Doug Lowe lives in Concord.
Our United States of America has been referred to as an experiment. With a nod toward ancient Athens, we have called it “American Democracy.”
Consisting of a group of states tied together in 1787 by the U.S. Constitution, this grand experiment began. In the laboratory of political science, scientists might say a test is being conducted to see if “a people” are capable of self-rule. A second test would consider the possibility of success in a country governed by majority rule.
When leaving the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked “what have you given us?” His reply was, in some ways, prophetic — “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
We understand that the concepts that provide the foundation of our experiment include individual equality and the opportunity to pursue “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, noted that those concepts were being challenged by war.
War has been defined as a confrontation between two political entities which find themselves facing the threat of irreconcilable differences. Often, the result has been a decision to “fight it out.” The confrontation becomes a shooting war. But there is also a record of cold wars. Cold war describes a situation wherein the issues have not been resolved, but at least the debate stays off of the battlefield.
U.S. history carries the blemish of the Civil War. The irreconcilable difference in the 19th century was slavery. Seldom has a difference of opinion resulted in such a massive loss of life. The 620,000 American deaths thus incurred were more than the combined total of the Vietnam War, the Korean War, WWI, and WWII confrontation. We are struggling today with irreconcilable differences that appear to be as threatening as slavery. Some observers today are warning of a return to violent confrontations
Unfortunately, some elected officials are speaking out in a manner that encourages more violence. Is this not a severe violation of the oath of office by which they swear to protect and defend the Constitution?
The challenges presented are illustrated in the U.S. Congress, particularly in the Senate. This is a legislative body that has not been able to do very much in response to the demands placed on us in the 21st century.
When reviewing this series of events is it not unreasonable to observe that instead of the United States of America, would it not be more logical to say that we live in the Divided States of America? The division can be well defined by looking at the broad political spectrum. We can identify the extremes positions as the left and the right. Traditionally, those adhering to the right are considered to be conservative. Those on the left are seen as liberals. And to simplify this division for easy demarcation, we have added the label red for the conservative adherents and the label blue for the liberal.
This is complex. Bear with me and tolerate my attempts to simplify. I think it is fair to say that those folks on the right end of the political spectrum desire to limit the role of government in our lives. They seem to have infused Ronald Reagan’s “Government is the problem” statement as an element of their blood-stream. On the other hand, at the left end of the spectrum, we have a group of people committed to the belief that government exists primarily to serve the needs of the people.
I hope cooler heads will prevail and the chance of re-ignition of a Civil War is avoided. I believe we can do better than that. With each side strongly committed to its philosophy, the opportunity for the national government to function is seriously compromised. Might there be a chance for a different scenario?
We should want to allow the “American experiment” to move into a new phase.
This could become very interesting. If the federal government finds itself stuck, it will be necessary for the individual states to assume more responsibility. Unless they want to return to home rule at the village level, the government at the state level will be forced to determine the amount of control appropriate for their constituency. In effect, the Divided States of America will provide the laboratory wherein the American experiment can move into that suggested new phase. Social scientists will have a new measure to test policy effectiveness.
Which philosophy, conservative or liberal, delivers the better life to which we all aspire? And there may well be some interstate migration as citizens choose the governmental style that appeals to them.
A serious caution here. There must be a system or process whereby the minority portion of each state will be protected. Some instrument of justice will be necessary to ensure the civil rights of those adhering to the minority principles they espouse. They could be called the ‘vocal minority.’ In the red states, the vocal minority would be the liberals and in the blue states, the vocal minority would be the conservatives.