Introduction The debate over centralized governance vs. decentralization of power for the most effective form of sovereign rule has persisted throughout world history. Today, it is more relevant than ever as the call for a never before seen globally centralized government challenges the status quo national sovereignty. Yet there is a much less discussed but credible position of local/regional government that has, from time to time successfully taken root and is popular among those wary of rule from afar. The argument over centralized rule vs. decentralization of power kicked off between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in the newly formed Republic and was institutionalized and memorialized. Both claimed to have the correct
No Author considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Tyler Durden writes Guess What Happened When New York Put Homeless People In Luxury Hotels
Tyler Durden writes Shipments Of 20,000 Fake IDs From China Seized By Feds Ahead Of Election
The debate over centralized governance vs. decentralization of power for the most effective form of sovereign rule has persisted throughout world history. Today, it is more relevant than ever as the call for a never before seen globally centralized government challenges the status quo national sovereignty. Yet there is a much less discussed but credible position of local/regional government that has, from time to time successfully taken root and is popular among those wary of rule from afar.
The argument over centralized rule vs. decentralization of power kicked off between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in the newly formed Republic and was institutionalized and memorialized. Both claimed to have the correct vision for the newly founded Republic. While their statues may not survive what appears to be a cultural revolution in the manner of Mao, the ghosts of Hamilton and Jefferson still roam the American landscape as their political dichotomy plays out ever presently behind the backdrop of the increasingly defunct rubbish coming from the Left/Democrats, Right/Republicans, and the ahistorical, parochial minded extremist-activist groups wreaking havoc across the nation.
It would, therefore, follow that the language and stances of both parties are obsolete and that the oldest debate needs to be placed front and center back into the 21st-century political arena – of course, infused with a modern twist. The result would be a more substantive, raw and unfiltered debate that, contrary to popular memes, has stood the test of time from the ancients right on up until today.
If we had to boil it down to a bumper sticker, it would ask the question, power to the people, or power to the elite?
So, will the 21st century belong to centralization and technocracy or optimization and human scale?
Most importantly, where do Americans stand on this epic issue?
We believe we have answers that will help you get to know America more intimately in the years to come.
On the Data Front
Trend 1a– Trust In Our National Leaders
On the surface, the trend is as clear as day, as you go from the right to the left on the political spectrum, the lack of trust in National leaders increases to alarming levels. This is no surprise given the anger and hysteria one can hear from the opposition within the media or on the ground. However, notice that a lack of trust has taken root even among the President’s base. These are alarming levels as well, and to top it off, overall, a plurality (48%) of Americans say we should trust our National leaders less. It is important to note that regarding this question, we specifically stated “National leaders” and not “the President.” While no doubt many could have equated “National leaders” to the President and his cabinet, look at the high levels of distrust among those that identify as Conservative and very Conservative. Regardless of ideology, there is waning trust at the National level of leadership and this is bigger than Trump – it is also Congress and the Federal agencies that are continuously losing trust from the public.
Since the Pandemic, Should Americans Trust Our National Leaders More Or Less?
Trend 1b– Trust In Our State Leaders
What about our State leaders? How do they fare? We followed up with the same question. Overall, State leaders have trust from a plurality (47%) of American voters when we asked should we trust our State leaders more or less. On the flip side, 30% say we should trust State leaders less, leaving almost one-quarter (24%) not sure.
Since the Pandemic, Should Americans Trust Our State Leaders More Or Less?
Notice there is near consensus among Progressives, Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives as the numbers align pretty well regarding the notion that Americans should trust State leaders more.
Forecast For Trust In Leaders:
Trust in National leaders is clearly on the wane, and as previously stated, it is bigger than Trump. At the backdrop of the declining trust of National leadership is a crisis of epic proportions. Thus far in 2020, we see nobody with the ability to woo the public as witnessed in 2008 and 2016. As a result, support for National leaders will continue to wane. There are two realistic outcomes; the first, a long-term trend in the making – a greater interest in local leaders and elections where voters have more oversight and skin in the game. The other possible outcome is a great calamity between now and November (think the ultimate October surprise) that rallies voters in great numbers towards one side.
Trend 2a — Global Government & National Sovereignty
Just a few quick scans of the first few pages from an online search of “Global government” will display headlines such as “Gordon Brown Calls for a Global Government to Tackle Coronavirus” or “The Coronavirus Will Forever Alter the World Order,” penned by Kissinger making a case for “starting the urgent work of planning for a new epoch.”
We thought it would be prudent to ask the public whether or not they believe the U.S. would maintain its National sovereignty or fall under the jurisdiction of a Global government over the next five to ten years.
