Recently I had the pleasure of revisiting a classic by Charles Dickens, “A Tale of Two Cities,” a fictional rendition of a very difficult and revolutionary time period in France, when the people had to make a critical decision to either be enslaved under a corrupt monarchy or free under a democratic republic (1789–17 99). Ironically, the Federalist Papers, the authority that Republican “originalists” most frequently cite as though it were the Talmud or the Fifth Gospel, was penned less than a year prior to the commencement of the aristocratic-bloodletting that took place across the Atlantic. America's revolution was still decades away, but its citizens were confronting a similar decision to that of their French counterparts: accept the status quo of autocratic tendencies, or establish itself as a democratic republic under a single banner of unity that would forever be known as The United States of America.
The revolutionists’ battle cry in Dickens novel was, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death.” And as we look at the current, political state of American democracy we see are secular institutions being bullied by a brand of extremism whose sole aim is to systematically erase more than seven generations of progress. And, surprisingly, the dilemma before us is not so different from then: to either relinquish our unity under the banner that is our flag, or find the fight within us to secure a more functional and direct democracy that doesn't leave the majority feeling betrayed by the founding fathers.
January Insurrection Source: USA Today.com
The contentious presidential election in 2020, followed shortly thereafter by the insurrection at the Capitol, followed by the nationwide, state-legislative Republican efforts to alienate and disenfranchise voters, gerrymander, and otherwise push and prod with their, “free speech” and dark money — funneled into organizations like ALEC or the Koch Foundation — has been nothing more than a stratagem of deception. The objective, to sell Americans an alternate reality of election fraud, fear of diversity, and a general intolerance for change. An assemblage of efforts that have placed America on the horns of a dilemma, the likes of which, hasn't been seen since World War II, when America decisively united with its allies against Hitler and his allies for the collective liberty of self and posterity. Today, circumstance and fate is once again calling upon us to choose between the short-term convenience of turning a blind eye, or the labored uncertainty of demanding systemic change to secure a form of liberty and equality never before seen in America.
Without a doubt the choices before us, as they relate to the continuity of our freedoms and our democratic republic, are as existential as they are volatile. Especially because we aren't witnessing the likes of a tangible tragedy, like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. There is no singular figurehead of opposition like Hitler or Osama Bin Laden to defeat, capture or kill. The former-President Trump is nothing more than a opportunist, he lacks the imagination of a true despot like Napoleon or Cesari Borgia, which isn't to say that he isn't dangerous, because he is, but the movement he represents is often more than just Capitol Hill or the Presidency — it's pursuing the very secularity of our way of life.
We see it when the courts and legislatures undermine our rights and liberties. We feel it with each and every mass shooting that attempts to disembowel our communities throughout America. And we hear it in the political proclamations, like that of President Biden recently saying while standing before Philadelphia's Independence Hall, that “it is within our power. It's in our hands, yours and mine, to stop the assault on American democracy.”
President Biden speech before Independence Hall in Philadelphia 9/1/22
Source: NYTimes
Despite our ongoing challenges with political honesty in this country, the facts in this instance tell us that many extremist- Republicans are spearheading efforts to discourage, alienate, and outright dismantle the very voting apparatus and backbone of our democratic republic for the purpose of artificially sustaining their political and cultural relevance at a time when the vast majority of America is following the beat of a much different drum.
In the state of Florida it is now illegal to offer someone water while they stand in line to vote. In Georgia, voting on Sundays was seen as problematic, because it was customary for Black communities to vote after church services, and therefore it was eliminated. And in Texas, a state in perpetual conflict with its large, diverse, liberal-leaning metropolitan areas, has determined that there will only be one ballot-drop-off box per county — of course, the mechanics of how a city like Houston, that resides in Harris County with 4.7 million residents is effectively going to be served by a single box is apparently irrelevant.
Beyond the legislative efforts to attack democracy by disenfranchising voters with restrictions that placate imaginary worries about voter fraud, there is also, as previously mentioned, gerrymandering, PACs and super-PACs funded by dark money, a Supreme Court with an obvious political agenda, and a general apathy for what equates to absent morality in political candidates. And this is just a short list of the political realities that has stymied our collective efforts to address climate change, rapidly worsening socioeconomic inequalities, price gouging for necessities like food, energy, and housing, to name but a few on a very long list of challenges that face us all.
