The evidence for this Awakening is not just in the Marches, the Town Hall Meetings, and the protests by 9/12 and other Patriot Groups. These are just the visible manifestations of a movement that has spread like wildfire largely through the use of the Internet.

The political insiders are counting on two things to maintain their stranglehold on power. First, they are counting on the American people to get tired of protesting and marching and writing letters and faxing. After all, citizens have a limited amount of time and attention to give to politics given that they have families to feed, to educate, and to pay taxes for. They have elderly parents, aunts, uncles, and neighbors to make comfortable in their last days. History has shown that past grievances by the electorate have not lasted long. Sometimes the politicians have had to pass some placating legislation that could later be ignored, but by and large these bouts of citizen activism have been outlasted by a political class which can devote 24/7 of their time if need be to maintain power.

Secondly, even if citizen outrage continues into the election year of 2010, the politics-as-usual practioners have an ace or two up their sleeves. After all, they make the rules, change the rules, and act as scorekeeper in the game of politics. In most cases the people who determine filing deadlines, filing fees, signature requirements, and other hurdles to getting on a ballot are people who they have helped get their Party positions. The main stream media, far from being the watchdog the Founders envisioned they would be, are actually protectors of incumbents. If you don’t believe this, check out any set of endorsments by major newspapers to see the ratio of incumbents in their endorsements. For a person without political credentials to break into a Congressional race would be very, very difficult without the artificial roadblocks deliberately set in the path.

In the face of these obstacles, why do I have hope? Because professional career politicians have always had an Achille’s Heel which until now they have been able to ignore. Until now, no one has bothered to ask them whether their loyalties lie with the citizen or with their friends, contributors, or Party buddies. If they are faced with the prospect of having to answer this foundational question, they are presented with a dilemma like none other they have faced. If they answer (truthfully in most cases) that their loyalties lie with those who can guarantee a long career, then they will have committed political suicide.

On the other hand, if they attempt to lie, the consequences are just as bad from their standpoint. If they acknowledge that they are subordinate to the citizen, then they cannot (assuming we continue to watch them) undertake the traditional methods of eliminating competition–the gerrymandering, the financial warchests meant to scare off challengers, and all the rest.

Lester Gabriel

Stafford, VA

Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments… Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. [Federalist No. 46]

One thing is clear from all the Founders, they argued that the Constitution afforded the prerogative to the state governments to maintain proper checks and balances on the newly formed federal government.  However, it is easy to see that Madison’s optimism of a self-restrained federal government and his assurance that states would have the fortitude to constrain federal government has been a dismal failure to date.

Both sides of the partisan aisle hail the genius of our Founding Fathers and their groundbreaking construction of a Republic that not only created horizontal checks and balances with the judiciary, executive and legislative branch (which is what is frequently discussed), but also created the more important vertical checks and balances between the federal government and the states.  This check and balance was the key to safeguarding the liberties of the people against a tyrannical government.  If there is any hope of re-establishing the balance of power, bringing government back within reach and influence of the average citizen, and restoring the Founders’ vision of a government subservient to the people, states must reclaim the authority they delegated themselves in the Constitution.

Madison outlined in the aforementioned quote the means by which states could assert their authority and voice.  It can only be done through “legislative devices” and political pressure.  Moreover, its impact will be more wholeheartedly felt “where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison.”  It is time for we the people to redirect our fury from the federal government and White House to our state governments.

Our state representatives are the only formidable weapon left against the “absolute and uncontrollable powers” of the federal government.  We should expect and demand that our state representatives exercise their constitutional authority and political capital for their constituents.  Our states must disentangle themselves from the dependent relationship with the federal government and reassert their role as the leaders of the Union.  We all have limited time and energy we can exert.  We should focus it where we know we can make a difference.  We should demand that states reassert their position and authority in the national landscape.  When the states assume their natural role in the political sphere and start working together to achieve this goal, the balance of power will naturally return and the spirit and effectiveness of our Constitution will be restored.

As Virginians, we face a challenge equal to any challenge in our history: How can we solve severe and persistent social and economic problems, such as crime, homelessness, school dropouts, poverty, family disintegration, teen suicides and pregnancies, and recession, without more government?

Conservatives have been good at identifying the problems with government. Our criticisms of smothering regulation, stifling bureaucracy, growth-killing tax increases, self-perpetuating government programs, and laws and policies that discourage private initiative, erode individual responsibility and undermine community, have been on the money.

