Is Trump a Dictator – or Just Giving Voters What They Asked For?

We hear it every day:

“Trump is a dictator.”
“Trump is a fascist.”
“He’s trying to dismantle democracy.”

But what if, instead, Trump is simply delivering what a large portion of voters actually want?

The Founders’ Vision Revisited

In my last article, we imagined America as the Founders intended:

• ✅ No federal income tax
• ✅ No nationwide welfare system
• ✅ Local and state-based charity
• ✅ Limited federal government – strong on defense and foreign policy, almost silent on your day-to-day life

It’s a model where freedom and responsibility coexist, and federal power is so small that no matter who becomes President, your life remains largely in your hands.

The MAGA Vision

Now let’s look at MAGA’s stated goals:

• Reduce federal regulations
• Bring back manufacturing and local economic strength
• Cut taxes
• Secure borders and maintain strong national defense
• Remove federal influence from local schools, businesses, and personal medical decisions

If you set aside the media noise and analyze it through a Founders’ lens, this isn’t the vision of a dictator. In many ways, it is a restoration of the original constitutional model:

• ✔️ Less centralized power
• ✔️ More local and personal authority
• ✔️ Greater economic freedom

But Why Does It Feel Dictatorial to Some?

Because in modern America, we’ve grown accustomed to:

• A powerful centralized bureaucracy
• Executive agencies that regulate everything from farming to toilets
• Redistribution systems where Washington collects and spends trillions annually

To dismantle this structure feels violent to those who see government as caretaker. But to those who see government as servant, it feels like liberation.

Trump: The Dictator or the Rebuilder?

If Trump’s second term focuses on:

• ✅ Stripping power from unelected agencies
• ✅ Returning decision-making to states and individuals
• ✅ Ending federal micromanagement of daily life

…then by definition, he is reducing his own power, not consolidating it.

Dictators centralize authority.
Rebuilders decentralize it.

The True Threat to Tyrants

Ironically, the Founders’ model – which Trump’s base often calls to restore – is the greatest threat to any would-be tyrant. If federal power is weak, no single man can become king. That was the design.

When people say “Trump wants to rule us all,” it’s worth asking:

What policies is he proposing that put more of your life under federal control?

Or is he proposing policies that remove federal control from your life?

Invitation to Think

If you oppose Trump, oppose him on honest grounds. But if you believe he’s a dictator because he wants to decentralize power, perhaps it’s worth reexamining the narrative.

Maybe he isn’t a fascist trying to control every part of your life.

Maybe he’s just giving voters what they asked for:

• ✅ Less government
• ✅ More freedom
• ✅ Responsibility returned to the people

And perhaps… that scares some far more than dictatorship ever could.

What Would Government Look Like Today If We Actually Followed the Founding Principles?

Imagine waking up tomorrow in a country that operates exactly as the Founders intended.

The federal government would be almost unrecognizable to us today. Not because it would be futuristic, but because it would be far smaller.

First: Taxes.

Under the Constitution’s original intent, federal taxation was minimal and indirect. Before the 16th Amendment (1913), there was no income tax. The government operated mainly on:

• Tariffs (taxes on imports)
• Excise taxes (taxes on specific goods like whiskey)
• Apportioned direct taxes only during emergencies

James Madison wrote in Federalist 45 that the federal government’s powers are “few and defined,” while state powers are “numerous and indefinite.” The idea of an annual seizure of a portion of every citizen’s income would have been abhorrent.

The Founders feared direct taxation because it places the federal government between a man and his labor, creating dependency, surveillance, and control.

Second: Welfare.

What about Social Security, food stamps, and disability programs?

They wouldn’t exist federally.

The Founders designed a nation where welfare was local. Neighbors, churches, private charities, and state governments cared for the poor. Benjamin Franklin warned that formalized government welfare encourages idleness and strips away dignity:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”

In other words, the focus was personal responsibility, community charity, and state-level solutions. A federal welfare system not only goes beyond enumerated powers but also creates national dependency on Washington rather than local relationships.

Third: The Power of the “Evil 1%.”

Today, many blame “that evil 1% of the rich” for keeping the poor in poverty. And while there are certainly corrupt elites who manipulate systems to their advantage, the Founders’ model actually stripped them of such power.

Here’s why:

• ✅ No centralized redistribution system to lobby.
  If the federal government isn’t collecting and redistributing trillions, billionaires can’t buy influence over those funds.
• ✅ Wealth is decentralized.
  With minimal federal taxation, wealth stays in communities. Local economies thrive because people spend, build, and invest locally instead of sending their income to D.C.
• ✅ Charity is personal.
  If welfare is handled by churches, charities, and states, the “1%” cannot control it for public image or policy manipulation. Giving becomes relational, not transactional.
• ✅ Opportunity expands.
  When the government is not picking winners and losers through subsidies, tax loopholes, or regulatory hurdles designed by elite lobbyists, every citizen competes on more equal footing.

So what does this mean practically?

• ✅ Your paycheck: You would keep nearly all of it, aside from sales taxes, tariffs built into goods, or minimal excise taxes.
• ✅ Charity and welfare: Churches, synagogues, private organizations, family, and state programs would fill the gap, with the understanding that the moral duty to care for the poor is yours and your community’s, not Washington’s.
• ✅ Federal government: It would be primarily responsible for national defense, foreign policy, and maintaining order among the states – not managing healthcare, schools, and retirement plans.
• ✅ The “1%”: They would hold wealth, yes, but without centralized power structures, their ability to influence your daily life would be drastically reduced.

But would this work today?

Critics argue that such a system leaves the poor unprotected. But defenders counter that centralized welfare creates permanent poverty classes and strips away accountability, while local and faith-based systems offer help with dignity, moral guidance, and incentive to improve one’s life.

Ultimately, the Founders’ model assumed a virtuous and engaged citizenry who understood that freedom without responsibility quickly becomes chaos – but government redistribution without virtue leads to tyranny.

Invitation to Think

Imagine America if we returned to that model.

Would we be poorer, or would we be wealthier in freedom, dignity, and responsibility – no matter how rich the “1%” becomes?