Homeless Camp in Albuquerque: Source Albuqnews.com
Yes, there is certainly a case to be made or a concerted effort and attack being waged against our democracy. But in our only
takeaway from this is to point the finger at MAGA Republicans and label them “extremists,” is to ignore a viable opportunity for recapturing the hearts of Americans and the reins of power that together control our nation.
What the President did not say, probably because he lacks the popularity to do so, is that these “attacks” against our democracy will not be defeated by simply voting Democrat in upcoming elections, nor will they cease under their own volition. The uncomfortable truth is that each and every one of us is a micro- cause of the macro-reality we currently face. And yet, as we struggle to acknowledge this fundamental truth, it is crucial to look beyond the obvious, present differences that seemingly divide us to the commonalities that unite us.
Regardless of our political opinions, our creeds of faith, our ethnicities or sexual orientations, we are all facing the same reality: we live in a society of Faustian capitalism where our democracy has been traded for short-term profits that most will never see; and, our political and judicial institutions legitimize and sustain this agenda, irrespective of the corrosive consequences to the fraying tethers keeping our republic together.
Have we forgotten the immense hurdles this nation has overcome, democratically, the likes of which no other modern republic has ever had to deal with?
Through civil resistance, protests, hard-won elections, and the overall nobility of a free people standing beneath the pillars of our national inheritance of freedom, equality, and the rule of law, we have outlawed slavery, put an end to child labor, limited the workday, empowered workers (unionization), made public education a reality, showed resilience in the face of economic catastrophe through the Great Depression and the more recent recessions; we weaved a nation together, first with railroads and then with electricity and highways; civil rights have been extended to the disenfranchised such as women, Blacks, Latinos and other minorities; add to this the heroic strides that have been made with Social Security, benefits for veterans, Medicare and Medicaid, and, still, we are only scratching the surface of our achievements.
Yes, the political differences it seemingly divide us between lines of culture, ethnicity, religion, race, sexual orientation, or even basic economic principles can seem insurmountable from a distance. But to accept this lie that we are better off divided than together is to accept with it the tyranny of autocracy in one form or another. It is, likewise, to accept that our “democratic” institutions will continue to show deference to a few at the demise of the many.
When the President of the United States stands on hallowed ground and says, that “American Democracy” is under “assault,” we should consider the gravity of such a statement. Is he pandering for votes or is he speaking the truth?
The fact that our republic is paralyzed by partisan bickering and indecision is perhaps a footnote to the much larger question now emerging: did the founding fathers set us up for failure?
Images of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison
3 Authors of the Federalist Papers: Source: CriticalSkillsblog
It occurred to me recently while reading a recent SCOTUS decision, Shinn v. Ramirez Martinez, a case that essentially eviscerates not only decades of precedent but the very concept of fairness in jurisprudence, that this doctrine of “originalism” is as dangerous as it is unconventional.
Originalism, as I understand it, is the view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of its original authors. Conservative justices on the highest Court actually quote “originalism" and the Federalist Papers as though they were something more than a series of op-ed pieces.
The very notion that we should adhere to concepts derived by men who have never lived in the world, as we know and understand it, is like ignoring the medical advice of our doctors based on advice published in a medical journal in the 18th century.
I am sure that Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison — the authors of the Federalist Papers — had the very best intentions. Or, at least, I have no reason to doubt their intentions. But the political and socioeconomic realities that existed in their America are not what we see today. They were adamantly trying to convince a very select few (because obviously women, Blacks, and minorities were excluded from these deliberations) to opt for a single nation under one government as opposed to a series of independent confederacies. Their concerns were the ease and convenience of commerce, fear of invasion, and domestic tranquility. But something that John Jay expressed in the Federalist No.2 on October 31,1787, should demonstrate an obvious truth:
Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
Though charming in his sentiment, this description does not resemble the nation we live in today. We don't share the same ancestors, or speak the same languages; culturally we have similarities, yes, but there are also strong divergences when it comes to our core beliefs on what it means to be equal and free. And as far as having the same principles of government, it's hard to know what that even means in today's political landscape. Add to this the fact that these founding fathers were covetous and generally suspicious of handing the reins of power to the people in any true form of majority-wins, direct democracy.
