My Ideology. No Bullshit

Why Constitutional Democracy and Popular Will Aren't Enemies

This is, after all, a philosophy blog.

And today I want to tell you exactly where I stand ideologically. No bullshit. No hedging. No academic throat-clearing about the complexity of modern governance or the nuanced considerations that complicate simple positions.

Here's my ideology: I believe in constitutional democracy that actually responds to what people want.

That's it. That's the whole framework. I'm not a socialist. I'm not a libertarian. I'm not a progressive or a conservative in any traditional sense. I'm a liberal—in the classical sense, meaning I believe in the American republican system as a properly classical liberal system of government. From this categorization comes my label: I am a liberal because I believe in liberal democracy as the founders designed it.

This makes me highly partisan on exactly one issue: the republican structure itself. I will fight anyone, anywhere, any time who threatens the constitutional framework that makes democratic self-governance possible. But on the question of what policies we should implement within that framework? I'm genuinely democratic. I think we should aim to satisfy the policy preferences of the majority of Americans, as expressed through polling, town halls, and the actual democratic process of debate and deliberation.

What Classical Liberalism Actually Means

When I call myself a liberal, I'm not talking about the modern American usage of the term. I'm talking about the intellectual tradition that produced the American founding—the tradition of Locke and Madison, of constitutional constraints on power and protection of individual rights within a framework of democratic self-governance.

The American republican system is classical liberalism in practice. It's a system designed to allow free people to govern themselves through representative institutions while protecting minority rights and ensuring that power remains constrained by law rather than exercised through personal authority. The separation of powers, the federal structure, the Bill of Rights, the system of checks and balances—all of this emerges from classical liberal political theory.

This is what makes our current moment so historically significant. We're not just facing another election or another policy disagreement. We're witnessing a fundamental challenge to the classical liberal framework that has defined American governance for nearly 250 years. When people advocate for “unitary executive theory” or argue that democracy is incompatible with effective governance, they're not proposing reforms—they're proposing to abandon classical liberalism entirely.

So when I say I'm partisan about the republican structure itself, I'm saying I'm partisan about preserving the classical liberal framework that makes democratic self-governance possible. This isn't just institutional preference—it's recognition that this system represents humanity's best attempt at organizing political life in a way that respects human freedom and dignity.

What Americans Actually Want

If you look at opinion polls from Pew and Gallup, you get a pretty clear picture of what Americans are asking for. They're not asking for socialism. They're not asking for fascism. They're asking for affordable healthcare, affordable retirement, affordable housing, meaningful wages, and an opportunity to get ahead. These aren't unreasonable demands. They're not extreme positions. They're what most people want from their government—practical solutions to real problems that affect their daily lives.

Here's the thing: there are many policies we can implement to achieve much better outcomes in all of these areas without violating our constitutional order. We don't need to choose between free markets and government intervention. We don't need to choose between individual liberty and collective responsibility. We don't need to choose between American interests and international cooperation. These are false choices created by people who benefit from confusion and conflict.

Most Americans want some form of universal healthcare coverage, but they don't necessarily want to eliminate private insurance. Most Americans want action on climate change, but they don't want policies that dramatically increase their cost of living. Most Americans want immigration reform that includes both border security and pathways to citizenship for people already here. Most Americans want abortion to be legal but with some restrictions. Most Americans want gun regulations but not gun bans.

These positions might seem inconsistent to political theorists who prefer neat ideological packages, but they make perfect sense to people who are trying to balance competing values and practical concerns. The job of representatives in a classical liberal democracy isn't to educate the public about why their preferences are wrong—it's to figure out how to translate those preferences into workable policy through constitutional processes.

Why This Isn't Majoritarianism

Let me be clear about what I'm not advocating. This isn't majoritarianism in the sense that 51% of people should be able to trample the rights of the other 49%. Classical liberal democracy includes countermajoritarian institutions like the courts and the Senate precisely to prevent that kind of tyranny of the majority. What I'm advocating is democratic responsiveness within constitutional constraints—using the framework our founders designed to ensure that popular will gets translated into policy through deliberative institutions that protect minority rights and ensure careful consideration.

I'm saying that members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, regardless of party, should develop and pass legislation consistent with the approximate majority view of what Americans want their government to do. And the reason for that isn't because majorities are always right—it's because I'm a classical liberal, and I don't presume to understand what all Americans need and want from their government better than they do themselves.

This is democratic humility, not democratic absolutism. It recognizes that in a diverse society, no individual or small group of experts is wise enough to determine what's best for everyone. So instead of imposing my preferences or your preferences or some think tank's preferences on the country, we should actually ask people what they want and then work to give it to them through constitutional processes.

The classical liberal framework provides the structure—the constitutional constraints, the deliberative institutions, the protection of individual rights. Within that structure, democratic responsiveness should determine the content of policy. This isn't abandoning principles—it's applying the principle that free people should govern themselves.

