Wanderings and wonderings

The Perils of Expanding Executive Power

In a democracy, the balance of power is essential to safeguarding liberty. When one branch of government amasses too much authority, the fundamental principles of checks and balances begin to erode. Nowhere is this more evident than in the increasing expansion of executive power. While strong leadership can be necessary in times of crisis, history has repeatedly shown that excessive executive authority often leads to abuse, corruption, and a weakening of democratic institutions.

The executive branch, whether at the national or state level, is responsible for enforcing laws and ensuring the smooth operation of government. However, over time, executives have taken on more power than originally intended, often bypassing legislative bodies and consolidating authority through executive orders, emergency powers, and administrative decisions. This shift undermines the legislative branch’s role in policymaking and weakens the judiciary’s ability to provide effective oversight.

One of the most alarming dangers of unchecked executive power is the erosion of civil liberties. Leaders with expansive authority can unilaterally restrict freedoms, surveil citizens, and stifle dissent under the guise of national security or public welfare. Throughout history, from the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II to the expansion of surveillance programs in the 21st century, governments have used executive authority to justify decisions that infringe upon individual rights.

Another concern is the potential for executive overreach to bypass democratic norms. When leaders rely heavily on executive actions instead of working with legislatures, it sets a dangerous precedent that weakens representative government. Legislators, who are elected to represent the will of the people, are sidelined, and the voice of the electorate is diminished. This not only disrupts the democratic process but also fosters a culture of unilateral decision-making that can persist beyond the tenure of any one leader.

The concentration of executive power also increases the risk of corruption and authoritarianism. A leader who faces little opposition or oversight may feel emboldened to act in self-interest rather than in the interest of the people. Whether through nepotism, financial misconduct, or suppression of political opponents, an unchecked executive can manipulate the system for personal or partisan gain. The Founding Fathers of the United States recognized this danger, which is why they designed a system of government that divides power among three branches.

To prevent the dangers of excessive executive power, it is crucial to reinforce legislative authority, strengthen judicial oversight, and promote civic engagement. Citizens must hold their leaders accountable by demanding transparency, opposing overreach, and supporting representatives who prioritize democratic integrity over political expediency. Only through vigilance and active participation can we ensure that executive power remains a tool for governance rather than a mechanism for unchecked control.

History has demonstrated time and again that democracy flourishes when power is distributed and declines when it is concentrated. If left unchecked, excessive executive authority threatens to undermine the very foundation of a free society. It is the duty of both leaders and citizens to safeguard democracy by resisting the pull of centralized power and defending the principles of liberty, representation, and justice.

“The Far-Right Dilemma: Whose Christianity Would Reign Supreme?”

In recent years, the intersection of far-right political ideologies and religious fervor has sparked a conversation about what could happen if these ideals reached the peak of government influence. The idea of mandating one specific sect of Christianity may sound like a dystopian tale, but it raises a fundamental question: in a government mandated by far-right thinking, which version of Christianity would be deemed the “official” one?

Firstly, it’s essential to recognize that Christianity itself is not a monolith. Christianity includes a diverse range of beliefs and practices, from the liturgical traditions of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy to the evangelical and charismatic Protestant movements. Even within Protestantism, denominations like Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and non-denominational groups often interpret scripture and practice faith in contrasting ways. Far-right ideology has often been linked to certain Protestant evangelical beliefs, particularly because of shared social conservatism, but that doesn’t encompass all Christian thought.

Should a far-right government take power with a mission to make Christianity the state religion, they would likely face the immediate problem of defining “Christianity.” Catholics might expect their rituals and sacraments to be prioritized, given the global scale and historical influence of the Church. Evangelicals, on the other hand, might push for an interpretation of Christianity more focused on a literal reading of the Bible and individual salvation, emphasizing personal piety over institutional authority. And Orthodox Christians would likely resist both, emphasizing tradition and doctrinal continuity.

The differences extend far beyond just liturgical preferences; they’re deeply embedded in doctrines, politics, and visions for society. For example, Catholic social teaching often advocates for the poor and emphasizes social justice—a philosophy sometimes at odds with the libertarian economics embraced by some Protestant far-right groups. Meanwhile, certain evangelical groups prioritize issues like restricting abortion and opposing LGBTQ+ rights, which often aligns with far-right policies. If a government mandated adherence to one “official” Christian teaching, these ideological differences would likely become sources of division rather than unity.

Furthermore, history shows that when religious institutions intertwine with government, it rarely fosters harmony. The wars of religion in early modern Europe, the oppression of religious minorities in various theocracies, and even the American founders’ desire to separate church and state were all reactions to the chaos that ensues when the state imposes a particular religious perspective. If the government were to enforce one interpretation of Christianity today, we could face a similar risk of division, disenfranchisement, and social unrest.

In a pluralistic society, freedom of belief allows for a diversity of Christian practices as well as space for other faiths and non-belief. Far-right rhetoric might champion “Christian values,” but any attempt to enforce one Christian doctrine could lead to splintering within Christianity itself, with numerous denominations and believers resisting the notion of a state-mandated version of their faith. The real question might not be which Christian sect would reign supreme, but whether the forced unity under one doctrine would drive more people away from Christianity altogether.

Ultimately, the diversity within Christianity is both its strength and its protection against a singular, authoritarian vision. The resilience of belief comes from freedom—the freedom to interpret, the freedom to question, and the freedom to follow faith as one’s conscience dictates. Any government seeking to mandate one form of Christianity over others may find that it unravels not just social unity, but faith itself.

The world is an adventure of learning.

We have a innate curiosity of the world around us. It drives us to explore and create, to figure out how everything works and to answer the big question: What is our purpose.

My First Blog Post

I have sat in classrooms for the last four and a half decades at least. From being a student listening to the teacher, to a teacher with students listening to me or at least attempting to. The steady march of curriculum and standards sent to an educational war that we seem to be losing year by year but keep on mindlessly pressing on.

The question that hangs over it all and drives this endless insanity is what should students be able to do and learn to move on to the next grade? What should students learn to be career and college ready? How can we boost performance on a standardized test?

The question is never: What do you want to learn? What are you curious about? What gets you excited? Can you accomplish these things you love and want to do?

Public school is a failure in that is does not let people choose what they want to learn. We make assumptions that we must do things the way we have always done them in order for…what? Sit in a class? listen to a teacher drone on about nouns and verbs and how we have to pass a test? Read out of a book about how a cell works without going out into the world and collecting specimens to look at first hand? Embracing the child’s love of music as a career choice and a vocation and not a waste of time?

What exactly are we trying to accomplish?

We need to break free of the boredom that is the traditional school system whether it is a public school down the street or a charter school pretending to be a better choice but doing the same thing. This blog is an about and adventure to escape the mundane and push for enlightenment.