All Americans know—or should know—that the founding principles of our nation rests on the declaration that “all men (sic) are created equal” with unalienable rights which were further specified in the Preamble and first ten amendments of our Constitution. When Jefferson justified our revolution, he wrote that the British monarch “refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” At that point in history the colonies determined that the public good required a Confederation of thirteen self-governed states. But our declaration of independence would require much more: first, a war of revolution to cast off our colonial bondage, and then the institution of a new national government, namely, the United States of America. No longer would Americans inhabit a conglomeration of independent colonies or even a loose confederation of states, but a new national entity under a single central government. No longer would colonies or individual American settlers deal independently with Russian/French/Dutch/English fur traders or Russian/Spanish/Mexican settlers but would now confront other competing nations as one nation, coequal and united in their freedom. As our first President warned us, our “union should be considered the main prop of your liberty” (as quoted in “Presidential Farewell Addresses”). Without that prop, our liberty could be and would be at risk.
The corollary to Washington’s warning is that any country divided against itself cannot long exist. Both logic and history attest to this truism. He not only understood this truism but embodied it. His strength of character alone evoked confidence in his leadership. But he also understood that the introduction of democracy into human history was an unprecedented risk. Nevertheless, he led America’s revolt to declare its independence from the British Monarchy and claim its freedom to form a democratic republic. By unanimous consent, he was chosen to chair the Constitutional Convention that defined America’s new democratic republic. And he served two terms as our first President. As noted in his farewell address, he was keenly aware that democratically guaranteed free speech implies political disagreement that could devolve into a “fatal tendency . . . to organize factions . . . to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.” Of course, neither Washington nor anyone of his time could have foreseen the America of the 21st century, nor the social evolutions of the intervening centuries. For his life and circumstances were rooted in quite a different era.
Upon his father’s death, the eleven-year-old George Washinton had inherited ten slaves along with his portion of the family estate which he shared with his brothers. His widowed mother received no share of the estate because women had no legal right to own property. ¹ Even as Washington led our founding fathers at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, there was unanimous agreement that women and Negros should be excluded from the franchise in our newly minted democracy. Application of the democratic ideals of the 18th century had not yet fully accepted that the Jeffersonian truth–“all men (sic) are created equal” — must include all of humanity, including women and slaves. His love for Sally Hemings and their children was protected by his office and reputation, but not by the norms of society. And Jefferson himself, whom Alexander Hamilton—his most avid antagonist—admitted was “above reproach,” veritably lived a life morally conflicted between his humanity and social reality. But Jefferson’s equivocal conscience only reflected the ethos of his time.
And that ethos also gave voice to Horace Greeley’s prophetic zeitgeist for nineteenth century America, that is, “Go West, Young Man.” And our early pioneers did just that, introducing a broad continent to new settlements, the American “can-do” culture, and eventually a railroad system that opened the doors to a century of conquest and industrialization. America was reborn not only as the land of opportunity, but the launching base for robber barons and the excesses of capitalism.
The evolution of America gradually began to address the societal inequities that hindered realization of its founding ideals. From the middle of the nineteenth century forward, the American conscience gradually awakened to those inequities as it struggled to confront racism, misogyny, and the excesses of capitalism (reference “Democracy and the Just Society”). That on-going evolution, spurred by the Civil War, proceeded with the Women’s Suffrage movement, and the many legal adjustments designed to prevent the unfair and preferential practices of an unmanaged, even out-of-control, economy (reference “American Exceptionalism Revisited”). But that evolution still has not yet met its goals for it is a continuum, an ongoing struggle.
