy involves projecting onto Republicans the left’s own conspiracy theories, exacerbating racial and class hate, and systematically attempting to remove the first amendment rights of conservatives, in an effort to eliminate political opposition to socialism.

The left’s political goal is create enough class envy and racial hatred to allow Democrats to form a permanent voting majority.

The left sees the impeachment of Trump from the perspective of what happened to bi-partisanship with the Republican Party. In an earlier era, the Republican Party collaborated with the left on implementing the socialist political agenda.


This is what Beauchamp means when he states that House Republicans did not vote for the two articles of impeachment.


He states,


“Republicans’ vote against Trump’s impeachment reveals a broken system. The GOP’s willingness to back the president to the hilt, in spite of clear and obvious evidence of abuses of power, speaks to an urgent threat to American democracy: Our constitutional system is ill-equipped to withstand extreme polarization.”


From the socialist perspective, the socialists believe that the growing polarization is entirely due to the racism and hate of the Republicans.


In other words, the socialists believe themselves to be guiltless and free from any responsibility for polarization because of their moral arrogance that their own world-view of social justice is the only correct version of reality.


Polarization, according to this socialist view, would be lessened if Republicans would join Democrats in supporting impeachment.


Chauncey DeVega, a socialist media propagandist at Salon, wrote,

“By defending Donald Trump, the Republican Party and its disinformation news media are also willing participants in this conspiracy… the Russian government or its agents interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of helping to elect Donald Trump.”

In their seminar to explore the issue of polarization, entitled, “What Has Happened to the Republican Party?” the left-wing think tank, Center for American Progress, cites the Republican Party as responsible for polarization,

“while both parties participate in tribal warfare, both sides are not equally culpable. The political system faces what the authors call “asymmetric polarization,” with the Republican Party implacably refusing to allow anything that might help the Democrats politically, no matter the cost.”

Ronald Brownstein, a socialist writer for The Atlantic, also cites the Republicans lack of bipartisanship and reciprocity with Democrats as the cause of polarization.

He states,

“The starkest message to be gleaned from the impeachment struggle may be that red and blue America have almost completely separated into hostile camps. Across a wide array of surveys, Trump routinely receives positive ratings from about 90 percent of Republicans and fewer than 10 percent of Democrats… Trump has an unbounded willingness to trample over political, cultural, and legal norms and the ferocious opposition to him that ignites Democrat opposition…”

Left-wing historian, Sean Willenz, in his article, Republican Extremism and the Lessons of History, writes,

“This crisis is about nothing other than the Republican Party – its radicalization, its stunning lack of leadership and its disregard for the Constitution. The Republicans’ continuing transformation into a narrow ideological party, which some observers thought would halt after Bush’s failure, would have many more cycles to go. The current Republican Party is the latest angry exception to the rules of normal consensus-building politics, and it is unlikely that the GOP will function as a normal political party once again anytime soon.”

Niall Stanage, in The Hill, expresses the faint hope that Republicans will return to their former bipartisanship, and support impeachment.

He writes,

“Could Republicans finally reach some kind of breaking point with Trump? Maybe. There is a possibility, however slight, of impeachment blurring the nation’s partisan lines. The defense of Trump by elected Republicans regarding the most recent revelations — the president was shown to have pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate 2020 Democratic front-runner Joe Biden — has not been as vigorous as during some earlier controversies.”

Jeet Heer, in his article, The Republican Party, Not Trump, Is the Real Threat to American Democracy, suggests that the Republican transgressions are so bad, that the Republican Party must be punished.

He states,

“The disease is localized within the Republican Party. Which is why, if indeed American democracy is in a death loop, any solution must not focus solely on ousting Trump, but on punishing and reforming the GOP…Time and again, the Republican-controlled Congress has ignored, defended, or outright enabled Trump’s authoritarian excesses.”

In the socialist perspective, the citation to the Republican Party is a direct reference to Trump voters.

DeVega summarizes the left’s opinion of Trump voters.

He writes,

“The post-civil rights era Republican Party is hostile to the very idea of (multiracial) democracy. Today’s Republican Party and broader conservative movement is racist, sexist and authoritarian.”

In other words, if Trump voters were more rational, like socialists, Trump voters would not continue to support Trump.

DeVega cites the socialist professor, Cas Mudde, an authority on the racism and totalitarian characteristics of Trump voters.

