I was sitting in church last week in my normal spot, second from the back row because I’m not a back bencher. You cannot avoid overhearing what people around you are saying when you are sitting in church.
There was a group of older ladies talking about their dismay and disappointment with the way kids are these days but how happy they were knowing that their children were raised in the church so they weren’t “that way”.
I couldn’t help but speculate how their kids were. But then it occurred to me that even though their kids were raised in the church, they were citizens of the world and away from the church, their kids had to compete with other kids who didn’t have the benefit of Christian teaching. And even then, temptations of the world are the biggest magnet for pulling kids raised in the church away and into the secular world. That learning the lessons in Sunday School might expose you to God’s messages, but that alone didn’t prevent other “preachers” from offering competing ideas.
So who are those other preachers? Well, our public school system is the place we send our kids to learn. So the preachers who are in the pulpit most of your kid’s life are teachers in whatever school your kids attend. If your kids go to Sunday School on Sunday then go to public schools Monday through Friday, which one do you think will have the greater influence?
That’s right, the teachers in the public schools have your kid’s attention five or six or seven hours during the day, five days per week. Under ideal circumstances, those teachers are exposing the class to Reading, Writing and Arithmetic along with Science, History and Social Studies. If you teach a kid to read, that child can accomplish almost anything. If you can’t read, you will be challenged to learn any of the other essentials. If you can read, you can teach yourself almost anything. If the public school system has one mission, it’s to teach kids to read. And yet, the failure rate for elementary school age children in learning to read has never been higher than today.
This little rant is one I often land on. If education has one vital function, it’s to teach reading and reading is the heart of our body of learning. Give a kid a weak heart and he will be handicapped the rest of his life.
Because I am a pundit, I wanted to insert myself into that conversation in church, but I did not. I didn’t have to bite my tongue, I just sat there silently.
Kids raised in the church on Sunday and in a Christian school during the week have a better chance of being a competent reader than kids in public schools because in my view, if you can’t read, you can’t read your Bible. But being in a Christian school doesn’t guarantee a Christian education.
Who makes the decision about who is teaching our kids and what they are being taught matters. The people in decision making positions decide who and what will be taught. So in your circle of influence, who is making those decisions? Do you know the names of your school board members? Do you know any of them personally? How about the principal at your kid’s elementary school? How about your kid’s teacher?
You put your kids into the care of these people and you probably don’t know enough about them to say with confidence they are teaching my kids the things they will need to know to be successful in the world or conversely, that they are not teaching your kids things that will undermine the values you think are important in your family.
I have to admit, today, I do not know the names of the school board members in our school district. My daughter and her kids are all well past public school age. I will say that when they were in school I did know most of the people in those positions.
Not everyone knows that typically, your public school district is the largest employer and business entity in your community.
When I shot my mouth off in 1987 and was critical of the city, I ran for city council because I thought my ideas made more sense than the ones I saw coming out of city hall. It could just as easily been a run for the school board.
I saw my local government heading in the wrong direction and rather than staying quiet, I spoke up and ran for office. I was advised by people I respect to stay quiet because I was in business in town. I answered with a typical STEVE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY answer. “The reason we are in this pickle today is because we stayed quiet and the ones now making the decisions have their own agenda.”
And that is my core message in everything I write about. The decisions that affect every aspect of our lives are made by the people at the table or the ones out in front. From 1987 until 2021, I served in some capacity governing the city of Snohomish Washington. Not because I they couldn’t get someone else to do it, but because the other people wanting the job had a different agenda than mine.
I put my business and my family at risk because I believed serving is our obligation and because a number of the other people wanting the jobs believed in different principles.
I recently wrote about Capitalism vs Progressivism. I am the Capitalist, they are the Progressives. A city’s first obligation is public safety. If people are not safe, what other function can a city provide that makes living there worth the risk? For all my years in government, I prioritized economic development because I understood that services like public safety (cops and firefighters) are paid for with taxes and in our state, sales taxes coming to the city are the life blood of spending. Are you with me? I’m the Capitalist on the council. I’m focused on making money for the city. Many of my council colleagues were the Progressives. All they could care about was how to spend the money. Sadly today, nearly all the council members are Progressives.