Does it make sense to anyone outside of the rural state like Wyoming that a population base of five hundred and eighty thousand residents should have the same voting power as Californian’s thirty-nine million residents? Or that, the District of Columbia, which has ninety-thousand more residents than Wyoming, has no senators. Yet this is the comically malapportioned Senate that the founding fathers established as a check on democracy and the power of We the People.
Eric Holder’s Book “Our Unfinished March” source: The Literatelizard.Indielite.org
The former Attorney General Eric Holder, discusses in his book, “Our Unfinished March” (One World), that half of the population is represented by eighteen senators, and the other half by eighty-two. Then there’s the bizarre and confounding existence of the filibusters, a parliamentary tool that allows senators representing ten percent of the population to block legislation proposed by the other ninety percent. This is as maddening as being told that the flight you are currently on is being redirected to an alternate airport and destination because the first-class passengers have decided that the previous destination, though pre-printed on everyone's tickets, is simply too mundane for their liking.
This is essentially what the MAGA Republican agenda advocates: redirecting the nation to coincide with an “originalist” conception of America. President Biden calls it, “tak[ing] the country backwards,” and it doesn't appear that he is wrong. The question is, do we fully understand what such a transition would entail?
Because if the Federalist Papers are truly to be the guide by which the dystopia is constructed, then we should all become fluent with the misogyny, racism, and general intolerance for diversity that leaks like an infected wound from throughout the eighty-five Federalist Papers. The United States of America will not continue to stand if the Republican agenda of return-to-how- things-were-in-the-eighteenth-century is carried through to fruition.
People protesting when SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade Source: Brittanica.com
Roe v. Wade was just the opening salvo in what has become a battle for the continuity of secularism and self-determination. If this agenda is not doused with reason and overcome, SCOTUS will undoubtedly exenterate other established, unenumerated rights to privacy, intimacy, and bodily autonomy — rights the Constitution doesn't specifically name, but ones that previous Courts and justices saw as reasonable extensions of the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The legal doctrine like stare decisis will not deter the current super-majority on the Court from undoing precedents such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the case confirming the constitutional right of married couples to buy and use contraception; Loving v. Virginia (1967), the case declaring bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional; Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the case recognizing a right to same-sex intimacy; and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the case that recognizes a right to same sex marriage.
Our collective conceptualization of what America is and could be has long since outgrown the fetters of “Providence” or “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion…” as John Jay described America in the Federalist Papers. We are a nation that embraces diversity, creativity, and freedom in all of its multifaceted iterations. Our differences of faith and creed and sexual orientation are self-affirming strengths to be built upon, not reasons by which to destroy ourselves. And, unfortunately, if we don't stand up for democracy and freedom right now, we will watch as the dominos continue to fall on these hard-won victories.
All that stands between us and perpetual protest, riots, mayhem, political assassinations, and revolution is the ballot-box. Which calls to question, why is the GOP trying to dismantle our most fundamental staple of freedom?
French Guillotine from 18th century used in the French Revolution
Source: Pinterest.com
Well, “originalism” appears to be the recurring theme, since it turns out that the founding fathers had their misgivings about handing over the reins of power to We the People, and instead opted for a representative system that would put a check on majority-rule and the will of the people. The irony of their decision is that, they had just shed the shackles of the British monarchy — coincidentally, a constitutional monarchy that was stretching its own roots in democracy. Of course, then there was the proverbial writing they could see on the wall of what was to come.
It was obvious that slaves would eventually have to be emancipated; women would eventually see equality under the eyes of the law; and if these trends persisted it would only be a matter of time before clash between the haves and the have-nots came to tug on the constitutional fetters holding the nation together. And when that inevitable confrontation took place, the founding fathers wanted to ensure that their respective prosperity — white, wealthy, Christian, property owners — would have a constitutional upper hand in dealing with the masses of have-nots demanding their fair share of the social and economic rewards for their contributions to the touted successes of this nation.
