“America seems more divided today than at any time in the past.”

This statement seems to be the mantra of our politicians, our press, our private conversations, social media, and even our personal self-talk. Like many of us, I find myself constantly weighing the scales of truth versus fiction, of right versus wrong, and of liberal versus conservative. But there are two obvious misconceptions here. First, the comparison of our current divisiveness to our nation’s past is patently false. From its outset, America has always been divided in almost every conceivable way—ethnically, racially, morally, theologically, and, of course, politically. It had to become a democracy. Otherwise it would have had to become a nation of citizen mimes marching in lock-step to a single authority, the very condition that spawned the American Revolution. Secondly, the division between liberalism and conservatism should not be substantive in a country founded on basic principles, unless either political philosophy divorces itself from those principles. To disagree is human, but to deny the basic assumptions upon which a family, community, or nation are founded is to negate what unites us. Such denial, whether explicit or implicit, fractures the only bonds that can bring us together. Remember America fought a civil war over the fracturing of our union. Perhaps, what we are experiencing today is a different kind of fracturing, or divisiveness.

Is our divisiveness mainly political? Our political parties, for example, define themselves as either liberal or conservative. So-called “moderates” exists somewhere in-between. Democrats are characterized as the Party of “big government” or of the idea that the Federal Government should provide for the “general welfare” of all its citizens. Republicans are characterized as the Party that believes in States rights and in an individual’s right to exercise personal and family values without the interference of government. Both Locke and Rousseau would term both positions as liberal. The Preamble to our Constitution and the first ten Amendments affirm these beliefs. While Democrats often propose regulations that prohibit corporations from infringing on the general welfare, Republicans argue for policies that free corporations to compete and prosper, increasing the wealth of their stockholders, promoting productivity in their workforce, and growing the nation’s fiscal economy. But, taken together, the Parties’ positions define economic liberalism, both as it was understood in the nineteen century and in the twentieth century global market. Capitalism itself is a liberal construct. Adam Smith clearly envisioned capital markets as a liberal adjunct to free enterprise and a free society that guaranteed equal opportunity. Perhaps what distinguishes liberal and conservative social and economic policies is a difference in emphasis rather than a presupposed antagonism between opposing political philosophies.

One hears the bromide that “America is an idea.” More accurately, it is an ideal. And therein is the difficulty, for ideals have no value as mental constructs unless lived. As individuals, we may struggle through a whole lifetime to clarify our ideals and to learn how to live them. How much more difficult is it for a diverse country like America to evolve into a full realization of its founding principles? Even our founding fathers (and the women who motivated them, like Abigail Adams) compromised with those principles in order to win the southern colonies into the proposed union. But the Civil War and the Woman’s Suffrage Movement enabled America to realize the promise that “all men are created equal,” where the definition of “men” was effectively redefined as “human.” Consider the circumstances that gave birth to the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. For over six decades America struggled to make the changes these Amendments signified. But, while our better angels inspired these changes in law, many of us still struggle to live up to their underlying ideals.

America’s current problems are not racial, ethnic, religious, or gender differences. We have always had a diverse society. But maybe we have stopped addressing these differences and ceased our 242-year struggle to realize the promise of our American ideals, specifically, to “form a more perfect union.” Our problem today could be defined as a failure to evolve the very ideals of a liberal democracy. Instead, we allow political divisions based less on democratic policies than on spoils, that is, financial benefits or incumbent re-elections. A winner-take-all mentality displays a total obeisance to power rather than a commitment to our democracy. Of course, we decry our elected representatives’ failure to compromise. But the real problem too often is with the nature of the compromise being considered. Will compromise strengthen our Constitutional commitments to the justice, security, welfare, and civil rights of all our citizens? Or will it serve the interests of well-paid lobbyists, campaign contributors, and political leaders who control Party campaign coffers?

Although the American Revolution was against monarchy, our Constitutional framers recognized the need for a strong executive in our tri-partite system of checks and balances. They recognized the need for a man of high moral character and outstanding leadership ability. Of course, the general who led our insurrection and won our freedom, George Washington, quite naturally fit that profile. President Trump most certainly does not.

Although it is unseemly for any person to judge the moral character of another, I think it is fair to say that our current President does not inspire our better traits or appear to support the democratic ideals of our country. His concept of a “more perfect union” includes a zero tolerance immigration policy, travel bans, elimination of universal healthcare benefits, privatized education, pollution of our air, water and land, and an unequal share of our countries’ wealth. The “general welfare” are not words in his hyperbolic lexicon of personal achievements which embrace his self-diagnosis as a “stable genius,” who “in two years, has accomplished more than any President in the history of our country.” He has hired a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who initially turned down the job because he considered himself unqualified. He hired a man who acted as a shill for the Koch brothers as the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, after repeated legal and ethical scandals, he replaced him with a former lobbyist for the energy sector. He hired a Secretary of Education who diverts money from public education because she favors “for-profit” institutions over public education. His Secretary of the Interior is breaking up national parks and opening them to drilling and mining. His Secretary of Energy had formerly campaigned for the Presidency on a platform that promised the elimination of the Department of Energy. The man who ran his campaign is now in jail, along with one of his foreign affairs advisors. Others have pleaded guilty to various charges, including conspiracy against the United States. To put it bluntly, this President is anathema to a democratic state. He rules by executive orders. He surrounds himself with sycophants or incompetents who appear to serve the President’s interests as long as they serve their own. Others have written more comprehensive summaries of this Administration. But I think it is fair to assess it as undemocratic. For it shows little competence in managing our institutions to serve the general welfare or advance justice and liberty.

The only branch of government that has so far resisted the influence of these undemocratic initiatives is the Judicial Branch. But the President has waged a continuous battle with the Department of Justice, where he has succeeded in removing personnel he deems a threat to his power. Meanwhile, he has teamed with Republican Congressional leaders to pack the courts with prospective political operatives. Hopefully, these so-called “conservative” judges will be more aligned with the law than with the political objectives of their sponsors. Nevertheless, these initiatives have the same goal as the President’s executive orders and legislative agenda. And that goal undermines our centuries-old progress to fulfill the promise of our democracy.

America can be characterized by its diversity, both in its land and in its people. But it is defined by its ideals. They unite us as a nation. Their realization, however, is a continuous battle against self-interests that supersede the general welfare, that seek unchecked power, that suborn the institutions of government to criminal ends, and that subvert the national economy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the majority. If we fail to vote for those who support the ideals of a democracy, then America will lose its place in history as a beacon of liberty and justice. It will become an illiberal democracy, where corruption, influence peddlers, and power brokers rule. Some of us may have believed that the 2016 election provided the change we needed. But electing a disruptor who does not share our ideals is a prescription for chaos and, as we have witnessed, for the attempted subordination or dismantlement of our democratic institutions.

Democracy presumes diversity. With diversity comes debate and divisiveness. Our challenge is to resolve our differences within the framework of our American ideals and of our democratic institutions. Democracy is hard. Believing in it will accomplish nothing if we fail to preserve it.