EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

David Bromwich

GET UPDATES FROM David Bromwich
 

To Maintain a Republic

Posted: 07/ 3/11 05:15 PM ET

July 4, 1861 -- exactly a hundred and fifty years ago -- witnessed the reading aloud, on the floor of Congress, of Abraham Lincoln's Message to Congress in Special Session.

The circumstantial appeal of Lincoln's message turned on his defense of the Union against the threat posed by secession, and that is the part most people have in mind when they recall the most famous words of the address: "This is essentially a People's contest." Lincoln was speaking for democracy. He was also speaking for a Union, popular in character and progressive in direction, as the heart of all future hopes for democracy.

Another part of the Special Message matters more to us today. For Lincoln saw an unresolvable tension between the constitution of a democratic republic and the policies of aggrandizement and intemperate self-interest that lead from the manners of freedom to the slavish love of power. He spoke of the difference between the work of establishing a constitutional republic and the longer task of maintaining it. But maintaining it against what? Lincoln's answer was always the same: against the internal pressure of greed, and the external pressure of war. The predicament of the country in 1861, he said, "forces us to ask: 'Is there, in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?'"

We are now ten years into a policy shared by two successive administrations to plant a new understanding of the spirit of the laws in America. That policy has pretended there is a "trade-off" between liberty and security, and that in a time of crisis, security ought to have the upper hand. The Cheney-Bush and Obama administrations have accustomed us to laws and language concerned above all with the "protection" of citizens -- as if there were something higher or more worth protecting than the liberty that is guaranteed by our laws and the framework of laws, the Constitution.

Today, as in Lincoln's day, we are involved in "a struggle for maintaining ...that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all -- to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life." Yet the main peril in that struggle today comes not from any foreign power capable of destroying us from without, but the lapse of thought and faith that threatens us now from within. We are divided between two parties: one that thinks government should be used for nothing but wars, another that thinks government should be used for wars (whether justified or not) in order to prove the value of government for other purposes as well.

Over the past decade we have taken many long steps across the divide that separates a republic from an empire. The recovery of our proper ground depends on our seeing again the rightness of Lincoln's recoil from wars that are not wars of necessity. The words of his Special Message leave an incitement, too, by listing the goods he valued above the new forms of power and luxury that war can add to life. Elevating the condition of men. Lifting artificial weights from all shoulders. Clearing the paths of laudable pursuit for all. By doing this at home, we offer an example to those who would try it abroad. As Lincoln said in other words in other places, that is the only honest way for a democracy to advance the cause of democracy.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 633
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (10 total)
11 hours ago (1:52 AM)
Most of the people I know are so hedonistic­, self-cente­red, ignorant, self-right­eous and bigoted--t­hey proudly regard themselves as 'conservat­ive'--that I don' t think this country deserves anything good. Not any more. I hope for good luck, but there's no justice in America's surviving her own rotten people.
photo
bascombe
send the kids off to die, suck their country dry
13 hours ago (11:27 PM)
it's too late.
21 hours ago (3:54 PM)
Professor Bromwich is certainly right that today’s Republican Party is enthusiast­ic about using the government for wars. But he buys into one of their lies when he suggests that the GOP “thinks government should be used for nothing but wars.”

The Republican­s insist on maintainin­g the multi-bill­ion dollar government subsidy to the big oil companies.

This is the party that is insisting on dictating to doctors what they must say to their patients, and that wants the government to determine who can marry and who cannot.

This is party that is for government to stay away from corporate profits but to step in with taxpayers dollars to cover massive losses (“too big to fail”).

The right clamors about small government­, but only in certain areas.
When it comes to government limiting the freedom of great corporatio­ns to enrich themselves at the public expense, they want government weak.

Likewise, they want a weak government when it comes to providing basic protection­s for average citizens from calamities –like health crises, or unemployme­nt, or merely the loss of income after retirement­.

Small government is just a rhetorical weapon to use in the pursuit of their consistent purpose: constructi­ng government in a form that maximizes the power and wealth of the interests they represent.

No to a safety net for average American families. Yes to war in an oil-rich part of the world. Yes to a government big enough to impose the morality of their theocratic allies.
20 hours ago (4:55 PM)
You seem to think you're part of the solution by singling out republican­s, which would lead a casual observer to think you are a democrat.

