Where do morality and politics intersect? And why is the answer to that question important in any government?  

 

In autocratic states, the norms of governance are pre-established by the governing authority, to include laws that assure its power and that punish any threats or affronts to authority. By way of justification, dictators will claim autocratic governance more effective than the free-wheeling democratic societies, where laws allow free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, due process, and the right to defend oneself in a court of law before a jury of one’s peers. But those are the very freedoms that give voice to diversity within any society. Most of us Americans, by contrast, treasure these freedoms and learn to tolerate the creative conflicts they spawn as necessary steps to unifying compromises. Of course, our politics can be chaotic, even divisive at times, but the resultant compromises are guided by a governing body of law engendered by and reflective of a universally acknowledged Constitution. We elect politicians who may represent different policies and political parties, but who must swear an oath to the same Constitution. And that Constitution not only defines three branches of government in a check and balance system, but it also outlines the goals of that government in its Preamble and the subsequent Amendments that over time further clarified its goals. And those goals allow and protect diverse opinions, philosophies, and religions. Taken together, they guarantee the freedoms that benefit the well-being of every citizen, without regard to race, gender, or national origin. And those freedoms should form the framework for mutually supportive interaction between citizens and their government as well as the corresponding respect citizens should show each other. Without such interaction and mutual respect—which characteristically defines patriotism—there would surely be nothing but chaos. The act of being a patriot, therefore, is nothing less than respecting the rights of others and supporting mutually recognized democratic ideals—not unlike the familiar task of choosing good over evident evil. This is the same decision-making process that defines any moral code of behavior. Democracy is that moral basis for American patriotism. Conversely, how could democracy, or any system of governance, survive without patriotism? Therefore, we expect our democratically elected politicians to be patriots. As such, they must swear an oath to serve America’s Constitution, else be mis-aligned with America’s moral code and its ability to sustain its democracy. 

 

What is the intent of a democracy? What does it mean to live in a democracy? And why do democracies seem in constant flux? 

 

Obviously, America’s democracy depends upon citizens’ and their representatives’ support for the values expressed in its Constitution. And those values are defined in the Constitution’s Preamble by justice, domestic tranquility, a common defense, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty for “ourselves and our posterity.” The intent of our founding fathers is thus made clear—as is the meaning of our democracy and of citizenship in that democracy. The word “meaning” here has connotations that reach deeply into what is undefinable in each one of us humans. It is derivative of the Old English verb maenan. The root sense of this verb is “to signify, to intend, or to make known.” ¹ Each of these slight variations in the root sense of the term reveals an aspect of meaning, but not a succinct definition. Just so, no one can define another human being. As individuals we reveal in word and deed the values or goals we seek or intend. But, as individuals, we remain as unknowable as is the definition of “meaning” ² itself. For, as individuals, and therefore as citizens, “who we are” can and will change, just as our democracy can change and evolve. Change is a function of our freedom which is derived from free will, the very cause of our unknowable selfhood. And that “unknowability” makes us unpredictable and our democracy at times chaotic. Even though democracy depends upon the consensus of a majority, that citizen majority will differ over time. Therefore, it can change its affiliation with specific parties and its support for differing policies and values over time. The success or failure of any democracy may be difficult to assess in a singular moment of time, though its self-identity can still be retained and persists through societal and even cultural changes. For example, key democratic principles may remain intact, such as a legal system supportive of Constitutional ideals, free elections, equal opportunities for all, peaceful transitions of elected candidates for office, and the awarding of citizenship either as a birthright or by a naturalization process. A democracy, then, must reflect the ideals of its Constitution, even as it adjusts to the will of their contemporary voting citizenship and to the exigent needs of judicial, legislative, and executive management at a particular moment in time. In other words, democracies must remain consistent with their founding ideals through changing times. And that consistency is the burden and responsibility of each generation of citizens. 

 

Why and how did democracies come into human history? 

 

Democracies can and have emerged from autocracies, sometimes won by revolution, but always spawned by free choice. Whereas autocratic states were usually born out of necessity, as if predetermined at the dawn of human societies. Initially, homo sapiens formed leader-led tribes and communities to defend themselves from and compete for nature’s bounty with other species, starting with other hominids over 200,000 years ago. Consequently, tribal hordes and then empires and kingdoms gradually became the norm, usually held together by a single governing authority and a code of behavior sometimes enhanced by and codified in religion. Unfortunately, this correspondence between religion and state became both a unifying principle and, ironically, the impetus for conflict within or between sovereign states. Amidst the clash of civilizations, empires, and monarchies that followed, the welfare of subordinate classes was relegated to an afterthought. Only the privileged—aristocrats, monarchs, and the like—could entertain the personal freedoms human nature required to create and manage the human potential in every individual. But then the Bill of Rights in England, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, and the French Revolution occurred. As a result of these newly defined human rights and the declarations of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” or of “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite,” a new order of self-government entered human history. Democracy was born, not as a brief experiment in an Athenian city-state, but as a governing principle that has since spread to many sovereign countries. These democratic states cling to their sovereignty not by autocratic force or a state-sponsored religion, but by the will of their citizens’ free franchise and their freely established system of laws and institutions—both anchored in a universally accepted constitution. Whereas empires and autocracies tend to last for exceptionally extended periods—half a millennium in the case of the Roman Empire ³ —they evolve slowly without significant intrinsic change but intent on preserving a central authority and pre-determined way of life. By contrast, democracies can and do change their leadership to suit their needs, serve their constitutional rights, and assure their security from threats within and beyond their borders. In modern times, democratic states have shown themselves to be less likely to engage in preemptive wars of conquest and more likely to have higher standards of living and guaranteed freedoms for their citizens than totalitarian or autocratic states. They defy/rebel against autocracy for its suppression of the human potential in its subjects. Democracies, by contrast, value the lives and wellbeing of all their citizens, not just those privileged by birth, wealth, or tribal conquest. They reflect the humanitarian values of the Enlightenment as their raison d’état. 

