A PURPLE POLICY PERSPECTIVE

Policy analysis from Chris McCoy, founder of Data4America
The Approach

Purple doesn't mean compromise. It means mathematical optimization.

Conservative priorities — lower taxes, market incentives, individual ownership. Progressive outcomes — good jobs, community wealth, shared prosperity. Both satisfied through the same mechanism. The math works whether you're red or blue.

The Discovery

In 2017, I recognized something nobody had connected.

Alexander Hamilton designed the Constitution in 1787 with a specific constraint: no faction should control more than one-third. Two-thirds consensus required to override.

Leslie Lamport proved in 1982 that distributed computer systems need the same threshold to function under adversarial conditions. Two-thirds honest actors required.

195 years apart. Neither knew about the other. Same math.

The Founders encoded distributed systems mathematics into the Constitution before computer science existed. That's not a metaphor. That's the actual structure.

The Framework: Trusted America

The Goal: GDP growth exceeds debt growth.

When it does, there's surplus. That surplus belongs to the American people.

THE ALLOCATION:

40%
Your family (American Dream Accounts)
33%
America's Future (15 investment pillars)
25%
Debt paydown
1%
Democracy
1%
Allies

The 40% Is Constitutional. No politician decides if you "deserve" it. No means-testing. No bureaucracy. GDP grows faster than debt, you get a check. Automatic.

The 33% Rule: No single entity controls more than one-third of any critical system. Hamilton's insight. Lamport's proof. The same constraint that prevents faction capture of democracies prevents faction capture of prosperity.

The Proof

I didn't just theorize this. I built it.

$30 million governed through BFT Democracy over 8 years. Zero constitutional violations. When I brought it home to Kelso, Washington through Hilander Democracy — 97% community approval.

The math works. I've run it.

2,500+ AI endpoints now operate under democratic governance across 5 global data centers. The constitutional mathematics that governed humans for 238 years can govern artificial intelligence.

The Test

Every policy must pass one question:

Would this work for someone back in Kelso — AND strengthen America's position globally?

I grew up on food stamps, free lunch, and Medicaid in Kelso, Washington. A timber town that watched 1,100+ jobs disappear when the industry collapsed. Raised by a village of four McCoy men when my single mom couldn't manage alone.

If a policy doesn't work for working families, it doesn't ship. If it doesn't strengthen America globally, it doesn't ship.

Both. Always both.

The Policies

Trusted America isn't one policy. It's a framework for 15-20 policies, each with its own self-sustaining fund.

  • American Surplus — When GDP growth exceeds debt growth, you get a check. The core mechanism.
  • Treasury Trades — Trade with us, invest in us. Partners buy Treasuries, rates drop, debt service falls, more surplus for Americans.
  • Upgrading America — Energy independence through partnership. Farming Energy turns farms into $50K-$800K energy producers. Nuclear handles cities and data centers. American Energy Force provides the workforce.
  • Housing Founders Rewards — Pay homeowners to approve new housing. Solves the urban housing crisis by aligning incentives instead of fighting NIMBYs.

Each policy has a National ROI — what YOU get back for every dollar invested, measured over 10 years. Not GDP. What reaches your household.

The Global Reality

We're in a competition for the resources that power the next century — chips, energy, rare earth minerals, shipping lanes.

This isn't theory. It's happening.

Since Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971, we've been in a different game. The petrodollar era is ending. China's playing for the next reserve currency. Your savings, your retirement, your purchasing power depend on American resource independence.

I didn't choose this competition. Neither did you. But pretending it isn't happening doesn't make it go away.

Trusted America is how we win it — by being the partner everyone wants, not the bully everyone fears. Peaceful doesn't mean passive. It means building alliances so strong that conflict becomes unnecessary.

The Real Stakes

This isn't just about resources. It's about which system sets the rules.

Whoever wins the competition for chips, energy, and minerals determines the rules for global trade. In the AI age, trade rules determine the governance substrate for artificial intelligence.

Two paths:

Path Trade Rules AI Governance
Authoritarian wins State-controlled, opaque, coercive AI serves the state
Democratic wins Consent-based, transparent, negotiated AI serves the people

I want AI developed under democratic governance. That requires democratic capitalism to win. That requires alliances strong enough to set the rules. That requires symbiosis.

The Symbiotic Standard

I find acceptable only deals where all parties agree. Denmark, Greenland, the EU, NATO — everyone at the table, everyone signing.

Not just because it's right. Because it's necessary AND strategic.

Necessary: Greenland's parliament has to agree. 85% oppose takeover. You can pressure Denmark all day — Nuuk still says no.

Strategic: When everyone wins, alliances strengthen. Stronger alliances mean a united front against China and Russia. A united front means we set the trade rules. Trade rules determine whether AI develops under democratic governance or authoritarian control.

Faster: Counter-intuitive but true. Coercion is faster to start and slower to finish. Lawsuits, retaliation, rebuilding trust — that takes a generation. Symbiosis takes longer to negotiate but implements smoothly.

Symbiosis isn't idealism. It's how democratic capitalism wins the AI age.

The Methodology

Second cousin twice removed to Linus Pauling, the only person to win two solo Nobel Prizes (Chemistry, Peace).

Pauling saw molecular structure in quantum mechanics and applied it to chemistry. I see constitutional mathematics in Hamilton's design and apply it to modern governance.

Cross-domain pattern recognition. Seeing mathematical structure in one field and recognizing it applies to another. The family trait.

Pauling created molecular understanding AND worried about weaponization. I continue that tradition: build systems, then take responsibility for what you build.

Where I Could Be Wrong

I'm advocating for mathematical governance of prosperity. That path has risks.

Risk 1: The 40% may not be enough to change lives.
If deposits start small and compound slowly, people may not feel the difference for years.
Risk 2: Political capture could still happen.
Constitutional constraints can be amended. A determined faction could rewrite the rules.
Risk 3: The global competition may be further along than I think.
China's rare earth dominance, debt position, and manufacturing base may already be insurmountable.
Risk 4: Americans may not trust the math.
After decades of broken promises, "GDP grows, you get a check" may sound like another scam.

Why I'm still betting this way: The alternative is worse. Without a framework, prosperity continues to concentrate. Without constitutional constraints, factions capture the gains. Without American competitiveness, we become a client state. The risks of action are real. The risks of inaction are certain.

The Invitation

I'm not asking you to agree with everything here. I'm asking you to engage with the math.

If the 40/33/25/1/1 allocation is wrong, show me better numbers.

If the Hamilton-Lamport connection is coincidence, explain why.

If Trusted America won't work, tell me what will.

The comment section is open. The framework is public. The math is verifiable.

Let's build.