“I hold that, in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good.” —John C. Calhoun, 1837 Senate speech
Students of history know about Democratic politician John C. Calhoun and the doctrine he played an important role in developing and socializing, namely nullification, the idea that an individual state can declare a federal law unconstitutional and prevent its enforcement within that state. This doctrine is rooted in the notion “states’ rights.” If the federal government passes a law that Democrats believe exceeds its constitutional powers, the nullification doctrine holds that a state can declare the law “null and void” within its borders and resist its enforcement.
Sound familiar? It should. This doctrine is being deployed in California, Minnesota, Oregon, and other blue states, especially in the blue cities. We have all seen cities like Minneapolis and Portland thwarting the enforcement of federal immigration law. They couch nullification as “resistance” to what they contend is federal government overreach and encourage their populations to confront law enforcement officers in the streets. These cities provide sanctuary to those who violate our nation’s laws. We see this with election integrity, as well. Federal law forbids Illegal aliens from registering and voting in federal elections. Rogue states register illegal aliens and allow them to vote in federal elections. If the law is not enforced, then its in effect a dead letter.
We’re told that the Democrats are a different party today than the party Calhoun represented, but this is obviously false. Today’s Democrats are behaving as they did in Calhoun’s day. Do I really need to tell readers that this is not a good thing? The nullification crisis was a key element in the run-up to the calamity of the Civil War. This is where we’re headed today: towards disunion. Indeed, the US is already significantly disunited. Central to the Democrats’ nullification project is delegitimizing the American Republic. They reject the spirit of the Constitution even as they selectively enforce its rules to achieve sought ends. More and more, we hear the language of revolution. But, in truth, it is the rhetoric of counterrevolution (see The American Counterrevolution is Reactionary and Regressive).
The populist president Andrew Jackson rejected the nullification doctrine. He could see what members of his party were up to: they sought to preserve the aristocracy. In his Proclamation Regarding Nullification (1832), Jackson argued that the Union was created by the people, not merely by the states; that the Constitution created a government superior to the states in its legitimate sphere (the Supremacy Clause); and that a state could not unilaterally invalidate federal law. In April 1830, Jackson famously toasted: “Our Federal Union: It must be preserved.” The task of defending the Republic turned to the Republicans during the Civil War.
Democrats centralize power in the federal government when they are in command, not in the sense of principled recognition of the awesome powers of Article II ala Jackson (these are constitutional), but rather in preserving aristocratic control of the levers of government. This is the beating heart of progressivism and the purpose of the administrative state. Democrats represent big, intrusive government. When they are out of power, they pursue disunion by nullifying federal law. Don’t let differential strategy confuse you. Strategy is contingent. Both strategies are elements of the same anti-republican politics. Anti-individualism lies at the core of neo/confederate thinking.
During the slaveocracy, Democrats demanded that federal policy uphold the aristocratic class and pursue free trade. They sought to keep the US as a periphery in the world capitalist system because it fed their wealth and preserved not only chattel slavery but wage slavery, as well. They demand the same thing today with the administrative state and transnationalism—at the behest of corporate power. Nullification is designed to weaken the Republic and elevate the corporatocracy.
Democrats are at war with populist nationalism (Europe is also a front in the war) because it threatens the corporate state. Trump is objectionable because he is a modern-day Jackson or Lincoln. Corporate media propaganda advances the war by disorganizing mass consciousness. Why do so many people hear populist nationalism as “fascism”? Because they have been brainwashed to oppose the spirit of the American Republic.
In fact, the return of the nullification project represents modern-day fascism. The Democrats represent an existential threat to the Republic. Ask yourself: who wants to expand the administrative state and enlarge the sphere of technocratic control? Who censors and compels speech? Who revises history to meet ideological ends? Who disorders truth? Who encourages Antifa to perpetrate violence in our streets? That would be the progressives.
* * *
On Facebook yesterday, I asked family and friends to imagine if the far right controlled the major institutions of society, using them to impose its ideology on the population. Government agencies, universities, schools, corporations, and media organizations suppress dissenting viewpoints, censor speech deemed unacceptable, and compel ideological conformity through official policies and social pressure.
Imagine further, I wrote, that, at the street level, right-wing authorities encourage or tolerate far-right-wing activists who intimidate political opponents, harass civilians, and engage in violence against perceived enemies, including assaults on assemblies and attacks on government officials—while law enforcement and prosecutors respond selectively or leniently toward those aligned with the prevailing ideology.
Would we not recognize that as a fascist situation? Of course we would. Would the left speak up? Of course it would. I would expect them to do more than that. So why is the right in America so passive in the face of the far left that is doing exactly that? Why is it okay for the far left to impose their worldview on the rest of society, but not for the rest of society to resist them? Because the far left is in control of our sense-making institutions.
I will use my own situation to illustrate. Many of you already know what I am going to say. In 2024, a group of far-left students circulated a petition demanding that the university that employs me terminate my employment. Rather than condemn the students who were campaigning to deprive me of my rights to free conscience and speech by terminating me for my convictions and opinions, I was made to feel by my institution as if I had done something wrong.
Even among those who support me, some asked me whether it was a good idea to be so outspoken. My response was that I was doing what the left would do if the shoe were on the other foot. I reminded them that when conservative students pursued a similar action against me in the early 2000s, the university came to my defense and condemned them, defending the principles of liberty and academic freedom. Why is it different when the other side attacks? Because administrators and faculty are on the left. They don’t work from principle. They work from ideology and use the levers of power to impose their ideology on others.
This is why we must be outspoken and call out those who attempt to undermine our freedom. Courage is contagious. If we are going to hunker down in the face of extremism, we risk losing everything. The far left is redefining all the categories of life. They are telling us that liberalism is oppressive, that anti-white bigotry is antiracism, that criminal conduct is laudable as long as its tribes are the criminals, that men who say they are women are women, that they should have access to exclusive female activities and spaces, that children are fair game for radicalization in critical race theory and queer doctrine, that demographic transformation is a good thing, that assimilation and integration is racist, and that borders are a bad thing. The time to resist this is before mass consciousness is completely transformed.
The same thing applies to a far-right takeover of our society. If it were the right-wing fascists who were doing these things, I would speak out, even at great personal and professional risk. But I would do it nonetheless because I am principled. Thankfully, far-right fascism is not ascendant. But far-left fascism is. And we have to call it out. The right, center, and sane left must resist what is happening in Portland, San Francisco, New York City, Minneapolis, and Madison. We cannot allow America to become an authoritarian country. We have to cancel the nullification project.
freedom and reason 