"What Have We Got, a Republic or a Monarchy?"
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic if you can keep it," responded Franklin.
I've just finished reading John Ferling's Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 (Pivotal Moments in American History), a book that begs historical analogies to today's America. It's a wonder we have any democracy at all.
The philosophical differences between Adams and Jefferson are well known. What buttonholed me was the influence Alexander Hamilton had on our first three Presidents. Hamilton was intelligent, educated, competent, charming, and too clever by half—an arrogant, megalomaniacal nob contemptuous the press, the Presidents, and the people. He was not above practicing any act to secure power and his agenda.
Hamilton was the de facto leader of the Federalist Party who believed in the supreme power of a privileged class—and probably a monarchy. The parallel between the ultra–Federalists and our current neocons becomes more apparent as one reads on. The language Hamilton used in his Machiavellian missives, his groundless wish to go to war, his compulsion for government secrecy, his disposition for selective leaks, and his manipulation of the truth sounded eerily familiar. Ultimately, Hamilton's hubris was his undoing, but not before bringing the newly minted United States to the brink of death. He once said at a gathering that Julius Caesar was the greatest man in history.
Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's senior advisor, chief political strategist, and Deputy White House Chief of Staff, is a renowned Presidential historian. Clearly, he's familiar with Hamilton and ultra–Federalist policy. This shot through me when I read that Hamilton had used the words "with us or against us" and "evildoers," and equated dissent with treason. I don't believe in coincidence.
Both Adams and Jefferson understood that a strong, independent, effective executive branch was necessary if the republic were to succeed. Adams painted a clear picture of a President.
- The President must represent all the people.
- The President must protect people from oligarchies—a permanent elite—great scourges which ultimately end in tyranny and chaos.
- The Chief Executive must safeguard the nation against the fractures, arguments, and wars between the haves and have–nots.
- The President is the father and protector of the citizenry.
- He or she must be able to negotiate a path between all selfish interests and act for the greater common good.
- The President must be strong, independent, prudent, sagacious, wise, and more just than any other elected official.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were a blot on Adam's legacy, but, although signing them into law, in his defense they were not his idea.
Jefferson differed from Adams in that he believed in a smaller, more benign federal government. "Energetic government is always oppressive." It's unlikely he disagreed with Adams on the fundamental qualities of a good Chief Executive.
Compare George W. Bush's performance as President with Adam's fundamental description of a good Chief Executive, the Constitution of the United States (don't forget the Bill of Rights), President Washington's farewell address, and President Eisenhower's farewell address.
A question, Mr. Bush: What have you done to the republic with which you were entrusted?
No comments:
Post a Comment