I ran for office because I thought, If not me, then who? Remember, I’m a near back bencher so that little pearl resonated with me. Send me Lord.
The most impactful lesson I learned during my thirty-four years of public service was the importance of showing up, to serve, to criticize and offer alternatives or to support the ones that do.
I started this essay today talking about learning to read and reading our Bibles and who is teaching our kids. If I had been motivated to run for school board rather than city council, my life would be different today and my school district would be different as well. The people sitting in those school board seats have a lot to do with what your kids are taught and what they are not taught. The quality of education in our country is determined by the ones who show up; to run for school board, to serve in the PTA to serve as a volunteer or teacher’s aid. Multiply that obligation by the number of school districts in the state or the country and you will see the scope of the job. But the lesson wasn’t a generic who, it was “will it be YOU?”
I don’t want to be too churchy in this, but one of every pastor’s core messages is “Nobody can do everything, but Everybody can do something.” There is an obligation to serve in some capacity in our churches, our schools, our cities, counties and states. Nobody is asking you to serve thirty-four years like I did, but you should do your compulsory duty to serve for a few years, even if it’s only during the years when your own kids are in school.
The decisions about what your kids are being taught are made by people who believe things differently than you do. Are you really surprised when you find out that the kids can’t read, or write, or do arithmetic? When I was in the restaurant business, I added a simple third grade math test to every job application I passed out to kids applying for work in my restaurant. If they couldn’t do third grade math as seventeen year old juniors in high school, I couldn’t hire them. My employees needed to know how to read and do simple math. And sadly, there were a disappointing number of kids who couldn’t fill out either side of the application.
The ones that showed up made the decisions about which kids were left behind. Or which ones were dragged along even though they couldn’t read.
Our country today is over run by almost fifty years of “graduates” from the public education system that cannot read or do simple math. Our education system is cranking out millions of kids heading off to college that cannot read, write a complete sentence or work a simple logic problem.
We get what we settle for. I was never willing to settle for less because that was all the system required.
If you wonder how you kid will fare in the world with the poor quality of her education, ask yourself one question, “What was MY contribution to a successful outcome for my child?”
Our school systems are screwed because we left the decisions to other people that showed up. Our city governments, county governments, state governments and our federal government are screwed up because most of us left the decisions to other people who showed up and they got their way and your kids got shafted.
We as a people don’t even bother to participate at the level of voting for the candidates who run for office. You don’t have to commit for four years, you just have to show up on election day and you won’t even do that.
Those ladies in that group at church don’t realize the ripples on the pools of their lives have such profound effects on their own kids and the others. We get what we deserve if we don’t bother to serve.
Get off your butts and pitch in doing something for the betterment of your community. Not only will it serve the now, it will serve the future by modeling positive behavior for your kids who are more likely to serve if they have a parent who served.
I actually wrote a book about public service and why some serve and others do not. It will be coming out here on my Substack in 2027.
I also have an essay I’m writing about how important education and participation in the system protect and promote liberty and freedom in America.
FIND ME FOR LONG FORM PUNDITRY AT SUBSTACK AS WELL http://www.theteapartypundit.substack.com/
The Covenant Above the Tribe
by Steve DanaHuman beings are tribal by nature.
Read Steve’s work on Substack http://www.theteapartypundit.substack.com
That is not an insult. It is an observation. We are born into families, neighborhoods, languages, customs, churches, histories, and loyalties that we did not invent. Long before we learn political theory, we learn who “our people” are. We learn who is safe. We learn who is suspect. We learn who shares our values, our stories, our habits, and our assumptions about the world.
Tribal instinct is not always evil. It can produce loyalty, courage, sacrifice, duty, and love. A man who will not defend his family is not morally superior because he has risen above tribe. He is morally deficient because he has failed the first test of loyalty. The same is true of neighborhoods, churches, communities, and nations. Human beings need belonging.
But the same instinct that binds people together can also turn poisonous. The line between “I love my people” and “your people are in my way” is not as thick as civilized people like to imagine.
