Walls Built With Consent

An editorial by David Pipkin, State Chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas — October 21, 2026

When the Berlin Wall was built on August 13, 1961, it was presented to the East German people as a border, not a wall. The wall was sold to the people as an "anti-fascist protection rampart," built to keep them safe.

The people consented. A nation of intelligent, educated, capable people accepted the wall as it was packaged and sold to them. Even as they noticed the guns posted at the wall faced inward.

For twenty-eight years, the wise men and the "experts" called the wall permanent. The government offered the people two responses; endorse the regime's list or stay quiet. Either of these responses provided validation. No choices outside of these two were to be tolerated.

In June of 1987, one man stood against the grain and told the truth. His own State Department and National Security Council tried to strike the words from his speech, and he said them anyway: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." And he left Berlin with a promise: "This wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom."

Twenty-nine months later, on a November evening, the gates opened. The consent that built the wall was revoked, and the wall fell to the people, sledgehammers in their own hands. The founders of our nation would not have been surprised by any of this. They founded this nation with the understanding of the corruptible nature of man. They warned us at length about the tendency towards government tyranny, and they carefully placed safeguards to prevent it from happening in this new "land of the free."

Recognizing the need for the voice of the people in their government, as well as a little rebellion from time to time, our founders gave us elections. Ballots instead of bullets, so our "revolutions" need not invite violence. A man walked to the courthouse and wrote a name in his own hand. John Adams named the worst case - two great parties, arranged under leaders, concerting against each other - and called it the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

Over time, elections consistently favored two parties who were consistently among the final choices. Somewhere along the way, the ballot stopped being blank. For the convenience of the people, the names were printed by the parties. Gradually, the parties began writing the rules of the elections, and the state adopted those rules as election code. All of it, of course, for the convenience of the people, and to ensure that elections were fair.

In Texas, the parties instituted primaries in 1903. Texas had already been a Democrat state for thirty years, and it would remain a one-party state until 1978. The primaries were sold as reform: to give the people greater power to choose the nominee. There was, however, a trade-off. Voters would have limited options and be more beholden to the party, and candidates were limited to an "all or nothing at all" path forward to the office they sought. In Texas, the primary was the election. Both voters and candidates seemed to accept the risks that came with these terms.

The parties further tightened the restrictions with the Signers Rule in 1967. It was sold as an act to keep candidacies genuine. What it enacted was a petition requirement: an independent candidate seeking office outside the parties now had to gather signatures to be named on the ballot. A signature counted only if its signer had not voted in a party primary or runoff where that party ran a candidate for that office. This hardship on the candidate also cemented a further restriction upon the voter. His eligibility was spent in March, on a ballot he was told was his civic duty.

The terms tightened over time, until 1977, when the state sealed the exit with the sore-loser rule, sold as honoring the primary voter's choice: a candidate defeated in March should not clutter November. It also bars him from the November ballot entirely. No other road to the voter.

After enough elections inside the labels, a voter no longer recognizes a legitimate candidate unless the name wears one of the labels. The wall was complete.

Today, every election has three Texas voters. One holds his nose and casts his ballot in fear of the other label. Another votes for the other label to punish his own for what he sees as betrayal. The third asks, "What's the point?" He is politically homeless - unheard and unrepresented.

Three seemingly varied responses - fear, anger, despair - all leading to the same result. Consent. The parties point at what they've built and call it convenience, protection and fairness. The truth teller calls it what it is. A wall.

Texas has been provided with a truth teller who is running for Governor. Her name is Jenn Mack. She has rejected the labels and she is telling people the truth: no one is coming to save them. She stands prepared to pass out the hammers. The work of tearing down the wall belongs to the People. This is their government - the government of the great State of Texas - that must be saved.

Berlin's wall stood for twenty-eight years. It fell the evening the people stopped consenting. The wall between Texans and their government has stood for far longer. It, too, can fall just as quickly. Texans strike the first blow when they write in Jenn Mack for Governor of Texas.