Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The American experiment – a democratic republic – is worth defending

U.S. flag flapping in front of the Capitol Dome
rarrarorro/Getty Images

Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation ” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the 10th entry in a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.

As citizens of all stripes struggle to make sense of the rancorous polarization that defines our nation today, a reemerging debate centers on the very characterization of the American ideal itself: Do we strive to be a democracy or a republic?


The term republic comes from the Latin “public good.” Democracy, on the other hand, is rule according to the will of the majority. Many consider the distinction merely one of semantics, since so often the resulting debate is counterproductive, seldom yielding valuable insights. Moreover, the influence of monied interests, both mega companies and multibillionaires, reduces our contemporary reality closer to an oligopoly than to either a democracy or a republic.

Still, as we contemplate needed structural reforms, a target model to aim for seems indispensable (much as it was for our founders back in the late 18th century).

As Eric Bronner, the founder of Veterans for All Voters, wrote recently: “We can stop arguing over whether our country is a ‘democracy’ or a ‘Republic -- We are both! … Alright. That's settled. Let's move on.” Bronner is correct — we are indeed both. We are a democratic republic. But if, as he suggests, we leave the discussion at that, we miss an ripe opportunity for a pivotal teaching moment that just might help heal our wounds. Ironically, in today’s frenzied media environment, it is precisely a healthier understanding of our founding aspirations that is lacking and required lest we fail to bridge the American schism today.

In previous articles of this series, I have referred to the original American schism (as I write about in my book) as the split in the late 18th century among two factions of our founders in rigorous disagreement about the character of the new nation they were shaping. On one side of the debate were Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, who championed a decentralized egalitarian democracy (albeit, for white men) with the locus of power scattered to the individual communities across the colonies.

The opposing camp, led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams along with many other colonial elites, eschewed democracy. Dreading the caprices of a system where citizens would be prey to the clever rhetoric of malevolent, power-thirsty orators, they envisaged a greater centralized government with substantial power vested in a ruling class.

These two visions vying for prominence had roots in the social contract writings of the Enlightenment philosophers from that era. Hamilton’s camp, eventually called the Federalists, postulated the “aristocratic republic” greatly influenced by Montesquieu, Locke and others that grounded the British system subsequent to the 1688 Glorious Revolution. In this model, governance on behalf of the common good was the moral responsibility of those well-educated and up to the task (which for the mastermind Hamilton was a high bar indeed).

Jefferson’s camp, the Democratic-Republicans, was more profoundly influenced by a group of French philosophes such as Diderot, d’Holbach and Condorcet whose writings laid the foundation for the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen of 1789 during the early phases of the French Revolution (before the disastrous Reign of Terror).

The compromise between these two prototypes that became our Constitution was a mixed model combining elements of both. In fact, the collected Federalist Papers, which discuss this model at some depth and from different perspectives, is considered a brilliant political treatise precisely because it delineates how to thread the proverbial needle: James Madison and Hamilton (and John Jay to a much lesser degree) show us how both models can be combined into one blueprint in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

But it is precisely the balancing of these two opposing models wherein lies the magic of the American experiment as well as the basis for its endurance. The United States was explicitly designed by our founders as a mixed model in the pursuit for an equilibrium between two natural and unavoidable tensions — specifically, between the elite forces of the ruling class and the populist forces that must hold them accountable.

As the book claims, much of our history can be depicted as a pendulum-like oscillation between these two models, fluctuating upsurges in the power of the elites confronted by a populist demands for rectifications when the leaders fail to provide solutions for everyday citizens. The first populist wave occurred during the Jacksonian period as a reaction in part to the failures of the elite Federalists. As post-Civil War America emerged as an industrial machine, the ostensibly limitless influence of the banks, oil companies and railroads were challenged from the bottom up via a populist wave called the Farmers Alliance in the late 19th century. This empowering movement, which educated and unified millions of everyday Americans. ultimately led to the Progressive Era, which turned the page on the Gilded Age.

