“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” a woman asked Ben Franklin in 1787, at the Constitutional Convention’s close. “A republic, if you can keep it,” he sagely replied.
This exchange has been quoted widely. So has a line written in 1798 by our second president, John Adams. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” he warned. “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Yet can we say about these admonitions that they’re known more than taken seriously? After all, even many Americans who’ve approvingly quoted the above don’t heed those Founders’ words.
Just consider “the rules of the game.” As famed psychologist Jordan Peterson once pointed out, athletic competition is inherently cooperative. For it to work, all parties involved must cooperate in abiding by the sport’s rules. Refuse to do so, and everything breaks down. Is it any different in the game of life — or of government?
That is to say, in our case, can our government — a constitutional republic — work if we don’t cooperate and abide by the “rules of the game”? I’m talking about the Constitution, which could be conceptualized as our national rule book.
Just an Old Piece of Parchment?
Reflecting wide opinion, comedian/commentator Bill Maher complained years ago that many people think the “10 amendments” are “the Ten Commandments.” Actually, the real problem is that many think the 10 amendments are the 10 suggestions. And why?
The Washington Examiner has some idea. Warning that the “Constitution won’t save us from our own ignorance,” the outlet wrote Sunday that as wonderful as our system is, it has a vulnerability:
The Constitution can survive for centuries. The citizens who operate it cannot.
Every generation disappears and is replaced by another. Each new generation enters the world knowing nothing about individual rights, constitutional limits, representative government, or why the peaceful transfer of political power matters. None of that knowledge is inherited.
A competent citizenry must therefore be rebuilt every generation.
That requires political education — not indoctrination into a party or ideology, but an understanding of the principles and machinery of self-government. Citizens need to understand why rights limit what majorities may do, why political opponents retain the same rights they claim for themselves, why government officials must remain subject to law, and why honest elections must provide a genuine means of holding those officials accountable.
… This is why political education is not an ornament of a free society. It is part of its maintenance.
Schools have a role. So do parents, historians, journalists, writers, and every institution engaged in serious public debate. A nation that ceases to teach the meaning and mechanics of self-government may retain its constitutional forms for a time. What it cannot retain indefinitely is the substance those forms were designed to protect.
Now, it’s undoubtedly true that education is imperative in preventing constitutional trespass. But is teaching — that transmission of knowledge — all that’s necessary? Or is there another, even more important prerequisite?
No Need to Kick Habits if You Can Avoid Them
Consider an analogy. Did you ever try motivating a loved one to quit a bad habit, such as overeating or smoking? When you’re young, especially, this can cause friction. Because you may, being new to things, repeatedly “remind” the person that he should “stop ______.” You may mean well, but the incessant reminders can begin to constitute nagging. Moreover, upon growing in wisdom you may realize something:
Is the problem really a lack of knowledge?
No, the person “knows” the counsel’s substance — he’s heard the advice literally hundreds of times. He also almost assuredly grasps that ______ is bad for him. Clearly, the issue isn’t lack of knowledge, but of something else.
Many would call it the “discipline to quit.” But there’s a better term: virtue (that set of objectively good moral habits).
For example, the virtues of Fortitude (which includes perseverance) and Diligence help us break bad habits. The virtue of Temperance helps us avoid those habits, such as overeating or excessive smoking, in the first place. But what of civic duty?
The Indispensable Software
Not surprisingly, virtue prevents us from developing bad civic habits, too. This is why the Founding Fathers repeatedly stressed that virtue in the people was a prerequisite for enjoying legitimate liberty. As John Adams put it, “The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.”
After all, many people “know” at least something about constitutional limitations — but many also just don’t care. But it was virtue that enabled George Washington to reject a suggestion he become king. It was his virtue that his arch-rival, King George III, recognized when, reportedly, calling him “the greatest man in the world.” And it is only virtue, in Americans, that could prevent us from violating the Constitution to advance our selfish aims.
That is, someone can “inform” us that the Constitution matters and should be abided by. But only Prudence (wisdom) can enable us to understand why. A person can “educate” us on how trampling the Constitution in power’s or ideology’s name is folly. But only a sense of Humility and Justice will actually put that in our hearts and prevent us from doing so.
Soft Hearts — or Soft Heads?
To provide a real-life example, we all want our fellow man to have healthcare. Whatever we do to accomplish this, however, having nationalized healthcare is unconstitutional. Something mirroring this can be lawfully effected on the state level (whether or not that’s wise is a different matter). But trying to implement it state by state is a longer, more difficult process and, therefore, requires discipline — virtue.
President Grover Cleveland, the “last great Democrat,” possessed it. In 1887, a bill to purchase seed grain for drought-stricken Texas farmers came across his desk. It’s entirely possible that he greatly desired they receive help, too. But he vetoed that bill, saying he could find “no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.”
Today Cleveland would be skewered in media and called uncompassionate — if he were lucky. (And he’d more likely be another “fascist.”) Of course, though, today, only people willing to ignore the Constitution, at least in great part, can win office. That is our fault, reflects more than just poor education, and is why we may not long “keep” our Republic.