That is the problem America has always tried to solve.
Our country was not founded on the fantasy that human beings would stop forming factions. The Founders understood human nature better than most modern political operators do. They knew that individuals and groups would seek advantage. They knew that people would organize around interest, passion, resentment, wealth, religion, region, and identity. They knew that majorities could become oppressive and minorities could become desperate. They knew that power, once acquired, is rarely surrendered gracefully.
That is why America was built not merely as a democracy, but as a constitutional republic. Majority rule matters, but majority rule alone is not justice. A majority can be wrong. A majority can be vengeful. A majority can violate the rights of the minority. A majority can turn government into an instrument of punishment. A majority can convince itself that because it has the votes, it also has moral permission to do whatever it wants.
The Founders knew better.
The purpose of the American covenant was to place something higher than tribe, faction, party, race, religion, class, and temporary political victory. That higher thing was the idea that all citizens stand under the same Constitution, possess rights that government did not create, and owe allegiance to a common civic order. The American bargain was not that every person would be the same. It was not that ancestry, culture, religion, and family history would disappear. The bargain was that those identities would be subordinated to citizenship.
That is a demanding idea.
It asks human beings to do something they do not naturally do. It asks them to restrain their own tribe when their tribe has power. It asks them to protect the rights of people they do not like. It asks them to honor the law even when the law benefits their opponent. It asks them to accept election results they did not want. It asks them to teach their children that liberty is not merely personal freedom, but ordered freedom under a shared moral and constitutional discipline.
That is America at its best.
But America at its worst is what happens when the covenant weakens and the tribes take over.
Political partisans understand this better than they admit. When they are in the majority, they speak the language of mandate, democracy, progress, justice, and the will of the people. When they are in the minority, they speak the language of rights, restraint, fairness, oppression, and abuse of power. The same people who celebrate majority power when it serves them often discover constitutional limits the moment power changes hands.
That is not unique to one party. It is not unique to American politics. It is human nature.
The group in power wants to use power. The group out of power wants to limit power. The majority says, “We won.” The minority says, “You are going too far.” When the tables turn, the speeches change, but the instinct remains.
This is why the struggle between majority and minority power must never be dismissed as merely academic. It is the living tension at the center of every government. In neighborhoods, gangs, legislatures, school boards, city councils, churches, nations, and civilizations, the side with power sets the terms. The side without power looks for ways to survive, resist, organize, and eventually replace the ruling coalition.
That is the nature of power.
The danger becomes greater in a multicultural society, because people do not organize only around policy. They organize around identity, memory, grievance, and fear. A group that cannot form a majority on its own may join with other groups that share little except a common opponent. These coalitions can be powerful. They can also be fragile, cynical, and dangerous.
A coalition built around shared principles can strengthen a republic.
A coalition built around shared resentment can destroy one.
This is where America’s modern challenge becomes so serious. We often talk as if our racial and cultural divisions are unique to us. They are not. Tribal conflict is one of the oldest facts of human history.
The world is full of examples. Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Indonesian peoples may all be called “Asian” from a distance, but they are not interchangeable peoples with one shared memory. Many carry histories of conquest, occupation, contempt, humiliation, and war. In the Middle East, Sunni and Shiite Muslims have fought for centuries over faith, legitimacy, power, and blood. In Europe, Protestants and Catholics killed each other in the name of God, nation, crown, and doctrine. Jews have been persecuted across civilizations by people who claimed moral and religious authority. In Africa, tribal and ethnic conflicts have often produced cruelty that outsiders barely understand. Around the world, majorities have used power against minorities, and minorities have dreamed of the day when power would shift.
America did not invent tribal conflict.
America’s claim was that it had found a way to rise above it.
Not perfectly. Not always. Not without hypocrisy. Not without sin. Not without slavery, discrimination, exclusion, injustice, and failure. But the claim still mattered. The American idea said there was a standard above tribe by which even America itself could be judged. That is why the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution remain so powerful. They did not merely describe what America already was. They declared what America was obligated to become.
That obligation is the covenant.