FREEDOM written on a wall in red blood Source: 123RF.com
There also exists another reason, one that I found written into the very Federalist Papers they so fervently cite as justification for dismantling our democracy. According to Alexander Hamilton, just because freedom has been bestowed upon us does not entitle us to said freedom:
Thus a people may prefer a free government; but if, from indolence, or carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public spirit, they are unequal to the exertions necessary for preserving it; if they will not fight for it when it is directly attacked; if they can be deluded by the artifices used to cheat them out of it; if, by momentary discouragement, or temporary panic, or a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, they can be induced to lay their liberties at the feet even of a great man, or trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions — in all these cases they are more or less unfit for liberty; and though it may be for their good to have had it even for a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it. Again, a people may be unwilling or unable to fulfill the duties which a particular form of government requires of them. A rude people, though in some degree alive to the benefits of civilized society, may be unable to practice the forbearances which it demands; their passions may be too violent, or their personal pride too exacting, to forego private conflict, and leave to the laws the avenging of their real or supposed wrongs. In such a case, a civilized government, to be really advantageous to them, will require to be in a considerable degree despotic; one over which they do not themselves exercise control, and which imposes a great amount of forcible restraint upon their actions.
Are we the “rude people” that Hamilton referred to? If so, then perhaps our elected representatives see us just as undeserving of freedom, or constitutional rights, or even the basic dignities of fair and equal opportunities as the founding fathers. Apparently, freedom and the dignity of rights, opportunity, and equality before the law are for those who deserve them (or, can afford to buy them).
By their own words the founding fathers structured this nation to be a “commercial republic,” and what I gather that to mean from the evidence of our shared and lived history, is a form of Faustian capitalism: selling democracy (and posterity) for short-term gain.
Please don't misunderstand, because I am not formulating a treatise for bloodletting the billionaires on our streets like the French. Nor do I think reappropriation to be a viable solution to the predicament of being in a democracy in name only.
Billionaires in themselves are not the enemy. Most are the product of profitable innovations that spread through the market creating employment and opportunity. The problem arises when they become our benefactors (allowing them to not only define our problems, but determine how to address them); and, when they use that power to sustain the patriarchy, irrespective of the secondary consequences to society that such a hierarchy imposes. Their power suffocates and smothers our own power because their money permits them to affectively purchase elected representatives who represent, first and foremost, their interest in keeping the hierarchy static. And, as it turns out, what today's billionaires have in common with every form of aristocracy throughout history is underestimating the power of the people. What is different, are the numbers and the landscape of the battlefield before us.
In 1990, America had sixty-six billionaires, and today there are more than seven hundred. A staggering growth at a time when the median hourly wage has only risen twenty percent in the same period of time. Which means that they have attained their wealth by gaming the system and cheating the very society who made their status and positions possible. It also means that they have oversized political influence to help them obfuscate this truth. And here is where the ballot-box may just save us:
In 2020, the U.S. saw the highest electoral turnout since 1900, with sixty-seven percent of eligible voters casting their ballots for President. Consider that in 1900, minorities weren't even considered people much less voting citizens, and the turnout then was only eighteen percent of the total population. In the last presidential election the turnout was forty-eight percent of the total population. Which demonstrates that we are more powerful than ever before, and likewise explains the GOP's concerted effort to dampen our votes.
The GOP and the super PACs that manifest their stratagems to thwart systemic change continually scoff at our democratic, legislative efforts to level the playing field, by, say, revamping the tax code to close loopholes and thereby demand that the biggest winners in this social and economic construct of ours pay their fair share. The beneficiaries of these efforts seem to forget that not a single one of them would be a billionaire if not for our collective participation in a society where We the People permit them to be so. But this constitutional (i.e., contractual) arrangement of sorts only exists if all parties live up to their end of the bargain. Which means that our constitutional rights are upheld, concepts like justice and equality are real, and we are ALL provided with viable means (e.g., education, training, and ample opportunity) to likewise achieve social and economic upward mobility.
