Reader Response to Chapter 5.6

A Subscriber's Opinion

Dear Friends & Family: This is a first for me and a hopeful experiment. One of our readers asked me if he could publish his own editorial response to my last chapter entitled “Chapter 5.6 | The Price of Partisanship: The Collapse of Principled Consistency. Why Partisanship Is America’s Greatest Vulnerability”. I share this not because I align with the opinions expressed, but in the hopes that it will spark a dialogue. If you’ve read my writings over the years, you know that I published this substack as a personal blog in the hope that if I shined a light on the ways that the duopoly and the media have conspired to manipulate us to their own ends (profits & power) that we could begin a dialog and develop a shared understanding of how we got here. The goal is to find common ground to tone down the rhetoric of our political discourse and allow us to move together to find a path that enables us to align on the reforms needed to save our democratic republic from the death spiral caused by the duopoly. I hope that these pages have helped you see how they have rigged the game to divide us and disenfranchise tens of millions of citizens in order to ensure that they retain power.

---

OPINION GUEST ESSAY: by Promachus.

Beginning with sincere gratitude for Chapter 5.6 — both for its moral seriousness and for your continuing commitment to civic truth-telling in a moment of political decay. You’ve taken on the hard work of pulling apart the architecture of our broken political culture, and you’ve done it with clarity, courage, and a sincere desire to elevate the conversation.

I fully agree with your central premise: partisanship has become one of the greatest threats to constitutional self-governance. Both major parties have become a duopoly that has too often prioritized performance over policy, outrage over outcomes, and electoral advantage over principled leadership. The erosion of institutional trust, and the deepening dependence on executive power, are symptoms of a broader civic malaise. Your call to reinvigorate civic literacy, reject media tribalism, and restore constitutional boundaries is vital—and urgent.

But I also want to raise a respectful challenge: in aiming for balance, your framing occasionally veers into a false equivalency that, however unintentional, obscures the asymmetry in today’s political crisis.

Yes, both parties have abused executive authority. Yes, immigration policy under Obama included harsh realities and due process concerns. But in Trump’s second term, the situation is categorically different—not just in scale or tone, but in intent. Trump is not merely exploiting the system; he is openly vowing to dismantle core democratic principles, targeting institutions of accountability, and testing the guardrails of law in ways that no recent president has dared.

The Civil Service: Clarifying Who It Serves

One small but crucial clarification, on your section “The Civil Service and the Constitution We Pretend to Defend”:

You write, “The only honest constitutionally grounded answer is that they work for the executive branch.”

I’d offer this adjustment:

“The only honest constitutionally grounded answer is that they work for the people, through the executive branch.”

Congress created the civil service precisely to serve the public interest—not to become an extension of any one president’s will. The President’s job under Article II is to faithfully execute the laws—not to remake the civil service into a tool of personal loyalty.

That distinction is fundamental. It’s the line between constitutional governance and authoritarian consolidation. And it’s a line we are watching blur in real time.

The Pendulum Illusion

There is a comfort in the image of the pendulum—a belief that political overreach will inevitably correct itself with time. That image stirs hope: that what swings too far in one direction will swing back to balance.

But the pendulum metaphor no longer fits our moment.

This isn’t a pendulum swing. It’s a house on fire.

And not just burning—it’s being torched by those who now deny they struck the match, who pour fuel on the flames, and then blame the smoke on the builders and repairmen trying desperately to keep the structure standing. To describe our crisis as a “swing” is to imply inevitability and symmetry. But we are not watching the normal ebb and flow of governance. We are witnessing intentional sabotage disguised as grievance.

We cannot afford to flatten this moment into the familiar contours of both-sides analysis. The stakes are no longer simply about left vs. right, or even governance vs. dysfunction. They are about rule of law vs. rule of man; about the survival of constitutional democracy in the face of deliberate erosion.

Beyond the Fire: Rebuilding with Moral Clarity

If we are to emerge from this fire with anything left to rebuild, we must stop pretending that the greatest danger is disagreement. Disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy. The danger lies in moral equivocation when confronted with a leader who promises retribution, dehumanizes opponents, deploys state power for personal loyalty, and seeks obedience—not accountability.

I am not defending a “side.” I am defending a system that allows sides to exist. That is what makes this moment so combustible. The fire is not just ideological. It is institutional, and constitutional.

This doesn’t let Democrats off the hook for their political cowardice, narrative control, or legislative paralysis. But neither should those failures become cover for empowering a movement that explicitly rejects democratic pluralism in favor of strongman vengeance.

What Just 3.5% Must Do

We’ve invoked Erica Chenoweth’s research of history before: sustained, nonviolent action from just 3.5% of a population has the power to trigger profound change. That’s about 12 million Americans today. We must channel that energy not just into resistance, but into reconstruction.

The path forward doesn’t begin with a savior. It begins with citizens. And it doesn’t culminate in a presidency. It restores the constitutional order that was designed to prevent any one person from ruling unchecked.

Here’s what that means:

      •     Refuse the normalization of authoritarian drift. Speak clearly about the erosion of checks, balance, and accountability.

      •     Reject the false comfort of equivalence. It’s not “both sides.” It’s a government of laws vs. a movement demanding loyalty to one man.

      •     Reclaim Congress as the preeminent branch. Push for legislation that restores congressional authority, protects the independence of the civil service, and strengthens guardrails on executive overreach.

      •     Unite across party lines around constitutional principles. This isn’t about left vs. right—it’s about defending the structure that allows both to exist.

      •     Call for a People’s Civic Compact. One that renews our shared agreement to operate under law, to respect peaceful transfer of power, and to serve the people, not any personality or tribe.

We must demand and support legislative action that:

      •     Reins in executive overreach by reasserting the constitutional powers of Congress—ending decades of slow erosion that have turned presidents into de facto lawmakers.

      •     Ends “Schedule F”-style purges by protecting the integrity of the civil service from loyalty tests, politicized firings, and misuse of executive personnel authority.

      •     Restores regular order in Congress by requiring floor votes on major bipartisan legislation and limiting the power of party leaders to block deliberation.

      •     Codifies limits on emergency powers, surveillance authorities, and military actions not authorized by Congress—returning the use of force to its constitutional gatekeepers.

      •     Mandates civic education standards, so future generations understand the separation of powers, the purpose of checks and balances, and their role as citizens in a republic, not subjects in a cult of personality.

This is not about left or right.

It is about restoring the people’s branch—Congress—to its rightful, central role.

It is about breaking the cycle of government by executive fiat, and recommitting to the rule of laws, not men.

The 3.5% must stand not only against the fire—but for the framework.

Not just against tyranny—but for self-governance.

Let this be our shared mission:

To rebuild the republic, by renewing its first principle—that power in America does not belong to one person. It belongs to the people.

---

Andy, your chapter asked for a roadmap. This is the terrain we must now walk—deliberately, together, and with eyes wide open.

Thank you for opening the space. Let’s keep going.

With gratitude and resolve,

Promachus

(I write anonymously, not because I lack conviction—but because my position would be compromised. That in itself is a sign of the danger we face.)