Convinced that he knew how to increase the grain output from some of the most fertile farmland in the world, a Georgian leader began issuing edicts and laws to increase food production. His agricultural policies led to the deaths of between five and eight million Soviet peasants. This leader used divisive tactics to play one class against another, telling the poorer that the richer were earning more than they ought to on the backs of the poorer.

The false narrative of kulaks taking advantage of peasants, saw reprisals and animus grow against the kulaks. The class warfare eventually grew so bitter, that the farming peasants were content to let the kulaks die where they lay. The Soviets leaders set up numerous laws, which delivered excessive penalties when they were broken. Something so innocent as harvesting spilled grain from the fields could land a person in a gulag for a year.  So terrible were the results of this planning, many of the records concerning it were kept sealed in archives for 60 years.

This “cult of perfect leadership” spread to another Marxist Utopia in the late 1950s. Mao Zedong’s visions for a capable and self-sustaining China met with harsh reality too. Mao followed the same flawed plan that led to the Soviet’s famine in the early 1930s. The “Great Leap Forward” included a period from 1958 to 1961, which saw deaths of between 15 and 43 million Chinese people.

The Chinese leadership simply told the people it would be better for them to eat less – and then attempted to force them to do so. The famine grew so bad in some areas, reports filtered out that people were turning to cannibalism to satiate their hunger (children were reportedly swapped between families, so they would not have to eat their own offspring). Despite the starvation, the Chinese planners kept true to that five-year plan.

Cuba and North Korea are two more centrally planned, dictatorial governments, who fail miserably to deliver on any promises that they make. Stuck in rampant poverty since the 1959 Castro coup, Cuba seems stuck in a time bubble of 1950s technology as well. The Cubans may have seen minor improvements in their economies since the early 1990s, but that could be blamed on forced change, due to the death of their biggest benefactor, the Soviet Union.

Perhaps the biggest event in Cuba was not any economic or humanitarian event, but, due to the closeness of Cuba to the Soviet Union, the near-nuclear war between super powers in 1961. Castro supported missiles in Cuba, and tried to prod Khrushchev into acting against the United States, too.

Xenophobic North Korean leaders rely on boogeymen to instill constant fear into their populace, and keep the people united against anyone but their oppressors (North Korean leaders). North Korea’s military is far more important than their civilians (but leaders have trouble feeding the military too). The government’s response to the disaster was to re-brand it – calling it the “Arduous March”, and attempting to equate lack of food to a willing sacrifice for the betterment of the country. As it stands now, North Korea still is very close to sliding into another famine, their children now suffer retarded growth, and the country relies heavily on grain imports from the U.N. and South Korea to feed its people.

So – these instances of flawed, failed, and fruitless leadership – what should we take away from them? That leadership is not perfect, should go without saying. The takeaway is this: that unquestioned leadership is a very dangerous thing. Whether the leadership uses force or charisma to further its aims matters little. Leaders in echo-chambers, without frequent and legitimate challenges to their authority, who hold a sense of superiority, can lead countries into very bad situations.

While the American media continues to fawn over Obama, and hang on his every word, the people who must live with the results of his executive orders and fellow democrats’  misleading words know better. America still has the checks and balances that the Founders gave us, but it remains more than ever, up to us to use them, despite what the media cheerleaders tell us, and despite what our politicians promise us.

“Just do as you are told – it will all be better that way.” The mantra of the left

With the Supreme Court and the future of constitutional government in doubt, it’s always reassuring to hear from the voices who espouse those views.  I’m an ardent optimist.  I have faith that the electorate will correct their decisions made on Nov. 6, and constrain this president’s pernicious agenda of implementing a hyper-regulatory progressive state.  The Federalist Society’s 30th Anniversary Gala last Thursday night featured Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who detailed how the legal opinions of those on the left threaten America’s constitutional bedrock: federalism.

