A North Carolina Perspective

By Scotty Perry

By any measure, Phil Berger has become one of the most influential political figures in modern North Carolina history. Rising to prominence during the Tea Party era, Berger and his allies rode a wave of public frustration with taxes, government growth, and political elites. Their message was straightforward: cut taxes, limit government, and return power to ordinary citizens.

Many North Carolinians embraced that vision.

Yet history teaches that political movements are often judged not by their promises but by their outcomes.

One of the most striking parallels in political history appears in 17th-century England. Oliver Cromwell emerged amid public dissatisfaction with centralized authority. The English Parliamentarians argued they were defending liberty against an overreaching king. They promised reform, accountability, and a restoration of proper government.

The result, however, was more complicated. While Cromwell dismantled one concentration of power, critics argued that he ultimately became the center of another. The institutions changed, but power remained concentrated.

No reasonable observer would equate modern North Carolina politics with the violence and upheaval of the English Civil Wars. Berger was elected. Cromwell commanded armies. Berger operates within a constitutional government. Cromwell ruled in the aftermath of civil war.

Yet the comparison remains useful as a cautionary tale about political success.

The question is not whether Berger is Cromwell. He is not.

The question is whether reform movements can unintentionally become the very establishments they once opposed.

Tea Party conservatives promised lower taxes and smaller government. To be fair, they delivered significant reductions in income and corporate tax rates. Supporters point to these achievements as evidence that government became more efficient and more attractive to business investment.

But many working-class North Carolinians experienced those reforms differently.

When income taxes are reduced while sales taxes are expanded to include repair, maintenance, and installation services, the burden shifts. The executive driving a new vehicle under warranty rarely notices. The corporation benefiting from lower tax rates certainly notices.

The waitress driving a fifteen-year-old car notices immediately.

She pays sales tax on repairs because she cannot afford a new vehicle. She pays taxes on labor to keep an aging appliance functioning. She pays taxes on services necessary to maintain a home she cannot easily replace.

For her, the question is simple:

Did government become smaller, or did taxation simply move?

The answer depends on where one sits in the economy.

Advocates of the reforms argue that economic growth benefits everyone. Critics argue that the tax burden increasingly falls on consumption and necessities rather than on income and wealth. Both sides present evidence. Both sides have legitimate concerns.

Yet another issue deserves attention.

Political power itself.

When a legislative leader remains dominant for years, controls committee assignments, influences budget negotiations, shapes statewide policy, and effectively determines which legislation lives or dies, citizens should ask healthy questions regardless of party affiliation.

Not because power is inherently evil.

Because concentrated power always deserves scrutiny.

The lesson from history is remarkably consistent. Every generation believes its leaders are different. Every reform movement believes its intentions are pure. Every political coalition promises to serve the public interest.

Many do.

But power tends to accumulate. Institutions develop interests of their own. Political leaders become indispensable. Reformers become establishments.

That is not unique to Democrats. It is not unique to Republicans. It is not unique to North Carolina.

It is simply human nature.

The true measure of a reform movement is not whether it defeats its opponents. It is whether it remains true to the principles that brought it to power.

North Carolinians should continue asking difficult questions.

Has government become smaller?

Have ordinary citizens gained more freedom?

Has the tax burden become fairer?

Have political institutions become more accountable?

Those questions matter far more than personalities.

History remembers political leaders for the promises they made. It remembers them even more for whether they kept those promises.

And that is a standard worthy of every public servant, regardless of party, office, or ideology.

Scott Perry is a small business owner, historian and columnist known near and far across Northeastern NC.