The Republican Party's Fundamental Dishonesty

This framework makes the Republican Party's current trajectory particularly infuriating. They claim to represent “the people” against “the elites,” but their actual policies serve a tiny minority of oligarchs while requiring massive propaganda operations to convince people to vote against their own clearly expressed preferences.

The Republican Party, from what I can tell, is a party completely captured by interests who are unconcerned with our constitutional order, while selling lies and bullshit through a reactionary propaganda machine to convince people they're doing the opposite of what they're actually doing. Draped in a flag and carrying a cross, indeed.

They've convinced millions of Americans that policies they actually support—like affordable healthcare and meaningful wages—are somehow socialist tyranny. They've convinced people that defending constitutional democracy is somehow elitist while systematic attacks on democratic institutions are somehow populist. They've managed to make “giving people what they want” sound like betrayal of American values.

This isn't just political disagreement—it's a comprehensive assault on the basic premise of classical liberal democracy. When a political party has to systematically lie about both their own agenda and their opponents' agenda to win elections, they've abandoned democratic politics for something much darker.

What This Means in Practice

In practice, this means taking polling seriously. It means conducting real town halls where representatives listen to constituents rather than lecturing them. It means understanding that most Americans aren't ideologues—they're practical people who want government to solve problems rather than advance abstract principles.

This doesn't mean abandoning all expertise or constitutional constraints. The classical liberal framework exists precisely to ensure that popular will gets channeled through institutions that encourage deliberation and protect fundamental rights. Expert knowledge matters enormously for figuring out how to implement policies that achieve the outcomes people want. But the question of what outcomes we should aim for? That should be determined democratically.

The genius of classical liberalism is that it provides a framework for democratic self-governance that doesn't require perfect wisdom from either the people or their representatives. It assumes that free people, deliberating through constitutional institutions, will generally make better decisions about their common life than any individual or small group could make for them.

Why This Sounds Radical

What makes this simple ideology sound radical in our current moment is how thoroughly both parties have abandoned it. Progressives often claim to represent “the people” while pushing policies that poll terribly and lecturing voters about why their preferences are problematic. Conservatives claim to be “populists” while serving oligarchic interests and attacking the constitutional framework that makes popular governance possible.

Both approaches treat electoral victory as a mandate to implement an entire ideological agenda regardless of what voters actually said they wanted. Both assume that political elites know better than ordinary citizens what's good for the country. Both prefer complex theoretical frameworks to the simple classical liberal principle that government should do what people want it to do, within constitutional constraints.

My ideology cuts through this bad faith by taking both democracy and constitutionalism seriously. It says that the framework of democratic governance is non-negotiable, but that within that framework, we should trust people to know what they need better than any expert or ideologue does.

Classical Liberalism as the Highest Value

Here's what I'm absolutely partisan about: the classical liberal framework itself. I will fight anyone who threatens the separation of powers, independent judiciary, free press, competitive elections, or any other element of the system that makes democratic self-governance possible. These aren't just procedural niceties—they're the foundation of human freedom in diverse societies.

The American republican system represents the greatest achievement in human political organization—a framework that allows diverse people to govern themselves without requiring uniformity of belief or submission to arbitrary authority. It's not perfect, but it's the best system humans have yet devised for respecting both individual freedom and collective self-determination.

But within that framework, I'm genuinely democratic. I don't think I know what's best for America better than Americans do. I don't think my policy preferences should override theirs. I don't think my education or expertise gives me special authority to determine how other people should live.

This makes me a conservative on constitutional structure and a democrat on policy substance. I want to conserve the classical liberal framework and democratize the content. I want institutions that work and policies that reflect what people actually want those institutions to do.

No Bullshit

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And in a constitutional democracy, the job of representatives is to represent—not to rule, not to educate, not to impose their vision of the good life, but to translate popular will into policy through institutions designed to protect everyone's rights.

The center must be held—not because it represents some golden mean between extremes, but because it represents the constitutional framework that makes democratic self-governance possible. And holding that center requires trusting that free people, given accurate information and constitutional protections, can govern themselves better than any elite can govern them.

That's my ideology. No bullshit. No hedging. No academic complexity designed to obscure simple truths.

I believe in the American republican system as the founders designed it—a classical liberal framework that allows free people to govern themselves through representative institutions constrained by law and protective of individual rights. I believe this framework should respond to what people actually want rather than what any elite thinks they should want.

Democracy works when we let it work. Constitutional government serves people when we make it serve people. The system isn't broken—it's been captured. And the way to recapture it isn't through some brilliant new theory or complex policy framework.

It's through the simple, radical act of making representative democracy actually representative within the classical liberal framework that makes such representation possible.

No bullshit.