   

Is America, as the oldest democracy in history, the fullest realization of its founders’ intent? 

 

However wise America’s founding fathers were, they could not have foreseen how our Constitution would or could more fully realize Jefferson’s Declaration that “all men (sic) are created equal.” That clarification was in part left to their posterity. For example, women at the time were considered subordinate to, though supportive of, men; and Africans were seen by many as an inferior species and thereby unjustifiably treated as farm animals or house slaves. We cannot know how these men of that period might have conditioned their consciences to accept this anomaly between the ideals expressed in America’s founding documents and the prejudicial practices of their time. But we know many of them treated their wives with respect and love and abhorred the inhuman treatment of slaves. Jefferson, for example, was loved and respected by the slaves that worked the plantation he gained by marriage. And, as history has recorded, he obviously loved his wife’s half-sister who was technically a slave in his father-in-law’s plantation. We cannot know how he reconciled his life with his declaration that we are all equal by reason of our birth as fellow humans. We might assume that many men of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries lived with conflicted consciences, just as many citizens of the late 19th and early 20th centuries welcomed the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. Moral clarity can become a welcome relief to conscience. Why would anyone choose to live in a society where fundamental human rights were not recognized or were allotted only to the privileged? The obvious answer is that only the privileged would choose so—which explains how and why autocracies cling to power with so much treachery and violence. America’s Constitution was more than a clarion call for independence from totalitarian rule, but also a governing guideline for the development of a democratically free and equitable government. It delineates the moral code for a just society, though its implementation remains the responsibility of every American citizen who exercises his/her right to vote and supports democratic principles and norms.  

 

Given that America’s democratic republic is still a work in progress, what current threats does it now face? 

 

It would be presumptuous to say that America is more moral than all other nations, or that any democracy is more moral than any autocracy. But all democracies must aspire to be so. America has breached many moral obstacles in its aspiration to realize its fundamentally moral founding ideals. We fought a civil war to free our African hostages, granted them citizenship, and decades later granted them the civic and voting rights that every other American inherited at birth. But have we yet fully accepted our Black brothers and sisters, even though intermarriage and common legal rights have blurred our differences? Obviously, there still exist stereotypical perceptions of Black people—as there still are of women in the view of many men. Over a hundred years ago, women were finally allowed to vote. But, to this day, they still experience slights in the workplace, in positions of power, and in the governance of their own bodies (reference, “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty”). American democracy, as stated above, is still a work in progress. And that work is a moral dilemma we Americans still must continue to unravel and accommodate to our founding ideals. 

 

Beyond our struggle to realize the import of our founding, the very nature of America’s democracy is now under attack. Foreign powers have sought to undermine our elections, distort, or disable our infrastructure, and intimidate our defenses by land, sea, and the outer-reaches of space. But the most threatening attack on our Republic has come from within. As referenced in previous blogs, we now face an existential threat from concentrated power in both politics and wealth.  

 