A covenant is more than a contract. A contract says, “I will do this if you do that.” A covenant says, “We are bound together by something higher than immediate advantage.” The American covenant says that we are not merely competing tribes living under one flag. We are citizens of one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.
Those words are easy to recite. They are hard to live.
They require the old majority to understand that historic dominance does not grant permanent ownership of the country. They require rising minorities to understand that past mistreatment does not justify future revenge. They require immigrants to understand that coming to America means more than gaining access to jobs, schools, benefits, safety, and opportunity. It means entering a civic inheritance that demands loyalty, gratitude, duty, and participation. They require native-born citizens to understand that citizenship is not automatic virtue. A person can be born here and still despise the covenant. A person can come from somewhere else and embrace it with reverence.
That last point matters.
This argument is not a defense of bloodline America. It is a defense of covenant America.
A Hispanic citizen who loves the Constitution is more American in spirit than a white citizen who hates it. A black pastor who teaches family, duty, faith, and ordered liberty is more faithful to the American covenant than a wealthy elite who funds contempt for the country while enjoying every benefit it provides. An immigrant who comes here determined to become an American is a blessing to the nation. A native-born citizen who teaches children that America is nothing more than oppression is a danger to the nation.
The dividing line cannot simply be race, ethnicity, birthplace, or ancestry.
The dividing line must be allegiance.
Do you believe in the American covenant or not?
That is the central question.
For much of our history, immigrants came to America with a clear understanding. They came from places where opportunity was limited, governments were corrupt, religious liberty was fragile, class barriers were hard, poverty was inherited, and political power belonged to someone else. America was not perfect, but it offered something rare: a chance.
The older immigrant bargain was simple: come here, work hard, become American, and your children can rise.
Those immigrants did not always abandon their food, language, churches, customs, or family traditions. Nor should they have been expected to. But the public expectation was clear. Heritage was permitted. Citizenship was primary. The hyphen might describe ancestry, but it was not supposed to outrank America.
Something changed.
Over the last several decades, the older language of assimilation weakened. The melting pot gave way to a different model, one that often placed ethnic identity, grievance, and ancestral recovery at the center of public life. America’s institutions became less confident in teaching newcomers why becoming American was an honor. At the same time, our schools, universities, media, and political movements increasingly taught native-born children to view their country not as a flawed but noble inheritance, but as a source of shame.
That has consequences.
The first-generation immigrant often compares America to the country he left. He remembers the corruption, poverty, fear, violence, limitation, or hopelessness. He is grateful. He works. He sacrifices. He tells his children that America gave the family a future.
The second-generation child may compare America not to the country his parents escaped, but to an abstract moral ideal presented in a classroom. He may be taught that America’s failures define it more than its achievements. He may inherit the fruits of assimilation while being taught to despise the tree that bore them.
That is a civic tragedy.
It is also politically useful.
A grateful citizen is hard to manipulate. A resentful identity group is easier to organize. Political operatives understand this. They know how to cultivate suspicion between groups. They know how to turn history into grievance and grievance into turnout. They know that several minority groups with little in common can be assembled into a majority if they can be persuaded to oppose the same enemy. They know that people who might not share values can still share resentment.
That is not nation-building. That is faction-building.
And faction-building is not enough to sustain a republic.
A republic requires citizens who can say, “My group may benefit from this policy, but it is still wrong.” It requires citizens who can say, “My party has the votes, but the Constitution still restrains us.” It requires citizens who can say, “My ancestors suffered, but I am not entitled to punish my neighbors for sins they did not commit.” It requires citizens who can say, “My family came from another country, but my loyalty now belongs here.” It requires citizens who can say, “My country has failed, but I still love it enough to repair it rather than curse it.”
Love of country is not blindness.
Patriotism does not require pretending America has never done wrong. In fact, real patriotism requires the courage to tell the truth about national failures. But there is a difference between correction and contempt. There is a difference between loving your country enough to improve it and hating your country enough to dismantle it.
A child who is taught only America’s sins will not inherit America’s virtues.
A newcomer who is welcomed into benefits but not into the covenant will not necessarily become a citizen in the moral sense.