Mudde states,

“In the United States that language has a very racialized connotation. White people hear “white people” when you say “hard-working Americans.” Whereas many minorities will think, “Oh, you said ‘hard-working Americans.’ You’re talking to white people…Working class” is another example. It is amazing how in the U.S. “working class” is used to mean the white working class.”

Socialist activist Michael Moore has said that white men who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 are, quite simply, bad people. They are, he argued, downright dangerous — at least for minorities.

Moore states,

“I refuse to say because we elected Obama that suddenly means everything is ok. White people have not changed. Two-thirds of all white guys voted for Trump. That means anytime you see three white guys walking at you, down the street towards you, two of them voted for Trump.”

Derek Thompson, in Who Are Donald Trump’s Supporters, Really? explains that Trump voters are racists who want Trump to implement white nationalist policies.

He writes,

“Trump has clearly played on fears of non-white outsiders, by likening Mexican immigrants to rapists, promising to deport illegal immigrants and to build a wall between the U.S. and its neighbors, pledging to keep Muslims out of the country during the Syrian diaspora, and playing coy with his relationship with the KKK.”

The socialists deploy a propaganda technique of projecting onto their enemies the traits and characteristics that motivate the socialists to engage in polarization.

DeVega, of Salon, uses projection of the Democrat’s coup to explain the Democrat’s impeachment strategy.

He writes,

“In a failing democracy such as the United States in the Age of Trump, projection as political strategy is another way of attacking truth, the bedrock of democracy.”

DeVega accurately describes the technique of projection being used by socialists.

He states,

“Authoritarians accuse their political opponents of doing the very things of which they are guilty. For Trump and his agents this means accusing the Democrats, “NeverTrump” conservatives and other principled people who oppose him of being “traitors.” When Trump and his agents protest that he is the target of a “coup” or that his adversaries are “corrupt” or “violating the Constitution,” this is a way of clouding the public discourse by making reality and the rule of law meaningless. The ultimate goal for an authoritarian like Trump is to hollow out the rule of law so that it can only be used in his service and against his political enemies.”

The ultimate goal of socialist projection is to hollow out the rule of law so that there is no political opposition to socialism. The socialist voters must be convinced that it is Trump’s conspiracy of a coup, and not the actual coup, that is reality.

In order to engage in projection, the socialists use the social construction of reality that their arguments are the only truthful version of reality.

In the socialist version of truth, it is Trump and conservatives who distort reality.

DeVega continues,

“Beyond conspiracy theory, Trump and the Republicans are waging an all-out war on reality. The Ukraine scandal, and Donald Trump himself, are just markers in a vast campaign against empirical reality.”


Cas Mudde is accurate when he describes the essential ingredient of shared cultural values as the glue that holds citizens in a democracy together. His point is that the Republican version of the founding of America is false, and that his narrative of the racist founding principles of America is correct.


Mudde states,


“Democracy is prefaced on some shared reality and a basic consensus about the truth. Trumpers and other members of the right-wing have rejected that premise. Without such a common understanding, how is it possible to engage in basic decision-making about politics and society? This question of “alternate realities” is about much more than people who do not care about the truth. I believe that most people on the radical right actually think that they are basing their arguments on the facts. Authoritarians use psychological projection to maintain power and control.”


In the socialist version of the truth, the Democrat’s Russian-Trump conspiracy is the truth. The goal of the socialist projection is to convince socialist voters of the truth of the Russian-Trump conspiracy.


DeVega states,


“President Donald Trump has repeatedly chosen to advance the interests and goals of Russia and Vladimir Putin over those of the United States and the American people.”


In the alternate reality of the socialists, the Republicans project a false conspiracy about Hillary. The Democrats use projection to convince socialist voters that the conspiracy about Hillary is false.


DeVega explains,

“There is an ugly and obvious irony here, of course: the Republican Party and its allied media have been master purveyors and architects of ridiculous conspiracies about Hillary Clinton’s emails and “Benghazi,” about Barack Obama’s birth certificate, about “Pizzagate,” the “War on Christmas”, the Sandy Hook massacre and the climate crisis, among other things.”

Even in the face of facts, the left continues to engage in lies about Trump.


Carl Bernstein explained that Mueller’s report “documented” the conspiracy between Putin and Trump.


He states,


“Preliminary conclusions from the Mueller Report indicate that Donald Trump helped Russia to “destabilize the United States. Donald Trump is likely a Russian asset. for today’s Republican Party and conservative movement, aiding and abetting treasonous and traitorous behavior is just a practical tool used to advance their destructive political revolution.”