To put it simplistically, the federal government is supreme in its sphere, as is the state government in their defined area.  There is overlap – and confusion.  However, Alito gave a robust defense of the doctrine.  While it’s seen better days, federalism in Alito’s view, promotes energetic and productive competition, protects liberty, and encourages experimentation.  He also reiterated that you do not have to buy the various treatises on constitutional law that run over a thousand pages –  and cost a considerable amount of money – to understand that congressional power is limited.  You just have to read the plain text of the U.S. Constitution to understand that point.

He then went on to detail various cases that have threatened this principle of federalism.  From the government being able to attach GPS monitors surreptitiously to your vehicles and calling it a search under the Fourth Amendment to facing the regulatory nightmare of having wetlands being designated in one’s backyard, the fight to keep the Madisonian experiment in limited government, and the principles of federalism un-imbrued continues with fragility.

We have four liberals, four conservatives, with Justice Alito included, and moderate Justice Kennedy on the bench, which isn’t a firm legal defense of the principles conservatives wish to see blemished.  And more fights will come.  One fight in particular that was highly salient – which was described more in depth by Justice Alito, concerned Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

In this case, Cheryl Perich was hired by the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School, taught some lessons, contracted narcolepsy, took a leave of absence, and was subsequently replaced.  She sued under the American with Disabilities Act, however, the ministerial exception gave more latitude to religious institution in terms of hiring and firing processes.  The Court ruled unanimously that such an exception applied here, and therefore, discrimination lawsuits brought against religious institutions aren’t valid.

Well, The New York Times, to no one’s surprise, didn’t take too kindly to the decision.  But, the argument for Perich and The New York Times is disturbing.  Should courts be allowed to review cases, and make decisions based on legal and religious doctrines?  Is it up to a judge and jury to decide a termination?  If accepted, government would have been able to go deep into the dynamics of religious institutions, and the doctrines that guide them.  That’s gross overreach.For jurists to decide cases based solely on church doctrine, if this argument were accepted by the Court, and not law is insane.  As Justice Alito said at the dinner, it’s a “chilling” foray into this plausible episode of government intrusion.

This nation proudly and robustly defends the right to free speech enshrined in our First Amendment.  However, this case, and Citizens United, shows how some people on the left will try to alter the Constitution to fit their model on how they feel government should operate – or feel whole again.  Citizens United, the more controversial of the two cases, was boiled down to the government making the case the speech articulated or disseminated by the privileged few is protected, but isn’t for other parties in the country.  That’s perverse, and it doesn’t stop there.

Justice Alito concluded with a warning about the alternate vision we’re fighting against in the judiciary.  It’s a vision where federalism offers no refuge.  It’s an insufferable progressive state that stomps on religious institutions and freedoms.  It’s a government that can willingly seize private property.  Justice Alito vociferously made the case that the U.S. Constitution wasn’t meant to be malleable with a dependent, entitled society.  It was designed for the citizens operating within a socioeconomic fabric that stressed freedom and independence.  This document embeds certain rights, so that they can’t be easily removed from the political landscape.  Therefore, as Justice Alito alluded to, it’s integral to the survival of our freedom, and our commitment to be an open and prosperous society.

Thomas Jefferson

It’s just a fact that concentrating power in one area will lead to the destruction of liberty.  Government power is a lot like radiation.  In small amounts, radiation can cure cancer.  But if you concentrate too much of it in one area – like a nuclear bomb – it will destroy everything in its path.

This is why the Founders were so careful about widely distributing power when this nation was formed.  Power in this country was divided up not only among the three branches of the federal government, but also throughout many state and local governments.

But over the last 100 years, we have continually transferred more and more power to Washington D.C. – and more specifically, to the executive branch.  We’ve gotten to the point where our federal government now has control over our health care and – in some cases – what we eat.  As Jefferson points out, history tells us this won’t end well for us.

This isn’t a theory – we know that concentrated power destroys liberty.  We can’t continue to disregard the experience of history and expect to keep our freedom.  That would be like continually increasing the dose of radiation for a cancer patient and assuming that it wasn’t going to kill him at some point.

So we can either continue on our path of giving more and more power to Washington D.C. or move in the direction of more evenly distributed government.  Either way we know what the result will be – it’s up to us to choose freedom or tyranny.