All Posts

We measure every president two ways — economic freedom and civil liberty — and a president has to move the country toward freedom on both to make the list. That single rule reshapes everything, and it is why the most famous "small government" names are not always where you expect. The question underneath all of it: did this leave Americans more free, or more governed?

What happens when the government decides to skip the courtroom and issue a death sentence via missile? Since late 2025, over 200 people have been killed in secret U.S. military strikes on small boats. The military claims these are narco-terrorists, but admits they lack the evidence to actually hold or prosecute survivors in a court of law. It is a stark deprivation of life without due process, performed openly as state policy.

The lesson of Worms was not the lesson Luther meant to give. He meant to defend the Word of God against a corrupt Church. He taught, instead, that no earthly authority is beyond the judgment of a conscience answerable to something higher — and that lesson, once learned, could not be confined to the Church.

This is the closing episode of the series' first arc, and it does two things. It forges the medieval inheritance — Magna Carta, Bracton's "the law makes the king," Aquinas's fourfold law and his lex iniusta non est lex, the line that ran straight to Martin Luther King's Birmingham jail cell — and then it stands on the summit and looks back across the whole road: Athens, Jerusalem, Rome, and the House of Wisdom, four civilizations braided into one cord and handed to the men wh

Two stories crossed my desk this week, and at first they look unrelated. One is a fight over a proof-of-citizenship and voter-identification bill that the House passed and the Senate could not advance past a filibuster. The other is a long-shot resolution to repeal a constitutional amendment more than a century old. Follow them far enough, though, and they meet at the same question — the one I keep returning to. Did this leave Americans more free, or more governed?

Who tells us what we were not supposed to know? On Saturday we met that figure in his oldest form — the Hebrew prophet who walks up to the king with no army and says "thou art the man." This episode meets him in ours: Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange — and the single 1917 law turned against all three, not for selling secrets to enemies, but for telling Americans what their own government was doing. Underneath runs the deeper argument of the series: the Constitu

The medieval centuries in which the inheritance traced in the first three installments of this series was put to immediate political and legal use. Athens had given the West reason and the idea of the mixed constitution. Jerusalem had given it the covenant and the conviction that even kings stand under a law above themselves. Rome had given it natural law and the architecture of a republic. The House of Wisdom had preserved and transmitted the Greek philosophical inheritance

The golden thread does not begin and end in Greece and Rome. This episode widens it in two directions the schoolbooks usually omit. First, to Jerusalem: the Hebrew tradition that gave the West its most radical political idea — that even the king stands under the law — expressed through the covenant at Sinai, the prophets who confronted kings to their faces, and above all Samuel’s warning in the eighth chapter of First Samuel, a catalog of royal takings that states the Liberty

Saturday’s episode drew from Aristotle, Polybius, and the Founders the idea of the mixed constitution — the one, the few, and the many in balance — and insisted that the democratic element had to be genuinely popular for the whole structure to hold. This contemporary application episode asks whether our own “people’s house” still carries the voice of the people, and argues that it has been narrowed by two mechanisms: the cap of 435 members frozen in 1929, which has stretched

This is the article in which the cross-civilizational character of the liberty tradition becomes unmistakable. The reader who insists on seeing the Founding as the product of one people, one continent, one faith, will find the historical record contradicts such insistence. The reader willing to follow the evidence will find an inheritance richer than any chauvinism could fit inside.

The Founders did not invent their politics; they read it. This episode traces the classical inheritance at the root of American constitutional design through three ancient figures and one cautionary contrast. Aristotle gave the Founders the empirical study of constitutions and the doctrine of the mixed regime anchored in a broad middle class. Polybius gave them anacyclosis — the wheel by which governments decay — and the recognition that a mixed constitution could slow the tu

If Social Security returns so little compared to the alternative, leaves nothing to one’s heirs, and rests on a financial foundation this precarious, why is it so popular?

What is the difference between a right and an entitlement? This contemporary application episode takes the concept of natural rights inherited by the American Founders — introduced on Saturday in “The Golden Thread” — and applies it to the most consequential category confusion in modern politics: the belief that a government benefit funded by other people’s labor is a right. Using the 2026 Social Security solvency debate as its spine, the episode walks the hardest case honest

The men who designed the American constitutional order treated antiquity as a laboratory of political experiment — failed experiments, mostly, and one or two qualified successes — from which the principles of constitutional design could be empirically extracted.

The series opener makes a single, startling claim: the truths the Declaration of Independence calls self-evident were not invented in Philadelphia. They were inherited — refined across more than two thousand years, in more than one civilization, by men who rarely knew one another. Jefferson himself said as much, naming Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Sidney as the “elementary books” behind the Declaration. This episode establishes that the Founders were readers before they were

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The finale of Empire of Liberty stands alone as a summary of the entire series. Opening with the cycle of democracy often attributed to Alexander Tytler, the episode tests that cycle against two centuries of American foreign policy, compresses the nineteen-installment synthesis into nine documented turns, engages the strongest interventionist counterargument in its strongest form, lays out the four pillars of constitutional restoration, and closes on Lord Acton’s insight that

A convention should be judged first by what it accomplished, and the body that met in Grand Rapids accomplished more than its sharpest critics will credit. The case for the convention, stated as charitably as the record permits, is substantial.

This final article aims to do four things. First, it synthesizes the long arc — not as a 1945 break with the founders’ republic, but as a two-century accumulation of choices, each of which could have been made differently, each of which can in principle be made differently again. Second, it acknowledges the Roman example, which has hovered over the entire series. The Roman Republic did not fall to invasion. It was abandoned in stages, each stage seeming individually tolerabl

Episode 19 traces the two-hundred-year arc from James Monroe’s 1823 doctrine — originally a defensive warning to European powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere — to its contemporary inversion into a claim of American authority to reshape Latin American governments at will.