Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Coming to terms with elitism and intellectual arrogance

A Republic, if we can keep it: Part XXXII

Silhouette of an American politician speakting , with the country's flag on the left
Andrea Nicolini/Getty Images

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

Over the past 11 months I have written more than 30 essays for The Fulcrum’s A Republic if we can keep it series. My charge was “to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year,” and to remind readers of the matchless quality of our unique experiment in democracy. The process of putting these constitutional thoughts on paper has been exceedingly rewarding, and I hope readers have learned a thing or two along the way.

Sadly, though, I now fear that I failed miserably in my one crucial task.


The Fulcrum is a special platform “where insiders and outsiders to politics are informed, meet, talk, and act to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives.” In our everyday lives! That’s an important qualifier.

The platform rests on several steadfast principles. Primarily, it is fiercely nonpartisan. I have tried to remain so in my own writings, and where I have strayed the wonderful editors of the publication have put me straight.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

But like most readers I possess a longstanding partisan identity, shaped by years of lived experience. I am a moderate Democrat, more Pete Buttigieg than Bernie Sanders. Even being centrist, though, is ideological. It is hard to be nonpartisan when democracy is a zero-sum game. It is especially hard to be nonpartisan when you believe one candidate for the presidency and his elected party followers so often violate basic moral principles. I have failed in my attempt to remain partisan-neutral by refusing to meet the polarized American voter where she is.

Allow me to explain. Nonpartisanship can mean a few things. It can mean remaining as objective as humanly possible. “Just the facts, ma’am.” It can also mean describing — fairly and impartially— the ideological positions of both sides of a debate. As long as one gives roughly equal time and equal treatment to ideological differences, some degree of nonpartisanship is surely achieved.

There is a third way as well, one that until this election I did not fully understand. Nonpartisanship is also realized if one can get into the headspace of those who disagree with you. “Put yourself in someone’s else’s shoes” is such a cliché. But in a deeply divided polis like ours it may be the antidote to the rage and distrust that now infects so many of us.

I’ve been smug. Indeed, the very hook of this series smacks of exactly the type of elitism and arrogance that irritates so many Republican voters these days. The idea that we should internalize the thoughts of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison when real people are struggling is, to put it mildly, pompous. It’s an intellectual luxury to wave the Federalist Papers in everyone’s face, and it does not help put overpriced food on the table or manage an out-of-control southern border. In some ways, the original story of Franklin responding to Elizabeth Willing Powel’s sincere question about what kind of political design he and the Framers produced is illustrative. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin said. His response was haughty. And condescending. I’m afraid I’ve been too.

Don’t misunderstand me. I will never shy away from a civics lesson. Americans should know how the Constitution was formed and how the text has been viewed over the years. We must understand how democracy still undergirds our political system and how the guardrails of checks and balances, federalism, individual rights and the “consent of the governed” are fragile. We should never take for granted that 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention invented a republic that has changed the world for the better. And we best never forget that they bequeathed to us a system of self-governance that is so worth preserving.

But now is the time for understanding. Not lessons. It’s a time for walking that mile in someone else’s shoes. No more judging. I swear David Brooks was speaking to me when he wrote in The New York Times: “there’s something off about an educated class that looks in the mirror of society and sees only itself.”

As we continue to strive for some modest measure of unity, a coming together of sorts, we — I — must pledge to understand the whole of America, the good people I disagree with as well as those sitting familiarly under my partisan tent. Such a shift requires a new mindset and a new perspective. It’s time.

Read More

Donald Trump and his family on stage

President-elect Donald Trump claimed a mandate on Nov. 6.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Elections don’t tell leaders what voters want. 2024 was no exception.

Interpreting the meaning of any election is no easy task. In a democracy, the results never speak for themselves. That is as true of the 2024 presidential election as it has been for any other.

This year, as is the case every four years, the battle to say what the results mean and what lessons the winning candidate should learn began as soon as the voters were counted. But, alas, elections don’t speak for themselves.

Keep ReadingShow less
Young people cheering

Supporters cheer during a campaign event with Vice President Kamala Harris at Temple University in Philadelphia on Aug. 6.

Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The youth have spoken in favor of Harris, but it was close

For many young voters, the 2024 presidential election was the moment they had been waiting for. Months of protests and demonstrations and two political conventions had all led to this — the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights and have a say in their future.

While Donald Trump won the election, Kamala Harris won among young voters. But even though 18- to 29-year-olds provided the strongest support for Harris, President Joe Biden did better with that cohort four years ago.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand-drawn Pilgrim hat with the words "Happy Thanksgiving"
mushroomstore/Getty Images

This Thanksgiving, it's not only OK but necessary to talk politics

This Thanksgiving, do not follow the old maxim that we should never discuss politics at the dinner table.

Many people's emotions are running high right now. Elections often bring out a wide range of feelings, whether pride and optimism for those who are pleased with the results or disappointment and frustration from those who aren’t. After a long and grueling election season, we need to connect with and not avoid one another.

Keep ReadingShow less
Men in "Dominicans for Trump" shirts

Attendees cheer as former President Donald Trump speaks on stage during a campaign rally in Allentown, Pa.,. in October.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The great Latino apology: It’s ‘the street,’ stupid

Donald Trump secured a surprising 43 percent of the Latino vote, enough to swing the election in his favor. Now, Democrats are forced to confront the fallout of their failure, which is rooted in decades of disinvestment and disregard for the diverse Latino communities. Articles, conferences and white papers have warned of these consequences for years.

Those familiar with Latino politics know that Latinos voting for Republicans is nothing new. Historically, Cuban Americans and some South American groups have formed a solid Republican voting bloc. What’s new is the recent shift among Mexican Americans, Central Americans and Puerto Ricans. Was it religion? Racism? Machismo? Misogyny? Negative experiences with government in the United States and home countries? A look at Mexico and its first female president (of Jewish descent) this year might challenge some of these assumptions. Whether this shift is permanent remains to be seen.

Keep ReadingShow less