Ch. 44 Domestic Tranquility

"People in power are trying to convince us that the villain in our American story is each other. But that is not our story. That is not who we are. That's not our America. Our United States of America is not about us versus them. It's about we the people." 
- Camila Alves

When our Founding Fathers added the phrase "insure domestic tranquility," they probably never imagined that this would be one of the most contested battlegrounds in modern American society. 

Today, the concept of domestic tranquility no longer reflects its original context of preventing interstate conflicts. It has become the focal point of a an existential struggle between two competing visions of American society: one that works for everyone, and one that preserves existing power structures and inequality.

That 3.5%

As we discussed in the previous chapter, history tells us something about social movements. It only takes 3.5% of a population (when unified and purposeful) to create transformative change. In the United States today, that's approximately 11 million people. 

This number isn't just a statistic... it's a path for action. It tells us that meaningful change is possible when people organize effectively.

But it also explains why those in positions of power are working so hard to prevent this kind of unified action. The wealthiest 1%, the oligarchs, understand that their position of privilege depends not just on their wealth, but on maintaining a system of inequality. 

Their greatest fear isn't higher taxes or regulation. They truly fear and dread only one thing. The thing that actually has the ability to challenge their narrative of control. 

We the people

They fear a united, purposeful democratic movement to build a world that works for everyone. Consider for a moment, that what they really fear is...

True Domestic Tranquility

What would genuine domestic tranquility look like in modern America? 

Perhaps there are a lot of different ideas and possible answers to this question, but it would certainly manifest as a society where basic human needs are met and dignity is universal. 

Including:

• A living wage that allows workers to support their families without requiring multiple jobs or falling into debt. 
• Universal access to quality healthcare, removing the fear of bankruptcy from illness. 
• Educational opportunities that aren't limited by zip code or family wealth. 
• Housing that's affordable without consuming more than a third of income. 
• Equal rights regardless of sex, gender, race or beliefs.
• Most importantly, it would include genuine democratic representation—where political influence isn't dictated by wealth.

The reality is that achieving these goals wouldn't require the complete dismantling of wealth. The obscenely wealthy could remain very wealthy while still allowing for these fundamental improvements in society. 

What's required isn't the elimination of individual prosperity, but rather a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, which includes equal access to opportunity.

This isn't just a nice idea. It's the law. It's how this country is supposed to function. 

So why doesn't it function that way?

Decades of Orchestrated Opposition

Understanding why these completely reasonable (and literally promised) goals remain unrealized, requires an understanding of the systematic opposition to unity and equality over the last few decades. 

Beginning in 1970-71 with the Friedman doctrine of Shareholder Supremacy, the Powell Memo, and accelerated by the Reagan administration, there has been a coordinated effort to reshape American society in ways that prevent collective action and maintain inequality.

This campaign has operated on multiple fronts. The war on public education (beginning in the Regan administration) wasn't just about budget cuts—it was about limiting critical thinking and creating a more manageable population. 

The dominance of conservative voices in talk radio, with 91% of shows promoting right-wing viewpoints, isn't accidental—it's part of a broader strategy to shape public opinion and create artificial divisions. 

The astonishing growth of partisan news outlets, exemplified by Fox News, has created parallel realities where Americans no longer share a common set of facts. This fracturing of truth itself makes unity nearly impossible, as different segments of society operate from entirely different premises about reality.

The impacts of this campaign on the populace are impossible to deny. 

American citizens have rarely, if ever, been as disconnected and contentious as today. Certainly this splintering of society has been turbocharged by the appearance of the internet, but this is just an acceleration of a trend that was already well under way. 

Any resistance to this trend has proved to be mostly futile. 

And perhaps there is a reason for that. 

Beyond Protest: The Limits of Traditional Resistance

The George Floyd protests, which mobilized an estimated 50 million people over three years, provide a perfect example of the limitations of traditional resistance based protest movements. 

Despite being one of the largest protest movements in American history, its impact fell far short of its transformative potential. This wasn't because the protesters lacked conviction or numbers... they had both. In abundance.

The failure lay in the nature of protest itself. 

Traditional protests, while symbolically powerful, ultimately operate within the system they seek to change. 

In a sense, they inadvertently reinforce the existing power structure by acknowledging its authority to grant or deny the demanded changes. This is why even massive demonstrations often result in minimal structural change.

This is probably one of the most important points of this entire book.

Traditional activism focuses on resistance.
Resistance causes the persistence of the current system.

The path to genuine domestic tranquility requires more than protest. 

It demands the creation of alternative structures and systems that operate outside the existing framework of power. 

This doesn't mean abandoning the legal and peaceful nature of resistance, but rather redirecting energy toward building new, parallel infrastructure and networks that can eventually replace the old.

The task ahead is both simple in concept and monumental in execution. 

It requires educating and organizing those 11 million Americans needed to reach the critical 3.5% threshold. But more importantly, it requires doing so in a way that builds lasting structures for change rather than temporary expressions of outrage and dissent.

As we'll explore in the next chapter, the future of American domestic tranquility depends not just on our ability to protest the current system, but on our capacity to envision and create a better one. The tools and methods for this construction project will determine whether we can finally achieve the domestic tranquility, and common defense that the Constitution promised but has yet to deliver.