Two years from now the United States of America will celebrate its 250th birthday.
On July 4th, 1776, the leaders of the American colonies declared independence from Britain. The dispute was about taxes, but it was also about the principle of the thing. They didn’t want to be bossed around by a king.
The Founders believed that governments derive their “just powers” from the consent of the governed. At the heart of the human condition, they believed, is the reality that we are created equal, with natural rights which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Political independence was not won on July 4th, 1776. The battles of the Revolutionary War were just beginning. The peace treaty ending the war was signed in 1783.
After the war, the work to build a stable republic was only beginning.
The Constitution was ratified in 1788 after an epic period of deliberation and negotiation and compromise and campaigning.
George Washington began his first term as president in 1789.
Historian Gordon Wood wrote a thoughtful Independence Day reflection earlier this month. He pondered the unique qualities of the Founders:
Still, when we set aside our present-minded criticism of the Founders’ backwardness, it is difficult to deny the originality of their thought and the creativity of their politics. They inspire in us both a sense of awe and an acute sense of loss. We know that they possessed political and intellectual capacities well beyond our own, and we know that we will never see their likes again.
Wood asks, “What accounts for the originality and creative genius of this singular generation of political leaders?”
His answer is that, because of the unique circumstances of the time period (the Enlightenment) and the place (a budding society across the pond), there arose a crop of American leaders determined to forge their identities as liberal statesmen and earn the respect of their European counterparts.
Gordon Wood describes the Founders as statesmen who self-consciously distinguished themselves from the aristocrats of Britain by working hard to develop “enlightened and classically republican ideals” which included an aversion to corruption.
These were ambitious men, but they channeled their ambition through the civic values of their society.
In voluntarily giving up his military leadership after the Revolutionary War despite enjoying immense popularity among the people, George Washington was acting civic-mindedly. But he was also putting his republican virtue on display, which guaranteed he would be the first leader of whatever came next for the American project.
In stepping away from power after a second term as president, Washington was acting civic-mindedly, but he was also cementing his legacy as a titan of democracy.
In 2016, a reality TV show host was elected president of the United States.
I think it is fair to interpret the rise of Donald Trump as a symptom of civic degeneracy as much as it has become a cause of it.
Trump’s attacks on the “establishment” of both the Democratic and Republican parties rang true for many Americans. The political elite in this country presided over a hubristic war in Iraq; they bailed out Wall Street instead of Main Street after the financial crisis; they were out of touch, cocooned in a safe bubble of political correctness.
In conquering the Republican Party through bluster and bullying, Trump proved his point about the cowardly nature of the establishment.
Now we’re facing a strong likelihood that Donald Trump will win another term as president of the United States. The polls have been looking good for him for months.
While it is impossible to predict what will happen in a second Trump term, we are well acquainted with Trump's character. Defiant, yes. But not exactly a paragon of republican virtue.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote that the assassination attempt is Trump’s opportunity to “present himself as someone who can rise above the attack on his life and unite the country.”
Unfortunately, national unity is not what his America First movement is about.
With an America First ticket in the White House, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence will become a spectacle of nationalism.
Nationalism is different from patriotism. Nationalism takes the symbols of the country and uses them to bludgeon those who don't interpret them the same way. America First nationalists are angry and vengeful. They will aggressively celebrate the symbol of George Washington, but they do not admire his republican virtue.
National pride, like human pride, can be a double-edged sword. It is healthy, to a certain degree, to feel connected to one's homeland, or to feel assured in one’s abilities. But pride is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. It is easy for pride to extinguish virtue while the person goes along believing himself to be eminently virtuous.
There has been much controversy about “critical theory” when it comes to history. The old-school example of critical history is Howard Zinn’s The People’s History of the United States, which tells the story of the USA through the lens of the people who were most harmed during each stage of the journey. The history is very ugly from this point of view.
I think critical history can be valuable as a contrast or a challenge to the dominant narrative of American history — but not as a replacement of American history. If balanced by a foundation of textbook American history, critical history can challenge one’s viewpoints without causing one to despise the Founding.
The Founding is currently under attack from multiple directions. Left-wing extremists want critical history to replace American history. Right-wing nationalists want the symbols of American history to replace the virtues of American history.
One of my concerns about a Trump presidency is that he will try to cling to power beyond his term, like he did the last time. American institutions are only as strong as the people who work in them.