The question for our time is whether we will continue the forward evolution of our democracy and economy, or backslide into racism, misogyny, and a radically unfair distribution of wealth and power. Picture the image of a white male plantation owner overseeing black slaves with wife and daughter dependents who could never inherit his property outright. Jefferson, for example, became a wealthy plantation owner when he inherited his father-in-law’s property after marrying his daughter, for she had no right of ownership, just a trousseau of clothes and linens. His black slaves, of course, were the engines of a wealth they created but could never possess. Although America has evolved since then, how far have we progressed with black suppression and inherent poverty, with women’s treatment in the workplace and in the management of their own bodies during pregnancy, or with a fair distribution of wealth and income when 76% of America’s wealth resides in just 10% of its population.²
In many ways America’s democracy has lit the spark for its evolution into the richest and most productive economy in the world. It has attracted immigrants from all over the world with its promise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” But that “promise” is an ideal, not a reality for every American. Blacks and immigrants, especially the non-Caucasians, often do not have the same career paths available to other Americans. And women often still are not treated as equals to their male counterparts in the workplace, in management, or in politics. Even their bodily autonomy is now under attack by radical extremists—some of whom sit on the Supreme Court. Although the twentieth century seemed to continue America’s democratic evolution with the Civil and Voting Rights Acts and the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, neither women nor Blacks are faring that well in the 21st century.
At this moment in our history, we Americans are reengaged with Washington’s fear of that “fatal tendency” of self-serving factions to steer America away from “wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.” His fear has now materialized in right wing extremists, aggrieved by any perceived loss of license to do what they please. They would rather act without adherence to our laws, even to the extreme of violence and insurrection. Moreover, they are encouraged by those who also assume they are above the law because their office and/or wealth gives them license to control markets and politics whereby they can amass more wealth and political power. What has empowered these extremists is exactly what gave rise to Washington’s warning about political parties deteriorating into “factions” that would compete for power rather than for the common good and mutual interests. Now, in the 21st century, America faces a resurgence of self-serving factions that have coalesced into a mutated Republican Party intent on subverting free elections to gain absolute power over both the executive and legislative branches of our government, and now, as chronicled here, to include the judicial branch as well. How has America devolved from its founding ideals into these divisive political fault lines between democracy and autocracy?
How united can America be when a twice impeached President is exonerated by elected Senators of the Republican Party or when Republican Representatives propose a bill to reverse those duly processed impeachments? Can the rule of law and justice prevail when both an insurrectionist and formerly disgraced President is indicted for multiple felonies while being loudly defended by the Republican Party? What measure of domestic tranquility can be maintained when a domestic riot and insurrection against America’s capital is defended and boldly excused by the Republican Party? How can America support a common defense when the Republican Party votes against funding military veterans’ welfare? How is the general welfare secured when Republicans refuse to outlaw the sale of military style weapons like the AR-15, now the leading cause of children’s deaths. Likewise, how is the general welfare served by Republican proposals that limit the blessings of liberty to the privileged by reducing funds –
(1) for SNAP and Medicare,
(2) for clean energy and clean energy tax credits in the face of the ever-growing threat of climate catastrophes resulting from global warming,
(3) and for IRS vetting of the often-lengthy income tax submissions of the wealthy to assure every business entity and person pays their fair share.
Moreover, how can America secure the blessing of liberty for our posterity without Republican support for adequately funding public education to assure both a well-rounded education and civic grounding in the ideals, values, and governmental structure necessary to preserve and enhance a democratic republic? As a decades-long supporter of the Republican Party, I have rolled these questions in my mind since the advent of the so-called tea-party revolution within the Republican Party.