Regarding the political threat, we have witnessed the takeover of one of our major political parties by an anti-democratic minority. This insurgency took advantage of the Republican Party’s success in gerrymandering elections to secure electoral victories with only a minority of the votes cast. Although both political parties have used gerrymandering to steal election victories in the past, the Republicans have had unheralded success with this undemocratic scheme. In the past 30 years, only once has a Republican Presidential candidate won the popular vote, though they won the Presidency in three of the eight Presidential campaigns. In the state of Michigan, the Republican Party has won control of its legislature with every biannual election in this century until the most recent. But only once did the Party have a voting majority. This last election, which the Democratic Party won, was administered without gerrymandering because of a voter initiative that eliminated gerrymandering. With gerrymandering, the Republican Party assumed power it did not earn at the voting booth. As a result, the Party became a takeover target for anti-institutionalist and anti-democratic fringe groups that include opportunists, unhinged conspiracists, religious bigots, paramilitary groups, and the disaffected for whatever reason. As a result, long term Republicans have begun to change their Party affiliation. For how can Americans support a Party that has no documented policy platform? The Party’s former agenda to fight crime cannot be reconciled with its current support for the legal possession and open carry of military style weapons. Nor can the Party’s claim to manage public finances more discreetly be taken seriously when it consistently runs up the debt when in power. Moreover, it refuses to acknowledge the debt ceiling—that is, to pay for the expenditures already authorized by Congress—even at the risk of destroying the American economy and creating a worldwide recession. It balances this financial hostage taking of the American economy with its demands to reduce funding for the military, healthcare, and social security. What constituency does the Republican Party serve with these positions? How can the Party that once fought the totalitarian advance of communism for so many years, now choose to limit funding for Ukraine’s defense against the unprovoked invasion orchestrated by a Russian dictator—an opportunist who, as the former head of the FSB, rigged his initial election and now holds absolute authority for as long as he chooses? The Party of Reagan now supports the bogey of the Russian Bear. Furthermore, the Party of Lincoln now courts the support of white supremacists such as the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers. It has even questioned the indictments of these insurrectionists, impeded the investigation into Republican co-conspirators, and defended the former President’s role in inciting the “stop the steal” movement with his lies and false allegations. In conclusion, how can Americans relate to the current Republican Party as a democratic organization? It is more subversive than constructive towards our democracy. 

 

Regarding the threat emanating from wealth, many of my blogs have addressed how substantial amounts of money can ratchet up campaigns and secure legislation that benefits selected special interests rather than serve the general welfare. Further, corporate funded lobbyists not only influence legislation, but sometimes actually write portions of legislation that favor their interests. And then there is the law-skirting campaign funding from so-called “dark” money. On the other end of the money spectrum, there is the issue of a tax code riddled with deductions favoring high income tax returns and the self-interested influencers who argue against empowering the IRS to hold accountable the tax fraud too often committed by the rich and famous. Income and wealth inequality cannot be addressed when the most complicated and wealthy tax returns are not critiqued with the same vigor as the ordinary wage earner’s returns. †      

 

Can democratic ideals lead to a just society? 

 

Given that democracies can fall short of their moral and idealistic goals, how likely are they to become more moral than autocracies, especially those led by popular civil, political, or religious leaders? Well, that history is still being written. But the past has had many warring chieftains, kings, emperors, and dictators who have subjugated their people to autocratic rule. Even religion has been used to justify violent conflicts between sects and warring tribes. Just as the Huguenots suffered under Papal suppression, the current head of the Eastern Orthodox church can and has recently justified the slaughter of innocent Ukrainian citizens. Unfortunately, the common element in injustice is us humans, regardless of religion or form of government. Though we continue to evolve in myriad ways, we carry forward the same propensity to govern ourselves in ways far short of our human potential. And that evolution can be hampered in any system of government designed to serve the interest and belief system of a few–or even just one–at the expense of the many. By contrast, note the opening words to the Preamble of our American Constitution, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union.” With those words, the onus for nurturing and evolving a free democratic government is solely placed on each American. But self-rule alone does not guarantee every American will reap the benefit of the rights and freedoms specified in our Constitution unless each of us support and adhere to the ideals immortalized therein. Our laws must be construed to assure that adherence. In addition, every elected official and government employee must do so likewise—even to the extent of taking an oath before God to do so. Stated bluntly, every American—citizen, elected official, or public servant—carries the burden of supporting and evolving our democracy on his/her shoulders. And that burden is a moral imperative. 

 

I believe the quest of any and every democracy must be for a just society where an informed electorate and strictly administered free elections result in representative government where elected officials and public institutions serve the “general welfare” of all citizens. Given the vagaries of history and human shortfalls, democracies can and must evolve—sometimes, ad hoc, but usually intent on realizing their founding principles in a changing environment. Herein do we find once again the intersection of politics and morality. Democracy cannot survive unless it is founded upon core principles that are representative of and supported by its citizens, elected officials and the governing laws and institutions established by those officials. The founding principles of a democracy, therefore, define its goals, its evolution, and the beneficial interests—or the general welfare—of its citizens. Democracy is still humanity’s best hope for a just society. 

 

____________________________________________ 

¹ Reference the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. 

² This statement derives from Kant’s das Ding in Sich, “the thing in itself.” Reference Immanuel Kant, “Philosophical Writings,” Ernst Berhler (Ed.), New York: Continuum, 1986. 

³ The Roman Republic existed for six centuries before the Roman Empire was founded. Roman principles and jurisprudence, therefore, influenced over a millennium of human history. 

† Over several decades, I have been audited three times. Only once did I have to reimburse the IRS for a small Turbo Tax error. The issue: my return seems to have received more attention than an alleged billionaire and grifter like Donald Trump who has bragged about not paying taxes. Recent analyses by the press indicate my experience is the norm. So why does the GOP want to reduce spending on the IRS’ ability to analyze the more complicated returns of the wealthy? What constituency is the GOP serving?