A political party that treats people as demographic inventory will not build national unity.
A majority that uses power for revenge will teach the next minority to seek revenge when its turn comes.
That is the cycle we must break.
The answer is not for one tribe to defeat all the others. That would merely prove the danger. If the old majority seeks only restoration of dominance, it has misunderstood America. If rising minorities seek only payback, they have also misunderstood America. If immigrants come only for material benefit without allegiance, they have misunderstood America. If native-born citizens inherit liberty without duty, they have misunderstood America.
America cannot survive as a spoils system among competing tribes.
It can only survive as a covenant people.
That means we must recover a language of citizenship that is firmer, clearer, and more honest than the language we use now. We should not be afraid to say that immigration requires assimilation. Not cultural erasure, but civic assimilation. We should not be afraid to say that English matters, common history matters, constitutional literacy matters, public order matters, borders matter, voting matters, military and civic service matter, and gratitude matters.
We should not be afraid to say that rights come with duties.
We should not be afraid to say that America is worth loving.
That may be the most radical statement left in public life: America is worth loving.
Not because she is flawless. She is not.
Not because every generation has lived up to her promises. It has not.
Not because every leader has been honorable. Many have not been.
America is worth loving because the covenant is worth preserving. A nation founded on the claim that rights come from God, that government exists by consent, that citizens are equal before the law, that speech and worship are free, that power must be limited, and that justice belongs to all is a nation with a moral architecture rare in human history.
If we lose that, we will not replace it with utopia.
We will replace it with tribes.
And tribes know what to do with power.
This brings us back to the practical lesson: the people who show up get to have their way.
A constitutional majority will not appear by magic. A civic majority must be formed, taught, organized, and mobilized. People who believe in the American covenant must stop assuming that their values will govern automatically because they are decent, quiet, hardworking, and normal. Quiet people are not in charge. Organized people are.
The future is being shaped in school board meetings, city council chambers, county offices, state legislatures, curriculum committees, party caucuses, churches, neighborhood groups, and primary elections. The people who attend those meetings, ask questions, run for seats, fund candidates, teach children, write arguments, and build institutions are the people who steer the country.
Absence is surrender.
If citizens who love America stay home, citizens who want to transform America will not pause out of courtesy. They will govern. They will write curriculum. They will staff agencies. They will nominate candidates. They will interpret laws. They will shape language. They will define justice. They will decide what children are taught to love and what they are taught to hate.
That is not a complaint. It is a reality.
In a republic, power goes to those who participate.
So the call is not merely to resentment. Resentment is easy. The call is to responsibility.
If we believe America is a covenant, we must teach the covenant.
If we believe citizenship matters, we must practice citizenship.
If we believe immigrants should become Americans, we must be confident enough to tell them what that means.
If we believe our children should love their country, we must give them reasons to love it.
If we believe power must be restrained, we must restrain our own side when our own side wins.
If we believe liberty and justice are for all, we must defend them even for people outside our tribe.
That is the hard patriotism America requires now.
The temptation of the age is to retreat into tribe. Every group can justify doing so. Every group has wounds. Every group has fears. Every group can tell stories of mistreatment. Every group can point to another group and say, “They would do it to us if they had the chance.”
Maybe they would.
That is precisely why the covenant matters.
The covenant is not needed because human beings are naturally fair. It is needed because we are not. It is not needed because majorities are always wise. It is needed because they are not. It is not needed because minorities are always noble. It is needed because they are human too. It is not needed because power corrupts only our enemies. It is needed because power tempts everyone.
America’s survival depends on whether enough of us still believe there is something higher than winning.
Higher than party.
Higher than race.
Higher than ancestry.
Higher than grievance.
Higher than revenge.
Higher than the temporary satisfaction of seeing our opponents humiliated.
That higher thing is the American covenant.
One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.
Not one tribe over another.
Not one faction above the law.
Not one coalition entitled to rule forever.
Not one grievance given permission to become tyranny.
One nation.
That is the promise.
That is the duty.
That is the inheritance.
And if we want to keep it, we had better start acting like citizens again.
Posted in Political commentary | Leave a Comment »