02 U.S. Politics

Originally published April 24, 2026 for our weekly Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor.  Subscribe to get weekly issues.

By Bill Collier, Publisher

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” – Joseph Story

“In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for the benefit of one class instead of a government for the benefit of the people as a whole.” – Theodore Roosevelt

“The voting booth pales in power next to the home garden.” – Paul Gordon Collier

NOTE: Expect a follow-up to our Final Thought last week about the efforts to rescue children in Myanmar. Since the last update we received, more has happened. Their home in India became untenable and they were forced to head back to Myanmar, where they have found a safe place to stay, for now.

We have also learned more about both the journey to India and the journey back. It was filled with sniper fire, minefield evasions, and deadly checkpoints. Fortunately, the Lord provided in both journeys. To help the small community, go to apcf.world.

What follows is a commentary from our Publisher, Bill Collier, on the current state of American politics and how Americans might best approach voting.

ON RELIGION AND “DEMOCRACY”

The ranges of control we can achieve over our emotions, our perceptions, and even our likes and dislikes are amazing; yet they remain mostly untapped.

MANY conflicts would be resolved if we learned to govern our emotions and preferences more intentionally, with an eye toward peace with our fellow human beings.

Being offended is something we should strive to avoid, while tolerance based on mutual respect for our shared human sovereignty and dignity is a path that leads away from anxiety, fear, and conflict.

That said, it is easier to be angry and to “otherfy” those we disagree with. We translate disagreement into a threat to ourselves, as if the existence of some people or groups of people is a hazard to our well-being.

Often people who demand tolerance are only angling for a position from which they can eventually gain control to demand acceptance, approval, and even disavowal of any beliefs that are contrary to these peoples’ agendas.

We go from “live and let live” to changing the culture and the rules to “outlaw your dissent” from their narrative (“freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences”).

It is not my desire or right to impose my beliefs or values on others; nor is it my desire to allow the precedence of outlawing my beliefs and convictions or removing my voice from the public discourse to stand.

For instance, there is this prevailing (but not exclusive) progressive notion that a modern “democracy” can only be influenced by secular presuppositions, not religious ones.

NOTE: While this is fundamentally a progressive notion, it is shared by a large portion of conservatives, especially secular conservatives, who seem to distrust Christian conservatives more than they do progressives.

You either have a democracy that reflects all consensus regardless of its motivation or logic, or you have a system that limits the range of ideas allowed and the range of reasons for such preferences to only a godless worldview that equates the Creator as a myth and His laws as irrelevant anachronisms.

I personally believe the state is limited in its “God-given authority.”

Most of the moral and ethical preachments of my faith are applied to consenting persons and free associations only; the state cannot enforce these standards or force these standards on non-believers.

Editor Paul Gordon Collier has written an essay on this very issue, of how faith interacts with and shouldn’t interact with the state. It is called “Fear of Suffering and Death.” The essay is linked on our back cover archive page. It is available to our paid subscribers.

But if you say that religious beliefs are not allowed as a motivation for public policy then you don’t have a democracy, you have a secularocracy, a system that excludes religion and thus only approves of atheist ideas. Only the minority who deny God have a right in your system.

I refuse to be silenced or consent to my voice being made illegal in such an alleged “democracy” as many think we already have.

I would not vote for laws that impose my faith on others, but I would not deny faith as a source for voting, or even as a source for deciding policy.

If the voting public prefers a religious ethic be their guide when adjudicating issues the state is recognized as having authority to adjudicate, they either get their way or you admit your system is based on anti-religious authoritarianism.

Today, the Christian mostly faces a choice between two candidates who both reject faith as a source for government policymaking, which leads us often in the position of feeling we must vote for the lesser of two evils.

What follows is what I believe is a better approach to voting for the lesser of two evils.

ON CATASTROPHE VOTING OVER LESSER OF TWO EVILS VOTING

I don’t choose the lesser of two evils, as if I would ever choose any evil. I elect which catastrophe to deal with right now.

Our American situation, to me, finds us with two major political factions, the Democrats and the Republicans. While the Republicans are a dangerous flood that should be monitored, the Democrats are a dangerous flood AND a major earthquake currently destroying American institutions from without and within.

The future may see a reversal of circumstances, or more likely, new parties created to represent whatever political factions emerge in the ashes of the DNC and GOP.

I used to prefer “conservative” Democrats over any given Republican, for this very reason.

To me, the conservative democrats of the 70s to 90s were a minor storm, while the Republicans and rest of the Democrats were a destroying (but not catastrophic) flood. Here, the catastrophe vote would go to the “conservative” Democrat.

I ask fundamentally different and non-ideological questions tied to results that are measured in individual and freewill self-determination. Without a civil framework of unity that is pluralistic and free, the self cannot be self-determined, for the state will oppress such expression.

The real fruit of good governance is not in rhetoric, of course, it’s in what that governance produces. Are people living longer and healthier lives? Is there good social cohesion that flows organically? Are we safe from most hazards and dangers to our rights and well-being? Finally, are the people who produce what society needs being rewarded in an equitable manner?

George Washington said we should avoid making permanent allies and permanent enemies. I feel that way toward ideologies and parties as well.

While as a rule I’ll vote Republican in current year (the least of the catastrophic threats to America), I would likely choose Democrats like Fetterman over many Republicans (if not most), because I think Fetterman is ethical and authentic. He is less of a catastrophic threat to our country than most Republicans are (in my opinion).

My point is not to make an argument for Fetterman (which you are free, of course, to disagree with) but to show my principle of catastrophe voting in action.

When I engage in a political campaign, professionally, it is for someone who I believe embodies these ideas the most, even within the existing frameworks and narratives, e.g. the whole left-right spectrum which my ideas do not neatly fit.

I don’t think people choose the lesser of two evils. That framing sounds like compromise; Voting for the least dangerous of two potential catastrophes seems closer to the truth.

Rarely does any voter outside a hard-core party base choose a positive good; and few are trying to choose evil. Many also just stop voting because they feel a vote for a party is an endorsement of the whole program, and both parties have problematic policies in their programs (from an American perspective).

I respect that perspective, but mine is different. I make tactical choices to mitigate hazards, and I continue to urge people to find the gaps for freedom and to build community with people who also want to be free and self-sufficient (though we would caution self-sufficiency requires a community of self-sufficient neighbors).

I have had this stance all my life. The fact that at different times I may seem to lean left, or right is not a reflection of meandering values, rather it reflects a consistent worldview that the best we can do within the reality we find ourselves is vote catastrophic, so to speak.

But, at the end of the day, as our readers may already understand, voting is not the most effective way to advance a cultural of self-stewardship. As our Editor Paul Gordon Collier wrote, “The voting booth pales in power next to the home garden.”