Flaw & Fixes
Our Republic is in great peril. The democracy so proudly brought forth hangs in the balance. The ever-so critical upcoming midterms won’t be Democrats vs. Republicans; they will be we the people vs. them, democracy vs. autocracy and fascism. Will be even more so if we make it to the 2028 elections (a huge if). For these next months, for the United States of America ‘of we the people’, everything is on the line. It is do or die as a nation, a republic, a democracy.
Neither the death, resignation, nor impeachment of Donald Trump will end this crisis or undo the damage done to date to the nation and the world. Nor will a 2028 democratic sweep of the House, Senate, and Presidency. This monumental crisis and the damage done to date, yet to be fully recognized by too many, are consequences of a systemic failure. In the context of cause and effect, this crisis and damage are the effects. First, foremost, and forthwith, we must come together to save our republic and democracy. If we are successful in the rescue, the next and concurrent order of business is to make the changes needed to ensure such a threat can never happen again; i.e., we need to address the cause(s).
Should we fail to stop the demolition, addressing the causes of the systemic failure must, perforce, be the first order of business in the rebuilding.
The noble experiment shall not be allowed to die.
A yet-to-be-completed list of requisite changes is the place to start. For sure, it must include changes that ensure that we never again have a corrupt, worse than worthless, Supreme Court Majority; never again allow a flawed, amoral, venal, corrupt person; a demagogue; a wannabe fascist or autocrat to ascend to the office of President. These changes alone are on a scale that require remodeling of the constitution. Something itself long past due.
A republic is ruled by laws, a constitution. This crisis happened because of flaws in our constitution that allowed wealth to influence our politics and, in turn, government; allowed wealth to preempt democracy; happened because of flaws in our constitution that allowed for the selection of an unfit candidate to run for president.
The possibility of someone like Trump being elected was something that Plato warned of some twenty-four hundred years ago. Something that has now happened twice within eight years.
The too long delayed declaring independence from the tyranny of wealth is as, if not more, revolutionary than the throwing off the tyranny of monarchism in 1775. Will likely be as difficult. Will be fully as consequential. Wealth’s interests packed the courts, funded the Tea Party and House Freedom Caucus, helped Trump be elected. Wealth in the form of campaign financing has been used to dictate legislation and foreign policy. As evidenced, those interests would rather destroy the nation than lose power. All the more reason to declare independence from the tyranny of wealth.
As a part of this throwing off of the tyranny of wealth, the media (aka the ‘fourth estate/branch’ of government) must also be free from the interest of wealth. We will have a democracy only if the media informs the public, serves the interests of the public. Never, as long as it serves the interests of wealth, of the market. For all of our history, the media has told ‘we the people’ what to think as part of its representing the interest of the wealthy.
We will have a true democracy only if the people can think (a primary reason for Plato’s concern). Teaching everyone civics is good, teaching them how to think is better. Belief doesn’t belong in any government, especially a democracy. Thinking does. Democracy and good governance require good thinking. As evidenced by the past few congresses, we will not have a democracy if some can use their office to impose their beliefs on others; if Congress is made up of Senators like Blackburn, Tuberville, Cotton, Hawley, Schmitt, Graham, and Kennedy (with apologies to anyone left off); and Representatives like Burchett, Foxx, Greene, Comer, Boebert, and Jordan (with apologies to anyone left off) who would impose their beliefs, who do not believe in democracy; if the majority of our Supreme Court justices do not believe in democracy, would impose their beliefs. A republic, a democracy, is ruled by laws, a constitution. Religion, belief, do not belong in government.
Many of them don’t believe in government
Plato’s warning came from his concern that the average person hadn’t been taught how to think well.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of our nation’s greatest achievements. In a democracy voting is a right. This right must be codified so that no John Roberts can ever again deny any citizen of the United States the right to vote, to equal representation. No state of these United States should be allowed to deny any citizen of the United States the right to vote or equal representation.
He took advantage of flaws in the constitution
Political party primaries are one of the greatest flaws in our current electoral process; removing the influence of wealth would be a great first step toward a remedy. If primaries are to be a part of the political process, they must be representative. A lot of good thinking has been done, is available, on this.
Plato warned of the threat posed by demagoguery. Demagoguery should be banned from political discourse in a democracy because of its appeal to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.
Merriam-Webster profoundly defines politics as the art of governance. The discourse of politics should be limited to matters of governance. In a democracy, that governance belongs to the people. The constitution should prohibit topics that are unfit for political campaigns such as prejudices, bigotry, racism, hatred, religion, … and list those that are suitable such as governmental and economic policy issues; both of which require an understanding of the role of government and the economy; an understanding of how government and economies work.
If there are to be political parties, their role should be codified.
There will be no true democracy until the economy, too, is ‘of the people’.
The Tenth Amendment needs a complete rethinking. There are no original colonies amongst these fifty United States, no faux nation states. Every citizen of any state of the United States is entitled to the full rights of United States citizenship. States governments should be limited to administering services. States rights was a canard for slavery and the ensuing discrimination.
The founders saw the need for a living Constitution. Two Hundred and Fifty Years later, any damned fool can see this excepting those who find it in their interest to not and the current majority on the Supreme Court representing them.
