Didn't write this, Karim did. Felt like you nerds would appreciate.

"Dude, just get right in the fuckin' Megazord!"
--Thomas Jefferson

It occurs to me that Power Rangers has taught us some valuable lessons about government and politics.

Why did they ever bother fighting the monsters individually? Why didn't they always simply appear on-scene already in the Megazord? Couldn't they just step on all the Putties and go home?

These were some of the questions forwarded by Franklin, Madison, and Co., commonly referred to as "The Founding Fathers."

Before we get started, let's first take a moment to see what this would actually look like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKWnVjPZoJ0

You're welcome.

Now, even before this country was founded, the driving idea was the concept of liberty. The colonists simply wanted to live in a world where the few did not rule over the many. So when it came time to establish a nation, the idea became to respect the sovereignty of the colonies and let them agree to join a confederacy of states. Soon, all 13 did agree and formed a confederate congress.

The 13 zords of the Confederacy were free to fight their own monsters, but they now had the power to form the Congressional Megazord if there was an issue with international trade or military threat that made their monster grow.

Something interesting happened after that, though -- the U.S. Constitution. In contrast to the concept of the enfranchisement of the many, an argument began to grow that the nation would appear (and therefore in many ways truly be) weak in the absence of a strong central force. Why NOT just hop in the Megazord? Both the victory of this idea and its enforcement -- the Congressional ratification of the U.S. Constitution -- came in short order: about ten years.

It was already widely agreed that the initial Articles needed some revision. But tacked on to the underbelly of the "strength" argument of, let's face it, nationalism, was something else -- what both military and programming people would call the "payload." I'll let Constitution co-author James Madison explain (skip ultra megaquote for tl;dr version):

"It ought finally to occur to a people deliberating on a Govt. for themselves, that as different interests necessarily result from the liberty meant to be secured, the major interest might on sudden impulses be tempted to commit injustice on the minority. In all civilized Countries the people fall into different classes having a real or supposed difference of interests. There will be creditors & debtors, farmers, merchants, & manufacturers. There will be particularly the distinction of rich & poor. It was true as had been observed [by Mr. Pinkney] we had not among us those hereditary distinctions, of rank which were a great source of the contests in the ancient Govt. as well as the modern States of Europe, nor those extremes of wealth or poverty which characterize the latter. We cannot however be regarded even at this time, as one homogeneous mass, in which every thing that affects a part will affect in the same manner the whole. In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this Country, but symtoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded against on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded against? Among other means by the establishment of a body in the Govt. sufficiently respectable for its wisdom & virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale."

In other words, 'we should be protecting the few from the many too, and in America the few are not the royalty but the upper class, but once this country gets going, an underclass will grow and then the raw democracy of the Articles will allow them to bully the upper class into Socialism before proper thought can go into it.' To be fair, although he struggled to temper his inherent elitism, the man had a point. Though technically not a populist agenda, what he and some of his cohorts wanted was an America that had principles and vision on TOP of the fairness (or "liberty") that was originally sought.

And so now the states, originally intended to decentralize the concentration of political power in the nation, in practice aren't really all that powerful and are not as popular in the public eye as the federal government. Similarly, the individual Zords, although quite large and powerful in comparison to a Power Ranger, are generally called for the sole purpose of immediately combining into the Megazord.

The exclusion to this is of course Dr. Oliver and the mighty Dragonzord or, for our metaphor, the great state of California. Naysayers get the gas face. New York City can go to Hell.

The few over the many; the U.S. Constitution over the Articles of Confederation; it's time to revisit this question. Well, it was always time, wasn't it? The Constitution is certainly not without its flaws (this coming from a part-time Constitutionalist), just as with the Articles, but the sad story of the Confederates is that this perfectly legitimate portion of their side of the argument was completely invalidated and destroyed by its association with the economic (and necessarily philosophical) mechanism of human slavery.

But the Power Rangers and I want to push this strawman aside (along with Southern ridiculousness in general) to re-raise this important question: Should people fight the little monsters themselves and come together to form bigger government only to take on the issues too big to fight on our own? My gut reaction is: no. It seems to be a counterintuitive sentiment, but I follow Mr. Madison in finding democracy to be antiquated and insufficient for a civilized and durable nation.

Of course, my feeling is not so blunt as to let this mean that I want government to do everything for me. I simply mean to say that I disagree with Dr. Paul and the Anti-Government Crew about hyper-minimalization. Government doesn't have to mean "control," and taxes in real life are perfectly fine. If people were actually proud to be Americans, for a reason, and America gave people a return on their investment by using taxes responsibly and for awesome things, everyone would be more than happy to pay taxes. We need Dinozord power! Now! Zordon disagrees with me -- he instructed the Rangers to use the Megazord only when necessary. Something about avoiding the escalation of violence. I bet he had slaves too. Asshole. Must be why he gave the Black guy the gun and the zord with the trunk in the front.