We live in a democratic republic. By definition, we are a nation in which the power to choose national, state and local leadership lies in the hands of the citizens. Once elected to office, these leaders have specific powers to govern as given to them by constitutions or charters that were approved by official representatives of the citizens or, at many local levels, the citizens themselves.
In most cases, the documents follow many or all of the ideals that are set down in the United States Constitution: “… form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .”
To guarantee these elected officials will not be able to abuse their powers, our founding fathers had the wisdom to include a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, providing the citizens with two crucial powers. First, to defend themselves in a court of law in which their status is innocent of any charges unless adequate evidence is presented to an impartial jury of one’s peers to find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And second, to sue a governing official or agency for abusing its power and restore proper administration and freedom.
I now ask you to consider two quotes — the first about a famous founding father and the second from a well-respected contemporary military leader.
From the Art and Science of Compromise about Thomas Jefferson: “Thomas Jefferson recognized the need for compromise, both as a means to build consensus for a more perfect union and as a means to defer to the future resolving issues that could break the country apart.”
“But just as they did in Philadelphia when they were writing the Constitution, sooner or later, you’ve got to compromise. You’ve got to start making the compromises that arrive at a consensus and move the country forward.” — Colin Powell
A key term in both these quotes is consensus. Consensus for what purpose? For Jefferson, a more perfect union; for Powell, to move the country forward. Both promote the ideal goal of the United States Constitution’s preamble (see above).
Consensus — this is a key element for a democratic nation to continually seek. There are too many people to make it possible for government to establish policies that support each individual’s or group’s agenda. Therefore, rather than promote a rift in the citizenry, wouldn’t it make more sense for our governing officials to work on legislation, policy and programs, that take the best of all views and follow a “give and take” format until the hard edges of each ideology can be softened to a point that they can be blended together while continuing to maintain the goal of our constitution — promoting a more perfect union?
Shouldn’t we as a nation be setting an example as to how a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, free thinking society promotes the ideals of democracy by negotiating controversial ideas until arriving at a compromise that unites opponents and encourages them to move forward to create a more perfect union? Do government officials need to point fingers at their opposition and label them as unpatriotic, weak, elitist or any other conflict promoting term in order to gain popularity? Should individuals seeking office try to convince their supporters that the opposition is evil, incompetent, self-serving, inhumane?
Candidates and elected officials demonstrating these attitudes and views are an embarrassment to the American citizenry. I, for one, am ashamed of having not only my fellow Americans but people around the world witnessing the name calling, labelling and gridlocking that exists in our government at all levels. It promotes the idea that we are a selfish people only interested in fulfilling personal agendas that may bring harm to others in need of help. Help that can only be available through a united self-sacrifice — a self-sacrifice necessary to create a more perfect union.
It should be obvious to any American that the United States is among the greatest nations in the world. Does its society need some repair or improvement? Certainly — what nation’s society doesn’t? But unlike many other nations, our affluence permits us to have both “guns and butter” — the means to defend ourselves and provide aid for our friends, and the means to promote the domestic general welfare.
The questions that remain now are these: Should that affluence be a tool used by extremists in this nation — left or right is irrelevant — to promote personal or group agendas dividing society into opposing forces? Or, should that affluence be put in the hands of those with a positive foresight and open minds — individuals who are willing to look at all sides of an issue and propose solutions that can be acceptable to all sides knowing there may be some self-sacrifice required in order to have the nation move forward? If our focus is on the latter question, won’t the United States become a beacon of light demonstrating the goodness of a democratic society?
I conclude by asking you to give the ideas in this column some serious thought. Investigate the candidates who appear on the ballot of upcoming elections. Then, vote for those who will make our nation an example of democratic principle at work in an effort to arrive at consensus over critical issues to achieve a more perfect union.