As the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia 246 years ago today to pen their names to the Declaration of Independence, they embarked on an adventure whose end result they had no idea could be achieved. It was as Benjamin Franklin reportedly—although never factually confirmed—observed, they had created “a Republic, if you can keep it.”
Not since the days of the Civil War has the challenge of whether this Republic can be kept, been open to greater questioning. Over the past few days, weeks, months, as well as for several years the viability and future of this grand venture has been more critically tested than ever. The sustainability of the institutions of Government created fourteen years later at the Constitutional Convention are on shakier grounds today than since 1860. No one should assume they know where the American experiment will be when it is scheduled to celebrate its Semiquincentennial anniversary in 2026.
American history is replete with periods of presidential dominance and congressional passivity as well as eras of congressional domination over weak presidents. Congresses. Supreme Courts had activist periods and periods of lassiez faire conduct. Never, however, have all the institutions of Government been stretched and challenged at the same time as they all are today. It is as if no one in “management” really cares about the future of the business. Government today is only about the individuals and themselves.
Congress does not want to participate in governing the nation. They blame the other branches and the other party while never stepping up to the task of legislating for which the Members were elected by the people. When one considers the tumultuous years before the Civil War, men like John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster did not agree on the direction and future of the nation. They fought, nevertheless, for decades to try to achieve an effective compromise. While they failed at the end and the War Between the States ensued, it was not because there were not statesmen who sought to find a path forward together.
More recently in the 1950’s Senator Lyndon Johnson’s relationship with Senator Everett Dirksen was legendary. These two very different political animals understood how to play politics for the good of the nation, something that even continued when Johnson became President. Later, House Speaker Thomas (Tip) O’Neill after a bitter legislative confrontation with a Republican Administration, would go off on the weekend and play golf with President Reagan.
There always were political differences between Presidents and Congress or the Courts. F.D.R.’s 1937 court packing proposal emerged from his unwillingness to accept having so much of his New Deal legislation being declared unconstitutional. The Court slowly shifted, justices left the Court, and the confrontation dissipated. The Judiciary Act of 1937 never even received a vote on the Senate floor.
Chief Justice John Marshall was a legal revolutionary, but he served the nation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 34 years. Chief Justice Earl Warren surprised so many of his former Republican friends during the 16 years of judicial activism over which he presided. No doubt these men changed the nation, but they moved slowly and gradually over time. Both jurists recognized the awesome responsibility they were undertaking as they strived to carve a new judicial direction for the nation.
Chief Justice John Roberts may well have the same temperament and desire, but he has clearly been overwhelmed by a coterie of colleagues who are committed to radical change. Roberts may philosophically believe in much of what the right-wing of the Court seeks to achieve but he does not appear to have their iron-clad opinion that all must be attained at once. He also recognizes that there is not a national consensus from the people to move in the Court’s self-imposed new direction, leaving “his Court” vulnerable to be overturned dramatically in the future.
On America’s birthday, the Founders—who themselves were hardly perfect--would have been saddened to see what has happened to the country. They left the British monarch and wanted a democracy ruled by men, elected by the people, who respected the rule of law over all else. Conflicts would be resolved by compromise because political leaders were committed to make it work.
The balance of Ben Franklin’s exchange has not achieved the publicity of the first part. In his conversation about the likelihood of the success of this Republic with Elizabeth Willing Powel, the wife of Philadelphia’s then Mayor Samuel Powel, is equally important and relevant today. Mrs. Powel reportedly replied to Franklin’s words of caution with the comment “And why not keep it [a Republic]? To which Franklin was reported to have responded, “Because the people, on tasting the dish, are always disposed to eat more than does them good.”
Comments