Activism Update: Palin’s Farewell; Perry and Healthcare; Practical Notes on Effective Change

Via the Sarahs-Accomplishments blog, here are two videos recounting the now former Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) farewell speech:

Regarding healthcare and federalism, I had first reported (via that Arizona’s State legislature had passed a proposal to put on the ballot for citizens to vote on whether or not the State should be able to override any federal law that would require any individual or employer to participate in any healthcare plan.

Now, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has come out swinging against any sort of federal, single-payer healthcare system by promising to invoke his State’s 10th Amendment rights (via

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be “disastrous” for Texas.

Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.

“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.” …

“It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class,” Perry said. “A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution.” …

Perry, in his on-air interview Thursday with Davis, did not specify how he might use the 10th Amendment in opposing the Obama health plan. His spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said that the governor’s first goal is to defeat the plan in Congress and that any discussion of options beyond that would be “hypothetical.”

“I don’t think it’s surprising that the governor is taking a stand against it,” said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based research organization that supports the House version of Obama’s plan. “Unfortunately, the national dialogue on health reform has been extraordinarily partisan and polarized.”

The White House Media Affairs Office, asked to comment on Perry’s statements, did not have an immediate response. In his remarks to the nation Wednesday, Obama restated his midsummer deadline for passage of the bill in Congress, saying it is urgently needed to help families “that are being clobbered by healthcare costs.” …

Perry said the plan is another example of the Obama administration’s “massive takeover of the private-sector economy.”

“I hope our leaders will look for solutions that don’t dig our country further into debt,” he said.

Perry called on Texans in the House and Senate to oppose the plan. “I can’t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don’t care whether you’re Democrat or Republican,” he said.

Of those Texans who might consider supporting the plan, he said: “This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they’re sure not representing Texas.”

So, how do we go about once again securing individual liberty with respect to the American Constitution? I now present two excellent articles that deal with both the philosophy and the practical nature of why change towards constitutionalism won’t necesssarily come from another political party but, instead, from consistent and persistent accountability of elected officials and the training of effective and erudite political newcomers.

The first is by Thomas Grady, founder of the Missouri Sovereignty Project (via

When it was written, the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment was the last line drawn in the sand against an oppressive central government. It was the Bill of Rights’ final amendment, as if our Founding Fathers said, “By the grace of God, if the first nine amendments don’t prevent tyranny, the 10th will do so.” Here’s what the Mighty 10th tells us:

“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.”

Our Founding Fathers – specifically Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry – demanded the original Constitution provide for a legal means of bringing finality of any government’s legitimacy directly back into the hands of the people at large whenever the people so desired. The framers broke the Mighty 10th into two actionable lines of defense against a King George government:

1) the states (“powers…are reserved to the States respectively…”), and
2) the people (“powers…are reserved…to the people.”)

Number one is systematic and orderly. Number two, unfortunately, could get ugly, especially if the 2nd Amendment is put into play. Let’s stick with number one for now.

Though the 10th Amendment is entrenched in the Constitution, forcing its application has become a burden of the states themselves. Clearly the federal government has not only ignored the Mighty 10th, it will undoubtedly fight vehemently any attempt to enforce it. After all, most politicians have massive egos and aren’t inclined to voluntarily shed themselves of power; this includes most federal judges.

So the battle that is now just commencing will be long and hard. Any legal foundational help will be welcome. That help could come from what is referred to as the Enumerated Powers Acts (HR450 and S1319) currently in congressional committee. The House bill was introduced by Arizona’s John Shadegg and the Senate sister by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Here’s what the Acts require:

“…each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act.”

This means any Congressman who wants to introduce a bill must first flip through the Constitution and find the provision “enumerated” in its pages that gives the Congressman the right to introduce all elements of the bill. Without the identified “power,” guess what?

The Heritage Foundation points out what happens if the Enumerated Powers Acts were adopted. “Every bill would be an opportunity for Americans to think seriously about our constitutional order, the wisdom of its design, and the consequences of departing from its strictures.”

Granted, S1319 and HR450 are stuck in committee in this liberal current Congress and will never see the light of the floor. However, the mere existence of the Acts awaiting a vote could well provide a huge leverage on whether politicians agree with it in concept and significance.

Thus the underpinning of the Pincer Movement: from the state (the Mighty 10th) and from federal (the Acts).

The Missouri Sovereignty Project, for example, is engaged in this strategy right now. The Project is contacting elected officials, both state and Missouri congressional, and asking them to sign pledges to agree in principle and to uphold and abide by both the 10th Amendment and the Enumerated Powers Acts.

Forcing current and campaigning public officials to take a principled and public stand (yea or nay) on the 10th Amendment and the Enumerated Powers Act will flush officials out into the open about their dedication to the very document they swore to uphold. The Project believes politicians will be sweaty around the collar about the notion of thumbing their noses at to the Constitution, on either front.

As one might expect, the Missouri Sovereignty Project will compile lists, which will become part of the public domain through blogs, prints and broadcast media inside the state.

The Missouri Sovereignty Project is only a month old and already has a growing number of dedicated members. Unlike many movements across the country, the Project is not a social group. It has an explicit charter, has already sent out two press releases, and has a membership group that is organized, by each member’s choice, on three levels:

1) those who spread the word,

2) those who monitor, call and write public officials,

3) those who organize and manage.

The geographic grassroots goal of the Missouri Sovereignty Project is to have a Level 2 or Level 3 member in each of the 163 state House districts, which would overlap the state Senate districts and the Congressional districts.