Unfortunately, when billionaires (modern day aristocrats) use their privileges to hamstring our democratic efforts to legislatively abet what is constitutionally and morally owed, they aren't politicking or exercising free speech, they are effectively keeping us down, enslaving, and otherwise dismissing the legitimacy of our claims to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
When we talk about the socioeconomic inequalities separating the haves and the have-nots, it can be challenging to conceptualize the vast gulf of nothingness separating the two. Fortunately, I found a study published by the charity Oxfam, showing that eight billionaires have the same wealth as the entire bottom half of humanity (3.6 billion people).
Six of those eight made their money in the supposedly equalizing field of technology: Gates, Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Larry Ellison of Oracle, Carlos Slim of Telmex, and Michael Bloomberg the purveyor of computer terminals. Also, Amancio Ortega, who built the retailer Zara; in Warren Buffett, a prolific investor and major shareholder in Apple and IBM (also a divergent voice in advocating for legitimizing the tax code).
As we consider the magnanimous efforts and brilliance that have greatly attributed to the above achievements, it is necessary to likewise revisit their growth in numbers in the last three decades. Billionaires in the U.S. have increased more than tenfold, even as the median hourly wage has stagnated. Does this not strongly suggest a direct correlation between the creation of billionaires (modern day aristocrats) and the impoverished who sustain them (modern day plebs)?
As the Economic Policy Institute published in a paper, “Since 1973, hourly compensation of the vast majority of American workers has not risen in line with economy-wide productivity. In fact, hourly compensation has almost stopped rising at all.”
A Rope that is being pulled so hard from either side that it’s fraying in the middle
Source: PioneerInstitute.org
The egregious statement that this makes is that America’s social contract was frayed as the nation muddles through an identity crisis, at the same time witnessing the decay of his politics, institutions, and the livelihoods of its citizens. As socioeconomic mobility slows the dream becomes less attainable as workers’ lives become more precarious. A condition the founding fathers both anticipated and welcomed as they drafted a constitution that makes true freedom more of a possibility than a guarantee.
Fortunately, the founding fathers were neither prophets or soothsayers and couldn't foresee what this nation would become: racially and ethnically and culturally diverse; secular and religiously independent. They did not anticipate the advances and dangers of technology, or the eventual equality of personhood recognized in women, minorities and indigenous people, or the universal dignities bestowed on other religions. They failed to foresee what was coming because prophecy wasn’t part of their skillset as statesmen in the late eighteenth century. Instead of embracing the inevitable change they saw written on the previously mentioned, proverbial wall they sought to challenge it.
“Originalism,” as a doctrine, should be used for establishing boundaries in classic boardgames like chess and checkers, not as a tenet of democracy or modern statecraft. Because a constitution must be more than nostalgic memento or a political relic from centuries-past, it needs to be a living document that not only represents our present day conceptualizations of justice and equality, but leaves the door open for posterity to define themselves through their own ideals. If they choose to borrow ours, great!, but let's not compel them. Because if we only see freedom as what a document from centuries-past says it is, then maybe we are “unworthy” of it.
Obviously, we want to avoid misgovernment which is why we look to democracy for the impartiality it promises. But when people don't care enough to look behind the facade, when they don't challenge the sincerity of the candidates, when they place a vote for reasons other than the health and well-being of their nation, then the ballot-box only serves to propitiate the misery of further misgovernment. If we are going to be democratic and free then we must determine for ourselves what that entails. We can't just abandon our freedoms in the hands of justices or politicians that respond to no mechanisms of accountability. We can't permit the Senate to value the votes of a few over the many. Just as we can't permit money to command or influence our politicians. Money is not speech! Irrespective of what the Supreme Court determined in Citizens United (2010).
“Originalism” is a poor excuse for a democratic doctrine because instead of empowering us, it oppresses; instead of encouraging us to broaden our horizons and maybe even challenge yesterday’s beliefs with today's truths, it tells us that we aren't permitted to think for ourselves, that we must do things as they have always been done. A premise that goes against the nascent creativity of our spirits. Therefore, let us not be shackled by any document. And if it is our determination that we are in fact capable of freedom, then let it be known to any and all crusaders who dare to stand over our secularity or freedoms, that we will not be deterred: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death!
Subscribe to MYLIFEplus25
By Mario Chavez · Launched a year ago
Subscribe to weekly MYLIFEplus25 publications by entering your email here.
Subscribe