Barack Obama opened his Presidential Center with a speech that denigrated the Declaration of Independence and praised the Constitution in the vaguest possible terms. He skipped "endowed by our Creator," as he always does, and framed the Constitution as a document designed to "change with the times," a phrase that sounds reasonable until you realize he means judicial reinterpretation, not the amendment process the founders actually built. When Democrats invoke "our democracy," they mean something specific: the removal of constitutional constraints on what they want to do. The founders were deeply suspicious of democracy for exactly this reason. Every structural feature of the government they designed, the Senate, the Electoral College, the separation of powers, exists to prevent a majority from destroying the rights of the individual. Keir Starmer resigned as Britain's seventh prime minister in ten years, less than two years after winning a landslide. He promised to address immigration and increase defense spending for NATO. He did neither. British living standards have slipped to roughly half of American levels over a 50-year period, driven by a government that keeps growing while the productive economy it feeds off keeps shrinking. Sharia law is expanding in British culture. Rape victims who accuse Muslim perpetrators face more scrutiny than the accused. Political greatness, the kind that actually reverses decline, is extraordinarily rare because it requires standing against entrenched interests that are powerful, well-funded, and have no intention of yielding. Two-thirds of Democrats now view socialism favorably. Capitalism's favorable rating among Democrats has dropped to 42%. Democratic Socialists are winning primaries in New York, Seattle, and potentially Los Angeles. Their platform includes abolishing ICE, a 32-hour workweek with no pay reduction, universal basic income, federal rent control, free college, and halting all deportations. These are promises that cannot be kept because the math behind them does not work. Socialism does not fail because of bad implementation. It fails because it eliminates the pricing information that a competitive market uses to allocate resources. Without that information, no amount of good intention produces efficiency. New York City's mayor controls 200,000 public housing units that require $78 billion in repairs to become livable. He is doing nothing to fix them while proposing a tax to build 200,000 more. He is, by definition, the city's largest slumlord. Bernie Sanders wants the federal government to own 50% of AI companies, calling them a "public resource." If AI is a public resource, so is food, water, housing, media, and everything else. The argument has no limiting principle, which is the point. Social Security's trust funds will be exhausted by 2034. Benefits will automatically drop 22% unless Congress borrows more or raises taxes. A Republican amendment at the program's creation would have put half of contributions into individual investment accounts. Had that passed, every retiree today would be financially independent. California signed legislation raising health premiums by up to 97% and is now taxing software. Seventeen red states are suing over a California packaging law that effectively imposes regulatory costs on businesses across the country. The tension between command and freedom is not new. Dutch settlers on Manhattan in the 1600s were already demanding rights from the trading company that employed them, more than a century before the Constitution was written. The question of how much authority any single person or institution should hold over others is the oldest political question there is, and it has not been answered. For more episodes and resources, visit fromourgeneration.com. Dive deeper with Giants of Political Thought at giantsofpoliticalthought.com.