About two months after his inauguration, President Biden conducted his first press conference. On every subject upon which he was questioned a central theme of his Presidency emerged. Given the questions by reporters, it would be easy to lose that theme in the “beltway” metronome of political wrangling, sensationalism, and/or feigned outrage. But his answers sprung from the same wellspring of personal conviction. They reveal his commitments to bipartisanship, to America’s alliances with democratic state partners, to free and fair elections, to America’s vigilant/cautious relations with autocratic governments, to his central theme of unity, to his many references to “the soul of America,” and even to the transparent manner with which he answered the journalists’ questions. His central theme was and is about the exercise of democracy. But why, at this time, would we expect any other theme from an American President?

At the core of “democracy” is the principal of rule by the people, that is, of a universal franchise where every citizen gets a vote. Democracy cannot exist when citizens’ voting is suppressed. But the Governor of Georgia claims his government is assuring fair elections by his actions that limit the opportunity to vote. And many Republican-controlled states are attempting to follow his lead, like Arizona that is conducting an unofficial and unwarranted recount of last year’s ballots. The pretext for these acts of voter suppression or bias inspired recounts is the assumption that the recent Presidential election was rigged against the Republican incumbent. The election of a Democratic President was thereby deemed a fraud. And fraud demands stringent measures to control how, when, and where votes are counted in the future. But these measures are mis-directions. Over 60 court challenges, multiple recounts, and universally certified State election results testify to the fairest and most verified election in modern history. The real problem some Republican state legislatures are addressing is one of demographics. A few decades ago, white people accounted for more than 90% of the electorate. Today, they only amount to 59% of the electorate. Since a slim majority of white women now vote democratic, even a vast majority of white men cannot overrule the electorate, unless non-white voters are not counted or are denied access to the vote. Voter suppression not only silences American voices but their current and future expectations for America, as I previously referenced in “Majority Pejoraty.”

Although pluralism can and will expose disagreements, it can still avoid chaos and defy authoritarianism. Diversity may engender tribalism but can also inspire tolerance. The challenge for Americans is to find that point of coherence where a pluralistic and diverse society can unite and form a community. The pivot point in this delicate balance is the individual. Can each of us express his/her opinions while welcoming the opinions of those who disagree with us? Can the ideals expressed in our founding documents form a basis for a common set of beliefs? Those beliefs are the hinge that can open the door to compromise and are the only path to universal freedom. Our founding fathers (and the women who supported them) believed in the principles upon which they built this democratic republic – even though they disagreed upon many things. Do we still believe in those principles? If not, then the American experiment in democracy cannot and will not form a more perfect union. Instead, it will sink into the morass of endless wrangling amongst factions, as our first President warned us. And, worse, it will fall prey to the autocracy of oligarchs or tyrants who promise to save Americans from themselves.

Rovelli, a quantum physicist, saw a parallel between the social and political structures born of the Enlightenment and the profusion of scientific thought that so empowered the American experiment. The point of convergence between democracy and science, in his words, is “the idea that public criticism of ideas is useful for determining the best one, the idea that it is possible to debate and come to conclusions together.” ¹

But does Rovelli’s parallel between political and social processes sidestep one critical obstacle to uniform agreement in the political debate? Whereas science reaches agreement on the verifiable results proven by experiment and observable fact, political debate can rage forever between contending belief systems based upon unsupported, distorted, corelated (versus causal), theoretically dubious, or imagined facts. Whereas science evolves our understanding of the world, politics can grossly distort reality. If you agree, then how can Americans transform the principle of “rule by the people” into a reality that benefits all? Or how do we make our democracy alive and vibrant?

President Biden often states, “there’s nothing we cannot do if we do it together, (for) this is the United States of America.” Is he ignoring the naysayers? The Senate Minority Leader says “no Republican will vote” for a specific piece of legislation supported by the President. And his is not the only adverse voice in Congress. Many believe that the filibuster is preferrable to debate and that bipartisanship is fundamentally unattainable. This type of political dissension has become endemic throughout America. For example, mask wearing during a pandemic is termed “unamerican” and a violation of personal freedom. Further, insurrection against the seat of America’s democracy and voter suppression of the democratic right to vote have become arguable as justified acts of personal freedom in America’s democracy. Such acts are not just averse to the very concept of democracy but truly Orwellian in nature.