The answers to these questions are grounded in at least three causes. The first is the Republican backlash to the popular presidency of Barack Obama. In successive Presidential campaigns, he ran against two Republicans that any Republican voter would have gladly supported—including myself. But Obama campaigned without divisive rhetoric and swore to support the general welfare, not special interest groups, like those that supported and copiously funded Republicans. He declared there were not “red states and blue states . . . but the United States of America.” But Republicans, instead of competing with Democrats on how best to support the general welfare, redoubled their support for policies like the “trickle-down” economy that appeased their special interest groups, the gun culture that resulted in the mass shootings of innocents, and policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression that compromised fair elections in their favor. They chose the crooked path routinely taken by special interests or politically radical minorities rather than the higher road Obama had so successfully blazed for American patriots. The second cause is those single-issue voters who mostly align with special interest groups. If a gun owner, a believer in the “culture of life,” an investor in real-estate or the stock market, or a multi-millionaire or billionaire, then allegiance to the Republican Party platform is comfortable, logical, and anticipated. For these voters, there was no other recourse. The third cause is the Republican strategy to overcome its minority status in the polls and the voting booth. The keywords here are gerrymandering, voter suppression, and obstructionism. The first two keywords provide enough votes to enact the latter. The Republicans have repeatedly ridden gerrymandering and voter suppression legislation into control of many States’ legislatures and vice versa into securing future gerrymandered majorities. Likewise, gerrymandered State elections secured Republican control of the United States House of Representatives during the Obama Administration. Concurrently, the Republican Senate Leader could and did obstruct or block many of Obama’s legislative submissions. And gerrymandering garnered enough electoral votes to install Trump in the White House even though he lost the popular vote by more than 3 million votes. Subsequently, even with gerrymandering, Trump lost reelection as an incumbent by over 7 million votes. But the power of well-funded campaigns by special interest groups and single-issue voters, coupled with the voting distortions of gerrymandering persist to defeat the will of the electorate and continue to make possible the election of Republicans unaligned with the general welfare of most Americans. And that democratic unalignment represents the “fatal tendency” that our first President warned would “make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction.”
What particularly stands out in the undemocratic arsenal of this Republican minority is its appointments to the Supreme Court. President Trump promised and succeeded in nominating three Supreme Court Justices (aka, “the three assassins”) he believed would overturn Roe v. Wade, all of whom violated the trust of the American people by promising to uphold its precedent and then ruling against it in Dobbs v. Jackson (reference “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty”). This decision not only overturned 50 years of women’s bodily autonomy but revised over a hundred years of women’s progress since the 19th Amendment. And this decision questions whether the Justices have also violated the spirit of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause which, if applicable to State courts, should equally apply to the Federal Supreme Court. Not even Oliver Wendell Holmes, the most widely quoted Supreme Court Justice, would agree with this decision since it overturns the will of most Americans. ³ It cannot be representative of “conservatism” for its subject matter was not specifically addressed by our founding fathers. And its basic assumption about a woman’s freedom to decide the course of her own pregnancy substantively violates the underlying principles of equality and unalienable rights expressed in Jefferson’s Declaration that also informed both our Constitution and the basis for all our democratic values.
Justice Alito’s written opinion is the virtual imposition of a religious belief upon all Americans in violation of the 1st Amendment’s intent that allows “no law respecting the establishment of religion.” But the Justices of the Supreme Court have just done so and in violation of our general welfare. Their decision also ignores the contemporary scientific determination of a fetus viability or of when a pregnancy reaches term. And since many States are now outlawing abortion except when a woman’s life is at stake or death is eminent, women are already dying during these last-minute abortions. These State decisions disavow women’s bodily autonomy and risk their lives, as evidenced recently by the reported rise in maternal deaths. And the Supreme Court majority that voted for this injustice has revealed itself as betraying their oath of office by lying about their adherence to precedent (“stare decisis”) during their Congressional hearings and acting in defiance of science and against the general welfare of all Americans.
Why would the Justices now overturn half a century of precedent and allow the States to re-establish brutal 19th century laws that inflicted penalties on women and the doctors who provided them abortions? The answer: this Court’s decision is a concession to a single-issue voting block of anti-abortionists. Or, in Washinton’s words, it is an act of “the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.”