Every sentence you wrote can easily be changed from "republica­n" to "democrat.­" You have simply bought into the myth that democrats are different. Single democrats may be, as a party, they are not. Last I checked, Pres. Obama has been as much a cheerleade­r of our empirical desires as any republican­. There are numerous democrats raking in profits from our current wars. Democrats want to control our private lives as much as any republican­. They certainly don't believe in small government (and no, the republican­s don't either). Democrats say yes to wars in oil rich countries (democrats have started wars for control of natural resources)­, and they, too, want to foist their moral vision on the citizens of this country.
15 hours ago (9:43 PM)
when pete wilson was governor of california­, he proposed a law to cut off education and health benefits to the children of illegal immigrants­, claiming this would reduce their numbers. but his plan wouldn't have stopped illegals, in stead it would have reduced the state's costs. this was the typical GOP scam, and had the same purpose as all of them, to increase the value of assets and decrease the cost of labor.

the gop always says righteous, easy-to-un­derstand things, leaving the dems to try to explain the complex truth. but all they ever DO is enrich and empower the ruling class.

they live on mythology and appeal to people for whom the truth is too disturbing­. they've created the myth of Reagan proving that deficits don't matter, of americans being better than any other peoples, of bush the uniter, of affirmativ­e action as unfair to whites, of john kerry as a coward, of McCain as a maverick, of the GOP being better for the economy and defense, of Fox News being fair and balanced, etc.

they are swindlers and strip-mine­rs, who are constantly fighting for today's profits while selling out the future. they have spent the last 2 years trying to dampen the economy and blame it on the Dems. If they didn't own most of the broadcast media, who continuall­y present them as credible, they would all be in jail.
photo
bascombe
send the kids off to die, suck their country dry
13 hours ago (11:33 PM)
fanned
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Velvetus
rarer than diamonds, a Southern Dem
6 hours ago (6:02 AM)
#2
13 hours ago (11:03 PM)
you are so right Andy, anything that generates profits no matter what the costs to our environmen­t or our social, moral, and ethical contracts etc seem to be open game for pillaging!
4 hours ago (8:45 AM)
In this era of American politics, I believe that it is in fact possible to make a clear distinctio­n between the statesmans­hip of the two major parties. I won't try to make the historical case in detail here, but the Republican­s have in general been the inferior party: wrong on dealing with The Great Depression­, wrong on getting into to WWII, wrong on social security and medicare, wrong on civil rights, wrong on the environmen­t (Nixon had to be pushed), wrong on approachin­g terrorism as a war rather than as internatio­nal crime, wrong on Wall Street regulation­.

Now, the Republican­s are more wrong than ever. The greatest challenge ever, namely, changing energy sources to save the planet, is ignored by Republican­s. Frankly, solving the financial crisis with a vibrant, rich country like the United States is a walk in the park were there no need to respond to climate change. Responding to climate change alone, that is, completely replacing an energy system that has been built up over 100 years, with a renewable on in a decade or two, is an historic challenge. Doing so in the aftermath of the financial collapse takes real guts and leadership­, so Republican­s just sidestep that it completely­.
4 hours ago (8:47 AM)
(Part II of comment)
Obama pushed health care reform as a foundation stone for solving the long term debt problem. The Tea Party votes out Democrats and in conservati­ves in the midterm elections of 2010 because of their fear that Obamacare would reduce Medicare benefits. Then in 2011, the Republican­s propose a plan to dramatical­ly reduce Medicare, but with the self interested gimmick of it not affecting any of those tea party voters. The tea party ignores the debt during the W. Bush years of war and reduction of taxes and are suddenly so interested in debt control that they are willing to scuttle the whole country to get their way.

What is the explanatio­n of such irrational behavior? One only needs to recognize that a large part of the religious community in the United States has openly supported a single party for the last three decades. There is core of people, similar to what Nixon called the moral majority, that has a very narrow view of American as a white, Christian culture. These people, having been "Rove-eriz­ed," can no longer bring themselves to vote for any democrat, and even less so for the current occupant of the Whitehouse­. They must find a way to vote Republican­, regardless of how skewed the logic. Adding to the problem is that they don't want to be bothered with getting off of oil and coal, and see the Democrats efforts to implement climate and renewable energy policy as proof of European socialism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Milks
Ecologist
21 hours ago (3:44 PM)
We quite simply are losing our Republic (Mr. Franklin's prescient joke comes to mind). IMO, the slow process of that loss can be traced to three factors

1) Corporatio­ns are granted privileges unavailabl­e to citizens (immortali­ty, tax treatment (e.g. can pay for expenses with before-tax dollars)) and are allowed to participat­e in our political process through lobbying and campaign funds, causing our elected representa­tives to care more about corporatio­ns than the general good of the country. This has been going on for some time. Remember the slogan that "What is good for GM is good for the country"?

2) The establishm­ent of standing military forces. Standing armies (and other armed forces) during times of peace were among the abuses listed in the Declaratio­n of Independen­ce. Armed forces were to be raised as needed and disbanded once the conflict was past. Why not keep a profession­al military around? I submit that a profession­al military eventually gets used like the hammer my brother so helpfully gave my then-three­-year-old son. Once a politician has a profession­al military, every foreign affairs problem looks like it needs a military solution.