In Rovelli’s world science progresses by use of the scientific method where theory is freely proposed, tested, then retested by the scientific community until consensus is reached on the theory’s explanation of observable phenomena. The scientific method is the guiding principle. And the scientific community is the arbiter of acceptance. But this occurrence of principled acceptance is only possible if the scientific community believes in the scientific method. Would quantum physics exist without the concurrence of Maxwell, Heisenberg, Einstein, and Neals Bohr? Would gene editing exist if CRISPR was not verified in labs around the world after being patented by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier. These scientific breakthroughs were nearly hundred years apart. And yet they both are based on the scientific method as an unchanging principle.

So, what is the unchanging principle of American democracy? Is it States rights? Personal freedom? Liberty and justice for all? Well, like science, there are many principles and their application to a changing world requires an evolution in their understanding and application. The one significant difference is that concurrence is less arbitrary in science than in politics. Newton’s laws were universally accepted until quantum physics revealed a deeper, underlying explanation of the same reality. But both Newton and Einstein adhered to the scientific method—as did Doudna and Charpentier. What basic principle or principles support the evolution of our democracy?

It should not be surprising that the principles that define the American Democracy are defined in the Preamble of our Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union . . .
(1) establish Justice,
(2) insure domestic Tranquility,
(3) provide for the common defence (sic),
(4) promote the general Welfare,
(5) and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .

In Rovelli’s world, the disagreements between scientists are the necessary means of accelerating the search for truth or the laws of nature. The guiding principle is the scientific method. In American politics, disagreements amongst politicians and citizens are equally necessary to uncover how best to realize these democratic ideals in a changing world. The Constitution is our guide. If we cannot agree on its principles and the structure of the government it outlines, then we will no longer have a democracy. We Americans are free to have many different ideas about law, government, religion and so on. What brings us together as one nation is the Constitution—our social pact—that demands our individual perspectives and opinions have free expression but only within the confines of its principled dictates.

Somehow, within the turmoil of rabid politicking, it seems easy to lose the perspective of those common principles that should bind us together as Americans. Within our families, it is much less likely that we would not pursue the best interest of each family member. In fact, parents often sacrifice their personal pursuits, interests, and opinions in service to the general welfare of their children. Just as love binds a family together, the social pact outlined in our Constitution should bind Americans together.

Walter Isaacson presents an interesting analysis of the competing moral perspectives that emphasize the role of the individual or the community. “One emphasizes individual rights, personal liberty, and a deference to personal choice . . . (the others) view justice and morality through the lens of what is best for the society and perhaps even (in case of bioengineering and climate policy) the species.” ² Isaacson, in the context of his book, argues for “the right balance.” Within the broader context of this blog, I would also argue that both perspectives can coexist—but only if we Americans accept the underlying principles of our democracy. In other words, our politicians can compromise, and citizens can respect different beliefs if they give primary allegiance to our core social pact, that is, the Constitution. And that allegiance is exactly what our President is asking of us when he repeatedly states, “there is nothing we cannot do if we do it together.” When he speaks of the “the soul of America,” he is referring to the patriotism of its citizens.

Some years ago, I wrote a novel entitled “In Search of Fate.” The storyline depicts an individual’s journey through the vagaries of chance and competing initiatives. What my protagonist discovers is that a fate he could never have imagined became a consequence of his own choices. I believe America at this moment in its history is at a pivot point. The choices we citizens make now will determine its fate. As our President predicted, future generations may well acknowledge that this was the time “we won the future.” We just need to keep our faith in ourselves and in our founding principles. The fate of our democracy demands no less from each of us.

________________________________________________________
¹ Carlo Rovelli, “Anaximander,” p. 96.
² Walter Isaacson, “The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race,” pp. 356-357.