Likewise, the Supreme Court has now overturned another decades-long precedent by making affirmative action a violation of the 14th Amendment. The irony in this decision is that it was not ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s “equal protection”—as specified in that Amendment, since she was never deprived of “life, liberty or property.” In fact, she was never even asked to create a wedding website and therefore should have no “standing” for her complaint. This case was based upon a hypothetical complaint designed to overturn a long-standing precedent that a specific minority within the Republican Party has long contended. That “faction” within the Party has loudly protested whether centuries of suppression should be set aside to provide qualified Black students equal access to higher education and whether a mixed-race classroom better reflects the composition of a multi-racial society. That “faction,” instead, reflects the same attitude that once sponsored “no admittance” for Blacks to public restrooms and water fountains, and attempted to ostracize or even criminalize mixed-race couples. What part of “all men (sic) are created equal” do certain members of our current Supreme Court not understand?
Has America’s introduction of a democratic republic reached an impasse in the 21st century? After a bloody revolution fought in the 18th century and later defended in the early 19th century when America’s capital was razed and burnt to the ground, and then after painfully re-united under one flag during the Civil War of the mid 19th century when some 750,000 died to uphold the union of some 12 million Americans, is America now willing to roll back its hard won democracy? After so much blood, sweat and tears spent in the birth and preservation of our democratic republic, are we now prepared to give up on America? After overcoming Jim Crow, winning women’s suffrage with the 19th Amendment, implementing the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, and enacting Roe v. Wade, Affirmative Action, and marriage equality laws, are we now inclined to roll back our progress towards extending democratic freedoms and universal equality? Has the birth of our democratic republic and its more than two centuries of evolution reached its pinnacle and must now decline?
When Ronald Reagan declared our government was the problem, he was not arguing to abolish it, but to reform it by protecting and extending our liberties. During subsequent Presidencies of both political parties, laws, regulations, and government policies were enacted with the same intention—until Donald J. Trump won the Presidency. Rather than announce his plans to enhance our democracy, he looked over the crowd at his inauguration and declared that “this American carnage” would end under his administration and promised to make “America great again.” Since America’s revolution, it has evolved to extend its guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the formerly oppressed and welcome to America’s shores “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Donald Trump, however, had a different notion of America. Rather than the land of liberty and justice for all and Reagon’s inviting beacon of light, Donald Trump promised to stomp upon the carnage of America’s past and remake it into what Americans would soon discover was his definition of greatness, that is, his walled-in empire under his sole dominion. His was not the image of America drawn by our Constitution but a projection of his desire for autocratic rule.
Trump sought alliances with dictatorships, while weakening the Western alliances established after World War II to protect the sovereignty of nations and to further cooperation in trade and national policies. His support for President Putin then was predictably mutual, and well-earned since Russia played a key role in Trump’s election with its extensive internet intervention. During his Presidency he often evoked his self-perceived bonding with dictators like Putin, even confiding with his staff that, if reelected, he would remove America from NATO. Unsurprisingly, he would later declare Putin “brilliant” for calling his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine a mere “military exercise to remove neo-Nazis.” (For Trump, “branding” was always more effective than honesty or reality.) He also became embarrassingly sentimental about the “love” he felt between him and another cruel dictator, Kim Jung Un. Early in his presidency, he moved to destroy bipartisanship between the political parties—a move consistent with the unquestioned power he assumed in office. And he endeavored to weaken the institutions of our government—which he ridiculed as a nefarious “deep state”—and fired many Inspecter Generals whose tasks to assure adherence to law and best practices were left unadministered. Instead, he installed unqualified sycophants in key positions to serve his interests rather than that of our government. He misused the power of his office to pardon political supporters and his National Security Advisor for their convicted felonies.