A living constitution because — like all living things — civilization in all its parts evolves continuously. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a milestone in societal evolution. The Constitution of 1789 was one of governance evolution. Economies evolve. Democracy evolves. There is no such thing as originalism.
The new or revised constitution should provide that no minority (for example, the Tea Party and House Freedom Caucus) should be able to tyrannize the nation. These people came to Washington to throw sand in the gears to disrupt government; to tear the house down.
P.S. If the nation survives it will be in no small part due to the herculean efforts of the following Substackers to educate and inform us all:
(listing is in no particular order and woefully incomplete)
Heather Cox Richardson, Joyce Vance, Anne Applebaum, Paul Krugman, Tim Snyder, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Leah Litman, Steve Vladeck, Preet Bharara, Jon Tester & Maritas Georgiou, Aaron Parnas, Philips O’brein, Ann Telnaes, Robert Reich, Margaret Sullivan,Thom Hartmann, Miles Taylor and so many others.
And, to those of non-stackers like Marcy Wheeler and others.
Thank you, all so much.
The Supreme Court, ignoring the Declaration of Independence which is foundational to the Constitution, unyoked the King with their broad immunity interpretation of all things executive. My guess is that a few of the more balanced justices have become woke to that mistake. In the next administration, this executive immunity error requires rectification with an explicit language and a constitutional amendment. With regard to this administration: never in the annals of US history have so few in so little time destroyed so much with so little thought.
@TEF,
If the next president is a Democrat, you can depend on the Roberts court reversing their extremist unitary executive and immunity findings. They were only meant for the POTUS whose name is Donald J. Trump.
The Constitution isn’t the problem. The problem is Congress not doing its job. The Constitution empowers Congress to dictate how many judges the Supreme Court has, and what powers it has. Congress has failed to exert its authority to prevent the entrenched ideologues on the Supreme Court from abusing their authority. The Constitution also empowers Congress to rein in the president in any number of ways which it has simply failed to carry out — indeed, allowing the president to usurp powers that the Constitution allocates to Congress. This process has been going on for generations, not just recently. We’ve allowed the president to evolve into an exalted, almost king-like personage, instead of a bureaucratic functionary carrying out Congress’s will, as he is supposed to be (“three co-equal branches of government” is a fiction — the Constitution clearly makes Congress supreme over the others). The biggest threat to democracy is actually gerrymandering, which prevents the voters from cleaning house by taking the de facto power to choose Congress away from them and giving it to the dominant political party in each state.
The constitution should prohibit topics that are unfit for political campaigns such as prejudices, bigotry, racism, hatred, religion
First, nobody could agree on the definitions of most of those things. Nowadays everybody defines most opinions they personally don’t like as prejudice and bigotry. Second, this would completely trash the First Amendment. No damn politician is going to tell me or anybody else what topics we can and cannot talk about or what we can say about them.
@Infidel,
“The biggest threat to democracy is actually gerrymandering . . .”
I’d say the anti-democratic electoral college is another threat. And the Senate filibuster isn’t democratic. Indeed, neither is the Senate itself, nor the cap on the number of House members.
True, but none of those things is as fundamental a threat as gerrymandering. The Electoral College overweights some votes against others, but does not actually make the popular vote totally meaningless (it can only change the outcome in close races). The filibuster inflates the power of the minority party in the Senate, but it can’t defeat something that has substantial bipartisan support. Gerrymandering, when pushed to the extreme we’re now seeing in Texas and California, renders the people’s votes for House seats meaningless — the composition of the state’s House delegation is dictated by the dominant party, not by the voters. What’s theoretically the most powerful assembly in the federal government is being chosen by political oligarchs, not by the voters. This is beyond any attack on democracy we’ve seen in this country in living memory.
@Infidel,
“What’s theoretically the most powerful assembly in the federal government . . .”
The word “theoretically” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. I’d say the SCOTUS is actually the most powerful and undemocratic and least accountable assembly in the federal government.
Ken, good job, great article. While the Constitutional changes you mention are necessary, considering the amendment process, it is hard to imagine such changes could occur anytime soon, if at all. I would agree with Infidel that, although there are Constitutional flaws, the real problem is Congress. And as Joel indicates, the electoral college, filibuster and cap on House members are all significant issues that could be addressed by a functioning Congresss.
But, I would go one step further and say the problem with the dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. Misguided rules that are supported by both parties. The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. Congress has not dealt with its most basic function, passing a full budget (all 12 appropriations bills) on time, since 1997.
Again, remember these rules and procedures are supported by both parties. House and Senate rules, that can generally be changed by a majority vote, that rotuinely prevent bills from ever getting a vote. Issues with widespread public support and even bipartisan Congressional support go unaddressed.
Immediate relief from Congressional dysfunction and attention to major policy issues could be available if public pressure, protests, and media attention were focused on Congressional rule changes — particularly the discharge petition rule in the House, and the filibuster procedure in the Senate.
I have written extensively on the subject of Congressional rules reform and ways to deal with the issue. Several articles have been published in The Fulcrum and reprinted here on AB.
The Fulcrum: https://thefulcrum.us/search/?q=J.P.+McJefferson