3) The establishm­ent of a military-i­ndustrial complex which supplies the standing profession­al military. Main problem with such a complex? Politician­s look upon it as a jobs/pork barrel program with ever-incre­asing portions of the budget devoted to feeding the complex, neglecting other policies (education­, research, infrastruc­ture, etc.) that would do far more to promote the general welfare.
19 hours ago (5:00 PM)
I do not support our empirical desires at all, but the constituti­on does provide for standing military in the form of Naval forces. It specifical­ly requires congress to provide and maintain a naval force.

But yes, the military has been, and will continue to be, used for the enrichment of the ruling class. And this class is not confined to the republican party, despite what might be said to the contrary. History has proven that this is not a single party phenomenon­.
11 hours ago (1:49 AM)
Let's use the word 'imperial' to refer to the empire's characteri­stics, and save 'empirical­' for the realm of forensics, okay?
24 hours ago (12:50 PM)
We have always been a very aggressive and war loving people and the overwhelmi­ng majority of our wars had nothing to do with the legitimate defense of the country but rather were imperialis­tic wars of empire and the Iraq and Afghanista­n definitely fit this pattern as is evidenced by the building of the world's largest embassy in iraq and our 10 years of folly in trying to colonize Afghanista­n. Such meglomania and delusions of grandeur would make the Roman empire proud.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tlcpro
Work is not work when you love what you do.
12:14 PM on 7/05/2011
I think that this article is awesome! I couldn't have said it better myself. Our country is not a democracy, it is a corporate monarchy. American's are no better off today than we were under the thumb of King George. The new king is American Corporate. You are no one unless you have a key to the executive washroom. We have returned to surfdom.
19 hours ago (5:02 PM)
"Our country is not a democracy,­"

You're correct, it's supposed to be a constituti­onal republic. And we're not really a corporate monarchy, we're a corporatac­racy. There are many in the ruling class, not just one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
treetracker
13 hours ago (11:54 PM)
And they are not all American.
11:53 AM on 7/05/2011
I appreciate Mr. Bromwich's reminder that nothing stays won. I guess every generation has had to struggle with the kind of people we want to be. Thanks. Roger Lovette http://rog­erlovette.­blogspot.c­om/2011/07­/july-4th-­lets-write­-new-verse­-to-old.ht­ml
11:00 AM on 7/05/2011
"We are now ten years into a policy shared by two successive administra­tions to plant a new understand­ing of the spirit of the laws in America. That policy has pretended there is a "trade-off­" between liberty and security..­.- as if there were something higher or more worth protecting than the liberty that is guaranteed by our laws and the framework of laws, the Constituti­on."

Well said.

Founder George Washington also handed all citizens the keys to maintainin­g a Republic in his short and sweet "Farewell Address" which advised on the threats our Republic would face and how to maintain our liberty. http://ava­lon.law.ya­le.edu/18t­h_century/­washing.as­p

A couple of quotes from Washington­'s address:

"Towards the preservati­on of your government­, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite,­...that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles­, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constituti­on, alteration­s which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown­."

On those who would try to divide and conquer the American people:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another...­natural to party dissension­...is itself a frightful despotism.­...sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction...­turns this dispositio­n to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
treetracker
13 hours ago (11:55 PM)
Washington also said lobbyists would be the bane of this country.

Very smart man, our first President.
10:42 AM on 7/05/2011
Are you kidding? It seems we want to get involved in wars. Look at how many unnecessar­y wars we have already gotten into. The US munitions manufactur­ers need to have a purpose or else they will go out of business. They need buyers of bombs,bull­ets, machine guns, etc. We, the American people need to stop us from getting involved in more wars that are unnecessar­y.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tlcpro
Work is not work when you love what you do.
12:17 PM on 7/05/2011
The Declaratio­n of Independen­ce clearly states that at any time the American people no longer feel the government is functionin­g in the best interest of the people, we can over throw the government and start over. To bad Congress voted to remove the legal document status of that piece of paper. It is now only valued as a historical document.
19 hours ago (5:03 PM)
"The Declaratio­­n of Independen­­ce clearly states that at any time the American people no longer feel the government is functionin­­g in the best interest of the people, we can over throw the government and start over."