In the face of the text of the call between Trump and Zelensky, the intent of the socialist conspiracy theories is to make citizens believe that the written text is false, and that Trump is an illegitimate President, and should be removed from office, through impeachment.

DeVega writes,

“Donald Trump publicly colluded with a foreign power to help steal the 2016 presidential election for him and in response the American people are largely mute and passive. By all reasonable criteria, Trump has shown himself to be an illegitimate president…Trump supporters do not live in the same shared reality as Democrats.”

Impeachment is not the end, or ultimate goal. As DeVega admits, impeachment is largely part of the left’s resistance to the capitalist system.

DeVega writes, 

“Although the power of impeachment is largely symbolic — since Trump will almost certainly not be removed from office — it still marks an act of resistance against the rising tide of the global right, and its assault on democracy and the rule of law. Victory over Trump will demand day-to-day acts of civil disobedience. Such acts of resistance and defiance will be crucial if Donald Trump wins re-election in 2020, an outcome that seems increasingly likely.

John Halpin, in his article, The Politics of Definition, explains how polarization and projection can be used to implement a socialist regime.

He states,

“We (socialists) need a new strategy of transformation for today’s progressive movement. We must pursue an agenda built on a platform of broadly shared economic opportunity and a clear stand on the side of middle- and working-class families.”

In the socialist version of reality, socialism means economic equality of income. Halpin and DeVega leave out the answer to Centinel, in 1788,

“If the people are sovereign how does the opinion of citizens direct the policies of government?”

In socialism, there is no citizen democracy. It is built upon a militaristic application of police power to enforce the socialist version of the truth.

Conclusion. Back to the Articles of Confederation

Zack Beauchamp is correct that “Madison’s Constitution Was Not Built For This,” because Madison’s Constitution was built to resolve financial and economic conflicts between elites and common citizens.

Madison’s Constitution is defective in resolving the growing polarization between socialists and natural rights conservatives over the nation’s mission and purpose.

Madison did not define the shared cultural values of America in his Preamble, because he assumed that all citizens already understood why the patriots sought independence from England.


In the absence of a defined national purpose to protect individual liberty in the Preamble, his elaborate system of separation of powers was ineffective in promoting shared allegiance to obey the rule of law.

Philanthropos, a natural rights patriot, argued that there was nothing seriously wrong with the Articles of Confederation that Madison could not have easily fixed at the convention in Philadelphia.

He stated,

“Our present constitution, (the Articles), with a few additional powers to Congress, seems better calculated to preserve the rights and defend the liberties of our citizens, than the one proposed, (by Madison), without proper amendments. Let us therefore, for once, show our judgment and solidarity by continuing it, (the Articles).”

“There is nothing in Madison’s constitution,” noted Centinel, like the detailed definition of consent in the various state constitutions.”

The natural rights patriots who opposed Madison’s Constitution argued that the state constitutions, in conjunction with the decentralized state sovereignty framework of the Articles, provided better protection of liberty than Madison’s centralized consolidated federal system.

Those patriots were correct about the superior protections of the state constitutions, and this podcast argues that the only peaceful, non-violent solution to the socialist strategy of polarization is for today’s patriots to return the framework of the Articles of 1781.

The socialist’s strategy of polarization is working, and they only need 22 more electoral votes to implement their socialist vision of a permanent one-party rule.

In the last four elections, prior to the election of 2016, the Democrats carried 18 states, for a total of 248 electoral votes.

Alternatively, there are currently 12 states that would easily form a new socialist nation, and 25 states that would form the nucleus of a natural rights nation, formed on the framework of state sovereignty, as expressed in the nation’s first Constitution, The Articles of Confederation.

We conclude our podcast with the observation that natural rights conservatives must begin to see the Democrat socialists as an existential threat to individual liberty.

The polarization being promoted by the socialists is a pernicious and dangerous strategy that serves to undermine a constitutional republic, and Madison’s existing constitution is inadequate to overcome the socialist threat.

There are irreconcilable differences between the government of a police state repressive society of socialists and the government of individual liberties of a natural rights republic.

The only peaceful, non-violent solution to the nation’s conflict is to dissolve the nation into two new nations:

  • The Socialist States of America,
  • The Democratic Republic of America.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.

You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.

You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com

You can learn more about the federalist, state sovereignty framework of the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com

Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com