How Progressives Use Constitutional Principles to Expand Government

On this Friday broadcast before Memorial Day 2023, Kim Monson welcomes liberty writer Allen Thomas for an in-depth discussion of Federalist 31 and the tactics progressives use to expand government power. Thomas reveals how agencies like the EPA leverage their names and mandates to justify ever-expanding authority, while the episode also touches on the presidential race, property taxes, and cultural boycotts.

The Progressive Playbook for Expanding Government

Start listening at 1:12 – Hour 1

Allen Thomas breaks down a fundamental truth from Federalist 31: every power given to the federal government must be commensurate with its responsibility. Thomas explains how progressives have weaponized this principle. When you name an agency the “Environmental Protection Agency” and give it the unlimited goal of protecting the entire environment, you’ve created a justification for unlimited power grabs.

Thomas uses a practical analogy to illustrate the concept. Just as Producer Steve needs unrestricted access to the control board to run the radio show effectively, agencies argue they need unrestricted power to fulfill their mandates. The difference is that Steve operates in the private sector with accountability, while federal bureaucracies face no such constraints. Alexander Hamilton himself warned in Federalist 31 that “the people needed to be a backstop” with “prudence and firmness” to prevent overreach.

The problem, Thomas argues, is that conservatives keep fighting the wrong battle. Instead of debating how much power the EPA should have, the real conversation should be whether the agency’s mandate falls within the proper role of government at all. By accepting the agency’s expansive name and mission, we’ve already lost the framing war.

“The conversation we need to be having is, is that the proper role of government and how do we not just restrict the power of the EPA, but how do we bring it back to its constitutional purpose.”

Allen Thomas, Liberty Writer

Congress Has Abdicated Its Responsibility

Start listening at 43:00 – Hour 1

Thomas points to a deeper structural problem: Congress has delegated its legislative authority to executive branch bureaucracies. The Founders never anticipated this development because they assumed each branch would jealously guard its own power. The executive was viewed as a potential threat to become monarchical, which is why George Washington’s decision to step down after two terms was so significant.

The 17th Amendment compounded this problem by making senators popularly elected rather than appointed by state legislatures. This severed the connection between senators and state sovereignty, removing a key check on federal expansion. Combined with the income tax and the Federal Reserve, all established during the Wilson administration, these changes laid the foundation for the modern administrative state.

Thomas emphasizes that lazy governance is at the heart of the problem. Representatives don’t want to make hard votes that could cost them reelection, so they punt decisions to unelected bureaucrats who face no electoral accountability. The solution requires citizens to demand that Congress reclaim its constitutional authority from the executive branch.

Open Line Friday: DeSantis, Trump, and Cultural Boycotts

Start listening at 60:00 – Hour 2

The second hour features caller perspectives on the 2024 presidential race. Thomas notes that while both Trump and DeSantis represent strong alternatives to progressive governance, the timing of DeSantis’s entry raises questions. The mainstream media’s focus on attacking DeSantis rather than Trump suggests they view DeSantis as the greater threat.

Callers also address the Target and Bud Light boycotts over transgender merchandise and marketing. Thomas observes that these boycotts are proving effective, with Target losing billions in market valuation. The success demonstrates that consumers can hold corporations accountable for pushing ideological agendas, challenging the assumption that major companies are immune to public pressure.

The discussion extends to California’s reparations proposal, which Thomas frames as another example of the politics of envy. By promising payments to one group, progressives create division and dependency while ignoring the impossibility of implementation. As one caller notes, the policy would inevitably spark competing claims from other groups, revealing its true purpose as a vote-buying scheme.