The group expects to be completely in place, up and running across all state districts by March of 2010, just in time for elections. This network will continually monitor and contact any public official that strays from their pledge.

The second is from Jon at the Constitutionalism blog who hits the proverbial nail on the head regarding the effectiveness of the Socialist Party infiltrating major political parties (namely the Democrat Party in the United States) through incrementalism and outlining how today’s constitutionalists, Libertarians and the like can copy the same methodology for their interests:

Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 – December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for theSocialist Party of AmericaHe said this in a 1944 interview:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened…. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.

This statement reveals several key ideas:

The first is that a third party can win support for its policy positions without winning any elections if one of the two main parties adopts its positions.

The second is that it is a winning political strategy to advantage a small segment of the voters at the expense of a smaller segment. Do that for enough small segments and eventually you will have socialism.

The third is that it is a winning strategy to avoid allowing your ultimate objective, or the constitutional implications, to be framed as the question to be decided by the voters. People wouldn’t vote for socialism, or for violating the Constitution, if the question were framed in those terms, but will vote for incremental steps toward it, and fail to understand the opponents when they try to explain to voters what those steps lead to, or that they are unconstitutional.

The problem for libertarians is that liberty doesn’t sell as well as government benefits. People don’t really appreciate liberty until they have lost it, and too often they will not even realize they have lost it, or they will attribute the loss to something other than their own past election choices. It is easier for most people to imagine a prospective financial gain or loss than a loss of liberty. Money can be counted in a way that liberty can’t.

The same may be said of constitutional compliance. Few politicians make it a leading issue in campaigns. Most people don’t understand it and have come to think that calling the opponent’s position “unconstitutional” is just rhetoric. The few who do understand usually don’t have enough influence over the others. The number of people who can understand what is and what is not constitutional is fairly small, and always has been. The only time in history it was large was during the first three American revolutions: the War for Independence, the ratification of the Constitution, and the Election of 1800, the last of which entrenched the Jeffersonian position on constitutional interpretation for the period from 1800 through 1824, and then to a declining degree for most of the rest of the 19th century. But even during the ratification debates it is unlikely that the majority of the people really understood the proposed Constitution in its entirety. Some focused on particular provisions that seemed dangerous, and opposed it until their fears were alleviated. Most probably supported it because George Washington did, demonstrating that the way to get complicated reforms is not to educate all the people but to get the support of charismatic personalities the voters like and trust.

Most of Ron Paul’s constituents don’t vote for him because they agree with his positions. They vote for him because they like and trust him. It is more important for most voters to be comfortable with the personality than with his positions.

“Bait and switch” works in political selling as well. Voters are offered some charismatic personality or government benefit and never told that either represents a violation of the Constitution. Some will argue that the people have voted for the departures from constitutional compliance and thus ratified them in some sense, but that is deceptive, because the people were deceived by not having the constitutional implications of their choices explained to them. They did not vote for violation. The issues weren’t framed to them that way.

That doesn’t mean it is not a productive activity to educate people on constitutional compliance. We need to create a learning environment in which some of those charismatic personalities can “get it” and then bring their insights with them when they take office. We have to spread the education around because it is not always easy to discern who will be the charismatic personalities of the future, and because such people are herd animals like any other who are going to want the reassurance of like-minded people before they will venture forth with constitutionalist positions. The trick is to both educate those individuals and enough of the individuals around them.

What we learn from the study of the diffusion of innovations is that most people don’t adopt new things because they learn about them from some kind of broadcast message. They are influenced more by the examples of those they look to as role models, and that chain of influence tends to sort itself into levels, with “early adopters” at the top, “secondary adopters” below them, “tertiary adopters” below both, and “quadranary adopters” below the first three. We also learn that most people don’t adopt new things in long leaps or from single exposures to messages or examples. Except for the early adopters people generally adopt in small steps spaced over a period of time in response to repeated messages. That means you need to target people who are ready to take the next step, figure out where they are and how far you can get them to go on that occasion, then move on to others, but return to the first before they go cold and move them on to the next step, repeating the process until you get many people recruited. Then you need to keep them recruited with positive reinforcements, because most adopters won’t stick to a new things unless it rewards them in some way, and because there are usually competing innovations that may win them over if you neglect to hold them.


Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy Sarahs-Accomplishments

5 thoughts on “Activism Update: Palin’s Farewell; Perry and Healthcare; Practical Notes on Effective Change”

  1. Hopefully Gov. Perry doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet, like a mistress, an undocumented maid, a tryst with a baby sitter, unpaid taxes from 1980, genital warts, etc.

    We all know what happens when you dare to go against Obama and his Chicago “machine.” You either end up in jail, dead or you your career is over.

  2. Speedy—-And that index is going to continue to drop….if the ineligibility question is not addressed and soon…..all hell is going to break out…..people are tired of being ignored….much like the citizens of IRAN with the illegal election that took place over there…..which if I remember right the FRAUD in our White House didn’t want to meddle in…..why would he when he has broken all kinds of laws here in our own country….KICK the FRAUD out of OUR HOUSE….that is my new mantra!!!!


    We are not waiting until 2010….we want our rights and freedoms addressed NOW….not TOMORROW!!!!

  3. BO has a -11 index on Rassmussen poll. More disapprove than approve. His ideas are monstrous and he is monstrous. If these congress people really value their jobs and want reelection, then they are going to have to look into this usurper’s ineligibility more seriously than calling people names without really getting all the facts. They have to power to demand his BC. They are a bunch of wimps not doing so. If they don’t look into the matter and the matter of all his other criminal activities, then I am sure that people are going to vote them out in 2010.

Comments are closed.