The ‘Consent of the Governed’ Myth

The ‘Consent of the Governed’ Myth

Politicians like to use the phrase “consent of the governed” to explain the policies that regulate our lives.

Jim Cardoza for American Thinker

Politicians like to use the phrase “consent of the governed” to explain the policies that regulate our lives. They do not merely suggest passive acquiescence to actions of government but an active, informed agreement between the people and the policymakers. Yet, the phrase has obviously become detached from observable reality. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the state of California.

To say that California’s government operates with the “consent of the people” requires us to believe that millions of workers, families, and small business owners have knowingly and enthusiastically chosen a set of policies that, taken together, impose some of the highest costs of living in the United States while simultaneously eroding long-standing norms of accountability, public safety, and parental authority.

First, consider taxation. California consistently ranks among the highest-taxed states in the nation, with steep income taxes, sales taxes, and a growing array of regulatory costs that function as taxes by another name. These regulations are not abstract burdens borne by some distant class of the wealthy; they are embedded in the price of housing, utilities, food, and fuel. For government at this scale to be considered consensual, one would have to imagine that Californians were clamoring to surrender a greater share of their income than residents of nearly every other state.

The same can be said of energy policy. California’s gasoline prices are routinely among the highest in the country, driven not only by global markets but also by state-specific taxes, regulations, and fuel formulations. Moreover, policymakers press forward with plans to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles in favor of electric alternatives, even though the market clearly demonstrates most folks don’t want these cars. To explain this as an expression of popular demand is absurd. After all, if people wanted electric vehicles, they would simply buy them rather than insisting on banning the more desirable alternative.

Food costs offer another illustration. When minimum-wage mandates for fast-food workers rose dramatically, the resulting price increases were predictably passed along to consumers, many of whom are themselves of modest means. As a result, more than 1,000 fast-food restaurants had closed as of September 2024, according to Google Maps data, and the price of a cheeseburger is up 13 percent. If this too reflects “consent,” then we must believe that Californians are actively seeking higher prices for everyday goods. 

Public safety policies raise even more serious questions. Cashless bail systems, reduced penalties for certain offenses, and a broader “decarceration” philosophy have been presented as reforms aimed at equity and fairness. But these policies also carry serious consequences -- rising concerns about theft, repeat offenses, and diminished deterrence. To describe such outcomes as consensual is to assume that the public has weighed these trade-offs and concluded that the trade-offs are not just acceptable; they are desirable.

Similarly, sanctuary policies and expanded benefits for those residing in the country illegally. These approaches are unavailable elsewhere for very good reasons. For such policies to be the product of consent, one must believe that Californians have explicitly requested to have their confiscated tax dollars spent not to improve their own lives but rather used as a magnet to attract lawbreakers.

The same pattern appears in the realm of firearms regulation. California enforces some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. One must ask, does the breadth and intensity of these restrictions reflect a clear, informed consensus among the populace -- or the preferences of a narrower set of policymakers and interest groups?

Education policy provides another striking example. Reports of schools withholding certain information from parents -- particularly on sensitive issues involving students’ identity or well-being -- raise fundamental questions about who ultimately bears responsibility for children. If parental authority can be set aside by institutional policy, how can it be argued that the resulting system reflects the considered consent of those parents?

Likewise, the debate over "medical" interventions for minors touches on deeply contested ethical terrain. For government to facilitate or fund such procedures is not merely a political decision; it is a profound statement about values, risk, and responsibility. To describe this as consensual governance requires a level of public agreement that does not exist.

Then there is the matter of infrastructure and public spending, exemplified by the state’s high-speed rail project. Originally presented to voters as a modern, efficient transportation solution, it has since become an icon for cost overruns, delays, and shifting objectives. When the reality of a project diverges so sharply from its initial presentation, the notion of consent morphs into little more than a bad joke. Consent, after all, depends on accurate information. If what was promised is not what is delivered, then the will of the electorate was never really in play.

Few, if any, candidates campaigned on a promise of making their state the most heavily taxed in the nation, restricting consumer choices, raising the everyday cost of food, hiding information from parents, or transferring cash from the wallets of taxpayers to those of illegal aliens. These outcomes are all leftist pipe dreams -- the imposition of one-party rule -- not reflections on the will of citizens.

When campaign rhetoric is routinely deployed in order to deceive and misdirect, it is little wonder that the concept of “by consent of the governed” rings hollow to California citizens.