Mission: Preserve the Republic: Sydney Williams
http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com\
Elizabeth Willing Powel: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”Benjamin Franklin: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Philadelphia, September 17, 1787
That exchange took place 237 years ago outside Independence Hall, where delegates had met to discuss weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation, as they pertained to the central government. It was recorded in the journal of Maryland delegate James McHenry (1753-1816), a journal now in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. (The Articles of Confederation, agreed to in 1777, were replaced a decade later by the United States Constitution, which provided for a stronger central government.)
Democrats have seized the expression “save democracy,” which means elect them, not Republicans who they argue would destroy democracy. They express concern of storm troopers led by Donald Trump who they say would tear down our democratic institutions. But might this be an example of projection?
Our Founders were concerned about despotism, including what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” So they constructed a Republic, with checks and balances, a federal government with three equal and independent branches – legislative, executive and judicial – to protect the rights of both the majority and the minority.
In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, George Washington University law professor Jonathon Turley wrote: “In an October 2020 interview, Harvard law professor Michael Klarman laid out a plan for Democrats should they win the White House and both congressional chambers. They would enact ‘democracy-entrenching legislation.’ But what does that mean? They have called for the elimination of the Electoral College. They want to increase the size of the Supreme Court, and widen the reach of the federal bureaucracy through new administrative agencies. They would give Congress the ability to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices and have the Court abide by a code of ethics prepared by Congress. Their plans would emasculate the concept of federalism and require amending the Constitution.
On the Republican side, the Heritage Foundation published a 920-page document, reflecting their vision for a second Trump administration, Project 2025. A copy of the plan was brought to the Democrat convention in Chicago where it was presented as a blueprint as to what they claimed Republicans would do: transform the FBI, abolish the Department of Education, dismantle NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), terminate the legal status of 500,000 “Dreamers,” and curtail women’s rights. Unmentioned was the fact that the Heritage Foundation has, every four years, released a “Mandate for Leadership” since the early 1980s, or the fact that Mr. Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025.
None of this is to belittle risks to our government, which is unique in the annals of mankind. Fifty-seven years ago, at his inaugural as California’s Governor, Ronald Reagan stated: “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction.” Yet threats continue. Sixteen years ago, speaking to a crowd in Columbus, Missouri, Barack Obama proclaimed: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” What did he mean? And now we have the unelected wife of an elected President running a cabinet meeting. Where was his Vice President? Shades of Edith Wilson?
Fundamental to our system of government, whether you choose to call it a democracy or a republic, is freedom of expression, with the obvious exceptions of – without cause – yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or declaiming in front of the Supreme Court, as did New York’s senior U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer: “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” In a nation of 330 million people such threats can have unintended consequences, as assassination attempts on Mr. Trump have demonstrated. On the other hand, censorship, whether practiced by the government, as in the Russian collusion story in 2015-2019, or by the media, as in the Hunter Biden laptop story of 2020, is detrimental to inherent freedoms, and thus to the preservation of our democratic republic.
The Founders decided on a bicameral legislature so that smaller states would have equal representation in the U.S. Senate, to offset the House of Representatives, which is based on population. The Electoral College, which elects the President, is a combination of the two, being allocated votes equal to its number of Senators and its number of Congressional districts. Keep in mind, in 1787 this reflected magnanimity on the part of Virginia, which was the largest state in the union and home to principal authors of our founding documents – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and The Federalist Papers. As well, Virginia was home to four of the first five Presidents. If Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Monroe had preferred a pure democracy they could have railroaded one through.
Our form of government has survived a British invasion in 1812-1814 and a Civil War. It has survived the scourge of slavery, years of Jim Crow and reconstruction, a debilitating depression, segregation, and the anti-war protests of the 1960s. It has survived the assassinations of four U.S. Presidents. It went to the aid of Europe in 1917. It saved the world from Nazism and Imperial Japan in the 1940s. It has produced more Nobel and Pulitzer prize-winners than any other nation. Its economy and freedom have been a beacon for the world’s oppressed, drawn by opportunities the Country offers. At its heart are personal, political and economic freedoms. It is a nation that adheres to the lesson of the old Chinese proverb – “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.”
Yes, our mission should be to preserve the Republic gifted us. I am not happy in the choices we have for President in 2024. Neither political party seems concerned with our massive debt, which can (and will) destroy our way of life, especially as we face demographic challenges unknown to our forefathers. And I am not happy that both Parties focus on what they can do for us, rather than emphasizing the opportunities free markets offer to those talented, aspirational and diligent. I am not happy when diversity is reserved solely for color, race, sex, or creed, and when it excludes abilities, opinions, and interests.
As we head to the polls, we should consider: Which political party is more likely to shrink regulations, limit spending, and stop the dangerous silliness of letting boys compete against girls in school sports? Which party is more likely to give the aspirational opportunity to succeed in the fields of their choice? Neither candidate is one I would choose. Harris is vacuous, either by design or by nature. And I wonder: Who is the “Oz” behind the curtain guiding Mr. Biden, and is there a “Toto” to pull back the drapes? The bombastic Mr. Trump is personally unappealing, but at least we have his four-year record as President, in which he – even though the Country was hit by Covid – performed well. And with mainstream media lined up against him there is little chance of his becoming authoritarian. Preserving our Republic should be our priority.
Comments are closed.