In the next 5 to 10 years, do you believe the United States will maintain its National Sovereignty or fall under the jurisdiction of a Global government
Overall a solid majority (56%) believe the U.S. will maintain its National sovereignty over the next five to ten years. In contrast, nearly one-fifth (19%) believe the U.S. will fall under the jurisdiction of a World government.
While this is a popular topic discussed among those that attend Davos, those over the age of 50 are far less likely to see this happening during this decade. However, Gen Z and younger Millennials believe they are more likely to see America under the rule of a World government with nearly one-third (32%) telling us.
Trend 2b — Which Has The Final Say: States Or Federal Government?
One of the key debates between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians was over the issue of Nullification or State’s rights. By the time of Lincoln’s presidency, the United States witnessed, by and large, an ascendancy of Hamiltonian ideas which further culminated with Wilson and FDR. Since then, many Americans have forgotten the extent to which both Northern and Southern states opposed the Federal government on a variety of issues during Jeffersonian Democracy (1790 – 1865).
What about today with regards to a cornerstone of Jeffersonian philosophy? Where do Americans stand on the issue of Nullification? We asked if the public agrees or not whether each state should be allowed to oppose the Federal government’s laws and regulations.
Should Each State Be Allowed To Oppose Federal Government Laws and Regulations?
Likely voters overall, as well as Democrats and Independents display a plurality agreeing with what is essentially the practice of Nullification. Republicans are not too far behind.
How does this provide context for the larger question of sovereignty, especially the prospect of World government?
Forecast On Sovereignty:
The question is, can a World government rule more effectively? Proponents say today’s technology not only makes it possible but also that it would be more efficient. Opponents make the case that an actual Global government would fail even greater than the status quo order due to too much concentration of power in the hands of too few (according to Lord Acton’s Dictum)
In his Seminole work, Common Sense, Thomas Paine questioned why the colonists would want to be ruled by a tiny island from across the ocean?
How would a Global government work in light of Paine’s reasoning above? Would the capital be Davos, Basel, Hong Kong, or Singapore? More and more people will eventually conclude that they can have more impact over their local and County governments as organized people power is vastly easier to execute and ultimately influence policy to fit their unique local culture.
On the flip side, an event so calamitous could bring citizens around the world to their knees that they would plead for world order. This would have to be something along the lines of worldwide currency collapse – as perhaps implied in a 90-second video produced and promoted by the World Economic Forum – in which a single stroke of the reset key on the vast machine creates a new world order. But as in nature, there is always variety and little, if anything, is uniform. Therefore, in the event of a monumental calamity, would a global digital currency be the only legal currency? Would other forms of money be allowed to compete alongside it? If the former, our data suggest from our previous report (see the section on assets coveted), a significant segment of the population would live in a parallel economy outside of this new order.
Trend 3 — Faith In The November 2020 Election
Do You Agree Or Disagree That Your Vote Will Count If Done By Mail?
How Likely Is It That The November 2020 Election Will Be Suspended?
Are those who believe that the November 2020 election is very or somewhat likely to be suspended privy to information the rest of us aren’t? Not the case. It is yet, another indicator of the waning faith in our leaders at the National level.
The health of a Democracy (or Republic to be technically correct), depends on trust and faith in elections. 2016 was a turning point with one half of the country yielding to the media blitz that charged Russia with altering the election. Yet to date, not one piece of evidence has emerged from the Intelligence community to support the claim. The result has been a blow to confidence in the National election process.
Forecast For Faith In The November Election:
Due to decreasing trust in National leadership, increasing faith in State leaders (analyzed above), alarming levels that disagree their vote will count if done by mail, and a significant percentage that question whether there will even be an election, our data further buttresses the claim that faith in local leadership will rise. More people will realize that while they’ll never step foot in the West Wing or observe a meeting at the CIA headquarters in Langley, let alone a G20 summit, they most certainly can have an impact at City hall or a Municipal building where leadership is much more within reach. Transparency then is not just a clever talking point, but actually within grasp.
It appears today that the direction blowing in the wind is the decentralization of power. At the same time, no doubt about it, the calls for greater centralization of power are louder and louder – epitomized by the World Economic Forum’s video which endorses a click of the reset button.
We return to the quintessential questions posed to our readers at the beginning of the report that they should ponder after a close read:
- Which form of power belongs to the 21st century? Global, National, or Local?
- Will the 21st century belong to centralization and technocracy or optimization and human scale?
- Power to the people or power to the elite?