Donald Trump attempted to reconstrue government “of, by, and for” the people into his own tool for self-aggrandizement and personal lawlessness. He reversed two centuries of extending “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to all members of our society into policies that would assuage the grievances of his single-issue supporters who happen to include antiabortionists, misogynists, and white supremacists. They sought his favor, funded his campaigns, and responded to his call to assemble, to protests, and even to join an insurrection. He would reconstrue the purpose of the people’s government into an instrument that serves his lust for power and self-aggrandizement. He weaponized the Supreme Court by installing justices who would roll back precedents of the past half century, not to satisfy personal beliefs but to gain the support of his aggrieved and single-issue supporters. What makes these appointments even more objectionable is the fact that all three of his appointees— “the three assassins”—lied before Congress and the nation about their support of Roe v. Wade as established precedent. Their abhorrence for established precedent was further established by their recent decision abolishing affirmative action. Since these appointees now have lifetime seats on the highest court in the land, America faces what may become the most severe attack on its democracy since the Civil War.
But Trump’s policies and appointments reflect much more than his self-interests and self-aggrandizement. He has irresponsibly evoked a retrograde evolution—which happens to be the definition of a devolution. In fact, the Webster’s Dictionary goes further by defining exactly what Trump’s Supreme Court appointees effected, that is, “the surrender of powers to local authorities by a central government.” In Justice Kavanaugh’s words, “what’s wrong with giving this authority to the States?” As a result, American women are now being subject to the same 19th century laws Justice Alito referenced to justify his rebuttal of the “egregious error” decided in Roe v. Wade, that is, laws that punished women and the doctors who assisted them in abortions. But how should 19th century jurisprudence become the barometer for the 21st century? Was it not that long ago in American history when witches were burned at the stake along with adulterers? Perhaps Judge Alito should go back even further in history when false judgement was revealed in trial by ordeal. He would then learn—or relearn—the fruits of enlightenment. But his voice would have gone unnoticed but for Trump’s judicial appointments of the “three assassins” to the bench.
Trump’s irresponsibility, however, goes much further than subverting the law via judicial appointees. He assumed the role of an autocrat when his Republican Party made him unimpeachable and continue to support the insurrection he instigated. He not only failed to abide by the norms and duties of office but stands indicted and/or investigated for many violations of the law and his oath to the Constitution. As his current and prospective indictments are processed through our investigative and judicial system, Americans are left with the damage he has already evoked in his wake. Unbelievably, he leads the polls in the Republican primary and continues to be the most serious threat to American democracy since the Civil War. Even if Donald J. Trump’s rough ride through American history ends in a prison sentence, what impact will he have had on the mindset of his followers? How would their Trumpism affect our democracy going forward? Can their grievances be addressed civilly? Can a fair compromise ever be reached by agreement on the general welfare? Will politicians act in service of their constituents instead of their ambitions for fame a/o the power of office? Can rule by the people succeed without a just society self-governed by shared moral principles? And can individual differences be addressed with mutual respect and reconciled by overriding principles?
There is a reason no democracy has lasted as long as America’s. “We the people of the United States” have made it lasts thus far. Our challenge is and has always been “to form a more perfect Union.” My fellow Americans, just read the preamble to our Constitution and measure yourselves and our representatives to its prescriptions. Together, we can “establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Otherwise, we risk not only the loss of our union, but the very freedom we so cherish.
__________________________________________________
1 Douglas Southall Freeman, “Washington” (an abridgment of the seven volume “George Washington”), p. 8. Although women had no legal right to own real estate, they could inherit the personal property of a diseased spouse and dower rights to manage real estate in care of their children, including the male children who alone held legal ownership of such property. (Women could manage, but not own? Hmm, some things remain hard to change.)
2 This wealth distribution was reported by the Federal Reserve for the first quarter of 2023. In the first quarter of 2021, the Federal Reserve reported that the top 10% of the population garnished 69% of America’s wealth. The wealthy are indeed becoming wealthier. But that does not mean the rest of the country is not becoming wealthier. The economy has grown and benefited everybody, just more so for the wealthy. The very wealthy, like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, have more wealth than most sovereign nations.
3 Oliver Wendell Holmes addressed why jurisprudence should recognize how liberty must reflect a dominant opinion. He said, “my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law. . .. I think the word liberty in the 14th amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion.”
