This was a parable told to me when I examined our choices in this upcoming election.

“In a distant valley, there stood a towering tree, its branches sprawling over the land, providing shade and shelter to the people below. This tree, however, was unlike any other. It mirrored the health and nature of the community that nurtured it. When the people were diligent, cooperative, and self-reliant, the tree thrived – its leaves shimmered with vibrant green, its roots stretched deep into the earth, and its fruits were bountiful. The entire community prospered, and everyone reaped the rewards of their effort.

“But over time, some people grew complacent. They relied on others to tend the tree, leaving the work to a few. Some even began to demand more shade, more fruit, without contributing. Soon, others joined in, asking for more from the tree than they gave back. As this mindset spread, the tree began to change. Its leaves lost their luster, its roots grew shallow, and the once plentiful fruit became sparse. The tree, once the heart of the valley, began to reflect the selfishness, division, and inattention of the people who had so richly benefitted from its robustness in the past.

“One elder stood before the people and said, ‘This tree is not dying because of its nature, but because of ours. As we care for it, so it will care for us. If we are divided and neglectful, so too will it wither. But if we unite and nurture it as one, it will flourish, and so will we.’

“And so, we learned: our tree was but a reflection of ourselves. The health of the tree, like the health of our government, is a mirror of our community’s care, responsibility, and our will.”

Government, whether local, state or federal, will always be a reflection of its constituency.

The story of the 1620 founding of the Plymouth Colony offers a profound lesson about the dangers of government systems that ignore human nature in favor of utopian ideals as promised in Plato’s Republic. The romanticized version of Plymouth’s history celebrated in our public school system often misses a key element: it was not the idealism of collective labor that saved the colony, but the very opposite. It was a failed collectivist experiment. Land and resources were shared equally among all. This proved that when there is no personal incentive to work harder with meaningful outcomes, people naturally become unproductive. In Plymouth, this led to food shortages, rampant disease, and a near collapse of the entire settlement.

Here’s where the irony thickens. In an era that loves to laud inclusion and collectivism, many forget (or conveniently ignore) that it was private property rights and individual responsibility that ultimately saved Plymouth Colony. When the leaders ditched the grand communal vision and divided the land among families, the results were nothing short of miraculous. Suddenly, people were motivated to work for themselves, their families, and their futures. The colony, once starving, began to thrive.

Union-controlled candidates, in particular, often push for policies that benefit their narrow constituencies but impose costly burdens on the wider population.

Today, we find ourselves staring down similar illusions. Whether it’s through our own government’s self-serving dictums, union efforts, social programs, or singular issue-driven political platforms, we see the same old collectivist ideas creeping back. Only this time, they come cloaked in the righteousness of progressivism. Candidates and propositions woo voters with promises of solving specific problems without ever addressing the larger picture.

Union-backed political figures and proposition campaigns often promise prosperity for a select group or expanded benefits for a specific class, all while proposing solutions to narrow issues like raising the “minimum wage” or promoting “voting for the best candidate” instead of the party. However, these promises fail to address the broader needs of the entire community, neglecting the long-term health and prosperity of the majority in favor of short-term gains for the few. This selective approach risks fragmenting society and entrenching government control, all under the guise of progress.

And sure enough, with each election cycle, these promises pile up like short-term bandages on a long-term wound, creating a government bloated with inefficiency and bureaucracy.

This piecemeal approach to governance mirrors the collectivist mindset that nearly destroyed Plymouth.

When the interests of a select few dominate, the greater good is sacrificed. Union-controlled candidates, in particular, often push for policies that benefit their narrow constituencies but impose costly burdens on the wider population. Think of it: expanding public sector unions’ influence might bring better wages to their members, but what does it cost the average Alaskan? Higher taxes, the demise of small businesses, increased government spending, and a slow erosion of the freedoms that come with self-reliance and individual accountability.

The lesson here is as relevant today as it was in 1620: a government that tries to manage every problem through collectivist means, rather than empowering its people to solve their own challenges, will always falter. The more we allow union-backed candidates and singular-issue politicians to dictate public policy, the more we risk repeating the mistakes of Plymouth Colony – only on a much grander, more dangerous scale.

The true story of Plymouth teaches us a vital truth: a government will always be a reflection of its people. If we value personal responsibility, limited government, and individual freedom, we must demand these principles from those that represent us. But if we continue to fall for the promises of short-term fixes and collectivist ideals, we will only find ourselves burdened with an ever-growing bureaucracy and a government that serves the few at the expense of the many.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.