www-us.org

Chapter 47: The Question of the Unasked

The interview with Dr. Ayers had left a lasting and unsettling impression on Julian. It had exposed a blind spot in his own logical framework, a whole dimension of the American experience he had failed to account for. As the campaign gained momentum, the pressure from the media and the public to define his position on these non-logical, deeply emotional issues grew more intense. The culture wars were a swamp he had studiously avoided, but Marcus Thorne was insistent.

“You can’t hide from it forever, Julian,” Marcus argued. “Sooner or later, someone is going to put a microphone in your face and ask you about abortion. You need an answer.”

The moment came at a town hall event at a large state university in North Carolina. The campaign had deliberately chosen the venue to engage with a young, politically active, and almost certainly hostile audience. The atmosphere in the auditorium was electric with a mix of excitement and confrontational energy.

After his usual, sober opening presentation on the mechanics of the national debt, Julian opened the floor. The first hand that shot up belonged to a young woman in the front row. She was sharp, articulate, and her eyes burned with the fire of absolute moral certainty.

“Mr. Corbin,” she began, her voice ringing with clarity through the packed hall. “In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the fundamental reproductive rights of millions of American women are under direct assault. I don’t want to hear about systems or economics. I want a simple, yes or no answer. Do you support a federal law codifying the right to an abortion?”

The auditorium fell silent. A hundred smartphones were raised, their cameras recording. This was it. The moment of truth. A classic binary trap. A ‘yes’ would alienate the millions of pro-life voters he was trying to reach. A ‘no’ would confirm the progressive left’s worst fears that he was a right-wing wolf in independent’s clothing.

Julian looked at the young woman and gave her a respectful nod. He did not answer yes or no.

“Thank you for that question,” he began, his voice calm and measured. “It is, I know, the single most important and deeply personal issue for millions of Americans. And that is precisely why the federal government, and especially the President of the United States, should have almost no role in deciding it.”

A confused, angry murmur rippled through the room.

He held up a hand. “For fifty years,” he continued, “the leaders of both political parties have used this profoundly moral and deeply personal issue as a political weapon. They use it to raise money. They use it to scare their voters into turning out. They use it to divide us from our neighbors. But what has been the tangible result of this endless, fifty-year war? A nation that is more divided, more bitter, and more angry than ever before. The presidency was never designed to be the final arbiter of our most profound religious and moral disagreements.”

He paused, letting the controversial idea sink in. “I believe in a federal government that is rigorously and relentlessly focused on its core, enumerated constitutional powers: to provide for the common defense, to maintain a stable and prosperous economy, and to protect the fundamental civil liberties of every single American. That is the job description. The rest belongs to the people.”

He looked directly at the young woman. “Issues as personal as abortion, as deeply tied to one’s own conscience and faith, are best handled by the people and their elected representatives at the state and local level. My personal, private moral view on the issue is completely and totally irrelevant. As president, my job would not be to impose my morality on the state of North Carolina. My job would be to lead a federal government that is so competent and effective in its proper, limited role that it finally earns back the trust of the American people.”

Another student immediately jumped up, shouting a follow-up question. “So what about trans rights? Are you going to just stand by while states pass discriminatory laws?”

Julian applied the exact same principle. “Your right to live your life as you see fit, to express your identity, and to be free from violence and discrimination is a fundamental civil liberty,” he stated firmly. “That is a right the federal government is sworn to protect. However, the federal government should not be in the business of telling your local school district how to manage its sports teams. That is a local issue, to be decided by local communities. The entire theme of my presidency, the core of the MARG project, is to return power from a distant, centralized bureaucracy back to the communities and individuals to whom it rightfully belongs.”

The answers did not satisfy the activists on either extreme of the spectrum. The online reaction was immediate and furious. The far-left accused him of being a coward who was abandoning women and trans people. The far-right accused him of being a secret liberal who was paying lip service to states’ rights.

But in the vast, exhausted middle of the country, his message resonated with a shocking and unexpected power. The clip of his answer went viral, not because it was passionate, but because it was calm. It was the answer of a leader who was not interested in fighting their war. He was offering a ceasefire. The headline of a widely shared op-ed by a centrist journalist the next day perfectly captured the appeal: “Julian Corbin’s Most Radical Policy Is His Refusal to Have a Policy.” He had successfully framed his non-engagement not as an act of weakness, but as a principled and deeply necessary act of political sanity.

The Discourse, Chapter 47; The Strategy of Depoliticization

Section 47.1: The "Wicked Problem" of the Culture War

The chapter addresses Julian Corbin's approach to the ultimate "wicked problem" in American life: the culture war. Issues like abortion and transgender rights are not like economic problems, which have the potential for a positive-sum, technocratic solution. They are, at their core, zero-sum conflicts between two mutually exclusive, deeply held moral worldviews. A victory for one side is, by definition, a defeat for the other.

A traditional politician is forced to choose a side in this conflict. Corbin's strategy is a radical one: he refuses to play the game. His approach is a strategy of depoliticization at the federal level. He is not arguing that these issues are unimportant; he is arguing that the office of the President and the federal government are the wrong venues for litigating them. This is an attempt to de-escalate the national conflict by reducing the stakes of the presidential election.

Section 47.2: Federalism as a Conflict Resolution Tool

Corbin's proposed solution is a direct application of the constitutional principle of federalism. He is arguing for a return to a system where the vast majority of domestic policy decisions, particularly those that touch on culture and morality, are made at the state and local level.

This is not just a philosophical argument; it is a pragmatic conflict resolution strategy.

• It lowers the stakes: When the presidency is not the ultimate prize in the culture war, the political temperature of the entire nation is lowered. A presidential election is no longer an existential, winner-take-all battle for the soul of the country.

• It allows for local variation and experimentation: It recognizes that a culturally and geographically diverse nation of 330 million people is unlikely to ever reach a single, unified consensus on these deeply personal issues. Federalism allows for different communities to arrive at different solutions that reflect their own local values, a concept sometimes referred to as the "laboratories of democracy."

• It forces a focus on competence: By explicitly defining the President's job as being limited to core, enumerated powers (the economy, national defense, civil liberties), he is attempting to force the national political debate back onto the issues where a leader's competence, rather than their cultural affiliation, is the most important metric.

Section 47.3: The "Exhausted Majority" as a Political Coalition

The chapter makes the argument that Corbin's stance, while alienating the highly engaged activists on both the far-left and the far-right, has a profound appeal to a group that political scientists have called the "exhausted majority." This is the large, often politically disengaged, segment of the American electorate that is tired of the constant outrage, the performative anger, and the zero-sum nature of the culture wars.

Corbin's message is a direct appeal to this exhaustion. He is not offering them a victory in the culture war; he is offering them an escape from it. His promise to lead a "competent," "effective," and "limited" government is a promise of a quieter, less stressful, and less angry political life. The chapter posits that for this silent majority, the promise of a ceasefire is a more compelling and attractive message than the promise of total victory for their "tribe." It is a campaign for the politically homeless, and the central hypothesis is that this is a much larger and more powerful group than the traditional political class believes.