What we have not done well is to deliver a positive message – - a vision of how the real problems that Virginians face – - can be solved in most instances through private action and without new and expanded government programs. It is a measure of how far we have departed from this philosophy and faith of the great Virginias – - Mason, Henry, Randolph, Madison, Jefferson, Monroe, and others – - that many no longer have genuine confidence in our ability as private citizens to solve those problems that most concern us. When we confront those problems, our first impulse is to pass a law. Increasingly, we have come to expect government to take care of us.

Our political system encourages this view. In a contested campaign, the candidate who offers a government program to solve a problem generally has a significant advantage over an opponent who offers no program or even a less ambitious one. Only when the cumulative weight of these government programs becomes a political issue is this advantage overcome.

But even when that happens, it seldom lasts, because this public opposition is essentially a reaction.

It lacks any firm rooting in a coherent philosophy or view of life that offers a way to solve problems over the long term. It is fed by an anti-government, anti-tax, get-off-my back emotion that soon abates when the painful realization sets in that our social and economic problems have not gone away and, in fact, may have gotten worse.

We must do more than shout slogans and ride the occasional crest of voter dissatisfaction with big government and high taxes. We must offer an alternative that holds the promise of solving problems without more and more government.

Our task is much more difficult than for those who have a faith in government. We can’t offer a simplistic proposal to create a new agency, a new program, a legislative fiat that will cure every new problem. A private solution is always more complex, more difficult to explain and not as easy to implement as passing a new law or raising taxes. Even worse, years of dependence on government have dampened our understanding of how private institutions, churches and families, can meet our needs.

We face a three-fold rebuilding task. First, we must resist the simplistic political sloganeering by candidates and elected officials who lure voters with promises of government “solutions” to every problem. Second, we must restore our faith and confidence in private institutions, and reestablish a framework of understanding in which Virginians can once again see private alternatives as possible. Third, we must be prepared as individuals to do more directly and actively to rebuild the strength and vitality of private institutions, particularly families, churches, voluntary associations, neighborhoods, and small communities. Our vision should proceed from the understanding that our most daunting social problems can best be addressed by our acceptance of moral responsibility.

Lura Grubb — “Granny” to just about everyone who knows her — is a 102-year-old mother of seven who just this year moved into a house with indoor plumbing for the first time in her life. Her life story was profiled in a July article in The Roanoke Times written by Donna Alvis-Banks.

Granny Grubb raised her children virtually alone in the mountains of Pulaski County without indoor plumbing and, for many years, without electricity. She worked for 50 cents a day in a cornfield, saving enough for a down payment on a house and 30 acres. To make the loan payments, she traded land for a cow that could generate income through milk sales. Her husband, Walter, sold the cow to buy liquor.

Things got worse. Walter shot and killed Granny’s mother in a drunken rage, resulting in a murder conviction and nine years in prison. Granny divorced him, but refused to accept alimony saying, “I’ve always supported myself.” And she continued to do so by walking to work in nearby factories and selling her own handcrafted quilts, crochet and bedspreads.

The Grubb household depended on mountain springs for drinking water, rain barrels for washing and what could be produced from a garden, an orchard and their own livestock for their food. They were faithful churchgoers. When times were especially hard, the Grubb family was sustained by a caring rural community.

At age 102 and experiencing a decline in her health, Granny sold her mountain home for a modern house in Radford near her daughter. Her new life of relative ease is just beginning.

At about the time Granny was moving into her new residence, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was announcing that ailments associated with obesity would be paid for with taxpayers’ funds. This will include gastric bypass surgery, which costs between $25,000 and $50,000. Some would call this a “core governmental service.”

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Forget the responsibility members of a family or close community once felt for each other. We no longer expect every individual to take control of his or her own life or assume the consequences of foolish decisions.

Much of what the government now pays for in health care is associated with poor life choices and risky behavior. Compounding this burden is the cost of government welfare programs that have expanded to deal with problems related to family breakdown.

The more government does for citizens, the less families, religious congregations, local voluntary organizations and other private institutions are expected to do. Medicaid, for example, encourages the elderly to look for assistance first from government rather than from these voluntary groups. Whether this is an inevitable or a wise public policy, its adverse impact on our social fabric and the resilience of our citizenry is obvious.

The hidden costs of our modern public policy are the erosion of individual accountability, a decline in personal initiative and an expansion of self-perpetuating government programs. Somewhere on the road to total dependency on government, shouldn’t we stop and ask whether our well-intended government programs are worth the loss of the culture of self-reliance that sustained us for so long?