The Ring of Power

In J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, the central temptation is not simply evil. It is the belief that one can wield immense power responsibly.

Boromir believes he can use the Ring to save his people.

Saruman believes he can use it to impose order.

Even Gandalf refuses it, fearing the corruption that absolute power inevitably brings.

Modern American politics has a similar artifact: the enormous expansion of federal power accumulated over the last century.

For decades, both parties have criticized this concentration of authority when their opponents held it. But once in power, they rarely dismantle it. Instead, they attempt to use it more “wisely.”

The political right has its own long record of this behavior. But the modern American left—despite its rhetoric about justice, equality, and democratic accountability—has increasingly embraced the same logic.

Rather than destroying the ring, it argues that it should be wielded more competently.

History suggests that assumption is dangerous.

Power Creep: The Tool No One Wants to Surrender

American government power expanded dramatically during the 20th century through programs and institutions created by leaders from both parties:

• Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal regulatory state
• Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society expansion of federal welfare programs
• The post-9/11 Patriot Act and surveillance authorities
• The massive growth of executive orders and administrative agencies

Critics on the left often condemn executive overreach when conservatives wield it.

But once Democrats hold the presidency or Congress, the pattern rarely reverses.

For example:

• Barack Obama sharply criticized executive overreach under George W. Bush, yet relied heavily on executive actions when Congress stalled.
• The national security and surveillance apparatus built after 9/11 remained largely intact under Democratic administrations.
• Regulatory authority has continued to expand through agencies rather than through congressional legislation.

The fundamental structure of centralized authority remains untouched.

The debate becomes not whether the ring should exist, but who should wear it.

The Coming “Blue Wave” Problem

Periods of political backlash often produce sweeping victories for the opposition party.

But American history shows that pendulum swings can create policy overcorrections.

During moments when Democrats gain overwhelming institutional control—such as the 1930s, 1960s, and occasionally the early 21st century—the temptation emerges to pursue rapid, ideologically ambitious programs.

Supporters see this as overdue reform.

Critics see it as centralized technocratic governance that moves faster than democratic consensus.

The risk in such moments is not communism in any literal sense, but bureaucratic overreach and ideological rigidity.

When policymaking becomes dominated by elite policy circles rather than broad democratic negotiation, public trust erodes.

And once trust collapses, the backlash is often severe.

The Elitism Problem

One of the most striking political transformations of the last thirty years is the shift in which social groups align with which party.

The Democratic coalition increasingly draws support from:

• highly educated professionals
• major metropolitan areas
• academic and cultural institutions
• large technology and media sectors

These groups wield enormous cultural and economic influence.

But this alignment has also fueled a perception—sometimes justified—that the modern left has become deeply intertwined with elite institutions.

Consider:

• the dominance of progressive politics in elite universities
• the concentration of Democratic leadership within high-income coastal cities
• the influence of technology platforms and media ecosystems aligned with progressive cultural norms

Critics argue that this ecosystem can create policy blind spots, particularly regarding the economic pressures faced by working-class communities.

Housing Policy and the Homelessness Crisis

Few issues illustrate the unintended consequences of governance better than housing policy in major progressive cities.

Cities with long-term Democratic leadership—such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Portland—have some of the highest housing costs and homelessness rates in the United States.

Several policy factors contribute:

• restrictive zoning regulations
• lengthy environmental review processes
• high permitting costs
• limitations on high-density housing construction

For example:

• California’s housing shortage is estimated at over 3 million units according to state housing reports.
• San Francisco housing prices rose dramatically while construction lagged due to regulatory barriers.
• Homeless populations surged in several West Coast cities despite large public spending on social services.

None of this means social welfare programs caused homelessness.

But it demonstrates how regulatory systems and political priorities can unintentionally constrain housing supply, driving costs higher.

When policy frameworks prioritize process over outcomes, the result can be worsening crises despite enormous spending.

War: A Bipartisan Instrument

Another uncomfortable reality is that war has never been the exclusive domain of one political party.

While conservatives are often associated with military intervention, Democratic administrations have repeatedly engaged in large-scale military operations:

• Harry Truman entered the Korean War.
• Lyndon Johnson escalated the Vietnam War dramatically.
• Barack Obama expanded drone warfare and authorized interventions in Libya and Syria.

The pattern reflects a deeper truth: once a nation possesses global military capacity, leaders of both parties tend to use it.

Rhetoric about restraint rarely survives the pressures of geopolitical power.

The Ring Must Be Destroyed

The real lesson is not that one party is uniquely responsible for America’s political dysfunction.

It is that both major parties repeatedly fall into the same trap.

They believe the immense power of the modern federal system can be safely wielded if the “right people” are in charge.

Tolkien’s story warns us otherwise.

Power does not simply corrupt villains.

It corrupts those who believe themselves righteous enough to control it.

The solution is not to argue endlessly over who gets the ring.

The solution is to ask whether the political system has accumulated too much centralized authority in the first place.

Because history suggests something uncomfortable:

The greatest danger to democratic systems is rarely the villain who openly seeks power. It is the reformer who believes they can safely wield it.