Another concern is that Trump will provoke destabilizing reactions from the left, like he did the last time. It’s hard to imagine a second Trump term being less chaotic than the first.
If Democrats pull an upset and win the presidency, Republicans will, once again, refuse to accept the outcome.
If Biden remains at the top of the ticket and Democrats win, we will face an ongoing crisis about his declining condition.
Things are probably going to get worse before they get better.
The goal, for those of us who want to live in a stable republic, should be to endure this depressing timeframe and work toward the project of civic renewal.
As a civics teacher, I might now propose a renewal of civics education. But I don’t actually think the solution is found in the classroom.
If our leaders are embarked on a cynical project of power-seeking and self-aggrandizement no matter the costs, then the younger generation is going to adopt these habits, even if they learned about George Washington in school.
Don't get me wrong, we can still improve civics education. And we should. We don’t teach civics very well right now, partly because we gutted the humanities in a failed effort to boost test scores in ELA and Math.
What I'm saying is that civics education reform, if it is going to be authentic and effective, must be enacted by a political movement that genuinely cares about the values that underpin a healthy republic.
I don’t know how such a movement can gain traction, because right now all the incentives seem to be pulling people in the opposite direction.
Despite the gloom and doom, however, there are examples of innovative projects that are trying to change the incentive structure.
In terms of media, The Dispatch has been rewarded for promoting rational conservatism. Nobody knew whether a fact-based, center-right news publication could succeed in this political climate, but The Dispatch has succeeded beyond its founders’ expectations. They discovered there is an audience for sanity.
In terms of social media, the newsletter distribution company Substack is fostering healthier spaces for discussion. Instead of monetizing people’s attention through advertisements, Substack makes money when writers build communities of readers. There is also Substack Notes, which is like Twitter on decaf.
In terms of politics, our two-party system is in a weird place. Partisan affiliation is sky high, while the political parties themselves are very weak. This means political power is in the hands of party primary voters, whose anger is constantly stoked for electoral advantage.
The “No Labels” party was a failed effort to change the two-party system. But at least it was an effort. If a third party is ever going to gain traction and become successful, it is going to have to start with a few failed attempts. Maybe a new party (with a real name and a political identity) can eventually unite multiple factions of voters and start winning elections.
In Arizona, there is an effort to get rid of party primaries entirely. The Make Elections Fair initiative will go before voters this fall. If it passes at the ballot box, all registered voters, including independents, will vote in one big primary contest to select candidates for the general election. The idea is that political candidates and elected officials might then be incentivized to appeal to a broader range of the electorate.
None of the examples above are solutions by themselves, but they represent the type of energy needed to propel us toward a future where political leaders can exercise ambition in a way that reinforces the social contract.
Finally, it is important to note that you don’t have to engage in politics to help strengthen the civil fabric of the country. One of the benefits to living in the USA is that you are free to pursue happiness as you wish. That’s the whole point.
It is remarkable to notice, when you log off and venture out into society, that people are still getting along with it. Sports fans are rooting for their teams. Small businesses are trying to make money. Church communities are helping the less fortunate. Musicians are playing shows.
Our political problems shouldn’t suck the oxygen out of these experiences. Lately I’ve been thinking it should be the opposite. For myself, I have started to prioritize non-political hobbies and interests, just to remember that life goes on.
The project of civic renewal is not obligatory, but it is necessary.
Each of us can contribute in our own way.
Billy:
This is so outstanding in its grasp of our situation, respect for our origins, and thoughtfulness in how we can responsibly deal with it, that I will share it as broadly as I can. Thank you for this beautiful message about the foundation of Our Great American Experiment in which civic virtue is a resource we can each draw upon and contribute to as well. I could go on for many more paragraphs, and will not. I will, however, anticipate your next contribution to the dialogue we so desperately need.
Gratefully,
Al
Al Bell
albell@azindvoters.net
714-335-1592
Peoria, AZ 85383
I have appreciated your father’s thoughtful and insightful writings for many years now, and was thankful to find that he has continued his efforts through Substack following his retirement from the Arizona Republic.
He has a talent that he has clearly shared and cultivated in you, and while I don’t always share every aspect of the views held by either of you, I respect your thoughtful and well reasoned views and look forward to each writing that you share. Keep up the great work, and thank you!