In sum, the polarization we see today is derivative of the original schism (as is the case with many other divisive periods of our history), and requires a deeper examination and understanding by our citizenry before we can contemplate an overhaul. The underlying disparities are not semantic — anything but. They are fundamental to comprehending our current crises and to chartering the road we must travel if our country is to endure.

The establishment’s pursuit of neoliberalism over the past 40 years has repeatedly ignored the pain of so many outside their ranks. The coastal elites’ sanctimonious detachment from the social conditions of “flyover country” is a principal feature underlying our current governance predicaments. As Oren Cass wrote in The New York Times:

“In a democratic republic such as the United States, where the people elect leaders to govern on their behalf, the ballot box is the primary check on an unresponsive, incompetent or corrupt ruling class. … Anyone worried about the future of American democracy should be concerned foremost with the elites’ bizarre belief that the road is theirs. This is the root cause of present instability and poses the most serious long-term threat to the Republic.”

It is only if and when the present ruling classes come to terms with the crushing indictment of their leadership by the voting classes that they can be held accountable and superseded by newly elected leaders. At the same time, working class Americans who are entitled to more responsible stewardship must also appreciate that the institutions sustaining our democratic republic are what accounts for its success and durability, and by tearing them down we risk shredding our social contract foundations beyond repair.

In today’s schism the tension between elite and populist forces manifests as a volatile mix of acrimony and self-righteousness from both sides. Only if we understand and account for the tension will we be able to transcend this unremitting battle and relieve our national pain. We need an honest debate about the advantages of both sides of our model and, as we have in the past, we must make necessary and overdue corrections that respect both (most likely requiring amendments to the Constitution). Having our cake and eating it too in this context means reaping the structural benefits of a meritocratic republic where the highly competent can lead, whilst also using the democratic elements of the voting box to throw the bastards out when they fail to be held to account for the common good.

By glossing over the stress created by design in our system, we fail to grasp that what divides us today is in fact a beneficial aspect of our republic (despite it not always feeling so sanguine). Without a frank understanding and accounting as such, the schism itself will never be healed. We must foster a deeper and broader appreciation for why our democratic republic, with all its historical chapters of tragic injustice, and with all its present day flaws and warts, is still the best example of self-government in our planet’s recorded history.

History can act as a salve for our wounds, if only we would apply it.

Read More

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Expand Democracy 5

The Expand Democracy 5

RCV Critics, the “Re-Gerrymander”, Citizen Initiatives, Deliberative Democracy

Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5. In August, the Expand Democracy team will be taking a break from creating new content, but we look forward to sharing grouped content from this year’s editions that they believe still remains relevant. Today's stories include:

🗳️ Deep dive: Ranked choice voting and its critics

Keep ReadingShow less
Girls drawing an American flag with chalk
United States continues to be a ‘flawed democracy’ in annual study
LWA/Dann Tardif/Getty Images

Innovating America’s Democracy Is Our Tradition and Our Responsibility

The American story is one of constant innovation and renewal, where democracy rises to meet the challenges of each new age. Our history documents a journey of transformation, inviting us to reflect on centuries of innovation in American democracy. Citizens have routinely amended outdated practices, reinforced core tenets, and forged new institutions. Our story highlights that reform is not only possible—it is tradition.

As we celebrate America’s 250th year, which began on July 4, 2025, we must also reflect on the nature of innovations in our democracy as a platform for encouraging Americans to embrace the next phase of reform. If we are successful in adding a new set of reforms to the historical arc, ones that remove the overly partisan influences on our electoral system, we might be able to reverse the hyperpartisan spiral George Washington warned us about; and we may re-align our electoral incentives to promote the kind of cooperation among elected leaders that might allow us to have on-time responsible budgets and the kinds of practical policies the country needs. It feels like a daunting task, but our forebears often tackled what were monumental revisions to our democracy in their times. And it would be a shame to let the 250th anniversary of our country come and go without taking up the charge given to us by those who came before us, the responsibility to leave our generation’s mark on our improving democracy. We have all the tools and ideas we need. We must decide if we have the will.

Keep ReadingShow less