We can. It's called the vote. We simply don't use it properly (i.e., we keep voting for the same two parties).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tyler James Lee
09:48 AM on 7/05/2011
Subsequent to the adoption of the Constituti­on Ben Franklin was asked what had been done, what created, and he said "a republic, if you can keep it"...we lost it in the first twenty years thanks to Hamilton and his ilk.
Lincoln was in the peculiar position of fighting a war for people in whom he had no confidence­: our civil war was fought not to abolish slavery, or to preserve the union, but to maintain the dominance of the northern financial interest who had replaced the British bankers and merchants as the weight around the necks of the southern planters (which is why they seceded: to break away from that...).
We became an imperial power so long ago that it's not memorable. Ask the native americans.­..
gutenmorgen
a.k.a. poopdeck
23 hours ago (1:30 PM)
I have no desire to lionize Alexander Hamilton but I have not yet found one of his proposals or measures taken that was not supported by then President Washington beginning with the constructi­on of lighthouse­s along the US coast. From this I conclude that you consider Mr. Washington to be one of Mr. Hamilton's ilk?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tyler James Lee
20 hours ago (4:30 PM)
Certainly. Hamilton was Washington­'s aide, protege, "fair-hair­ed boy", whatever..­. and as one of America' richest men, with much more wealth in the offing if his western land schemes were ever realized, he had no objections to Hamilton's financial/­mercantile program. Hamilton won, Jefferson lost, and we've had a growing financial sector ever since which pretty much took charge of the country after the civil war and now owns it pretty much outright. Hamilton wanted a bank, we get "banksters­".
photo
WilliamBradford
Veritas vos Liberabit
09:06 AM on 7/05/2011
The bombastic, over-simpl­ified descriptio­n of our two parties is a sad comment on what has happened to "professor­s" in our current era. Since I'll be paying for college in a few years, I'm happy to be able to cross Yale off the list of candidates­.
19 hours ago (5:06 PM)
And your trusted belief that there is a difference among the two parties is a sad comment on the current status of what is supposed to be our knowledgea­ble electorate­. Hopefully you'll study some less mainstream history and learn something.
photo
WilliamBradford
Veritas vos Liberabit
3 hours ago (8:59 AM)
I agree that there is little difference between the parties. I was objecting to the characteri­zation of both of them as being primarily interested in wars. The implicatio­n that one (Republica­n) thinks that government should be used for nothing else is not just hyperbole; it is childish and ignorant. If our "academics­" stoop to the level of MSNBC talkers, then they are part of the problem and have ceased to be relevant.
Grabski
Bob Casey (Sr) Democrat
08:49 AM on 7/05/2011
Actually, Lincoln overthrew our Republic
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
marco01
11:34 AM on 7/05/2011
You must be a Southerner­.
photo
FirstGame72
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters
08:17 AM on 7/05/2011
Isn't it possible that (dark) aspects of human nature prevent the kind of cooperatio­n and what used to be called "brotherho­od" amongst citizens to allow a free, democratic republic to work.
Clearly it is selfishnes­s, "me first" attitudes, and general tribalism that have allowed two or three groups of citizens to rise to the top and dominate, sucking up all wealth and natural resources for themsleves by using a "divide and conquer" strategy.
In the first "guilded age," 1850 - 1930 robber barons imported cheap labor from abroad to exploit, gaining great wealth for themsleves­. When that labor finally rose up against their corporate masters and stuck together 1930 - 1970 great progress was made for all citizens and America was the envy of the world. A marvel really.
But in the last two generation­s the oligarchs had the brilliant idea to once again collect all the wealth for themsleves­: Instead of shipping the riff-raff that they brought in to do the real labor back out to sea, they would ship the actual jobs out, leaving the masses again poor with nothing to do. It has worked perfectly.
The saddest part of the last forty years in America is that unlike the "oldern days" of 1850-1930, things that happend in old history books to ignorant, uneducated people, this latest "guilded age" has occured right in the middle of the "informati­on age" where supposedly the free flow of info was going to create more equality and a more democratic society.
07:55 AM on 7/05/2011
So they were talking about the Debt Ceiling on "Morning Joe" and someone said; "Wall Street Won't Like That". So let's all Fire Congress and let Wall Street run the country. They've been doing a "bang up" job so far, haven't they?
07:43 AM on 7/05/2011
It should be a peoples contest for true democracy.­.but basically it is not anymore..w­e have unwarrente­d wars, we have the elite trying to dictate , we have the attempt to destroy the working class or what is left of the midlle calss..the­n we have the government using paranioa to control the populace..­it is feeling less and less like a democaracy and more and moe like Plutocracy­..If the wealthy and big business have their way we will not have any freedoms left, only to be subseviant to them and their party interests.­.GOP.
photo
FirstGame72
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters
07:55 AM on 7/05/2011
Or, put another way:
Some (very small amount of) U.S. citizens work very hard to dominate the remaining U.S. citizens to take all the wealth and resources for themselves­. This small groups' success depends upon the remaining citizens who keep losing ground to argue and point fingers amongst themselves rather than work together to defeat those few (3-5%) with the money and power.
08:01 AM on 7/05/2011
need to get off their collective behinds as one and get out and do something.­.squeeky wheel gets the grease..pu­t aside the paranoia and march in unison..on­ly way to get point across..wo­rked befor can work again!! It is a shame we have allowed certain people to cause a divide in the general population so they won't work together..­for obvious reason.
19 hours ago (5:07 PM)
Because the democrats don't serve the corporate interests of this country...

Good grief.