Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A Republic, if we can keep it

Part XI: Washington's 'Rising Sun' chair

Detail of the "Rising Sun" chair

The chair George Washington used during the Constitutional Convention is decorated with a rising sun — an apt metaphor for the United States, then and now, writes Breslin.

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.”

This is the latest in a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Since 1958, the Pew Research Center has unfailingly tracked the public’s trust in government. It ain’t pretty. From a high during the early days of Lyndon Johnson’s administration, when roughly eight in 10 Americans proclaimed they had faith in Washington, to this very moment, when less than 20 percent say the same thing, the last six decades have witnessed a steady decline of Americans’ confidence in their federal institutions. Today, we are living in the most cynical, contemptuous and pessimistic era in modern history.


The reason for such gloom is varied. One study points to a sort of cyclical explanation: “negative perceptions of the economy, scandals associated with Congress, and increasing public concern about crime each lead to declining public trust in government. Declining trust in government in turn leads to less positive evaluations of Congress and reduced support for government action to address a range of domestic policy concerns.” Another study suggests the media, including social media, is partly to blame. Still another offers an interesting take that individualism, isolation, and the decline of America’s civic organizations has exacerbated suspicion and distrust. The answer is no doubt a combination of all of these factors – and many, many more.

One contributing factor that doesn’t get a whole lot of attention is our impulse to brood. Known as the negativity bias, humans are hardwired to “register” and to “dwell on” negative stimuli. All else being equal, in other words, our minds will gravitate to the negative.

In the political arena, such insight was broadly captured by James Madison in “Federalist 51.”

“What is government itself,” he wondered, “but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

Political officials are certainly not angels — then or now — and so we require “external controls” like constitutions, checks and balances, bills of rights, frequent elections, federalism, popular sovereignty and so on to prevent various forms of tyranny. The American political system is among the most intricate in the world, and that is because the Framers understood that humans are more likely to display demonic behavior than angelic. Sad as it sounds, the most elegant and successful political design in the history of the world was erected on a foundation of skepticism, apprehension and doubt.

None of us can escape our instincts, and thus none of us can fully dodge our negativity bias. But we can harness it and we can assemble our own personal “external controls” that, in the political setting at least, might reverse our collective reflex to distrust. We should begin with manageable undertakings. Commit to spending a week watching broadcasts from the opposite side of the partisan divide ... and really listen to those broadcasts. Enter into a conversation with someone from the opposite political party ... and endeavor to “ meet them where they are.” Remind oneself that political foes are just trying to locate a place for themselves in the political commotion and that most just want to tell their story and have others hear it.

Then attempt a few more ambitious endeavors. Kevin Frazier’s idea to switch to “no party preference” is a good one. If that doesn’t feel right, drop your Republican or Democratic party affiliation and register as an independent. How about shifting a few donor dollars from political parties or favored candidates to nonpartisan organizations that promote democracy, justice and equality? (The Fulcrum is an excellent place to start, but so is the Center for Civic Education or my favorite, the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution at James Madison’s Montpelier.) Of course, we should all join bowling leagues too.

And then there are the long-term ventures, the ones that, together with the personal projects above, will reshape the entire political landscape. I’m talking about structural changes to the body politic, architectural transformation that will bring about a new and modernized political system: Term limits for members of Congress, reimagining the way we elect our president, fixing the appallingly undemocratic Senate. Introducing these and other reforms would represent a renewal, a political recalibration for the 21st century. And even if our efforts ultimately fail (because politicians don’t want to modify a system that perpetuates their power, for example), we could really use the level of engagement that dialogue on this topic brings about. Let’s amend the Constitution to foster faith.

When viewed on the Pew chart, the steady downward trend of America’s trust in government looks strikingly like the celestial arc of a setting sun. It calls to mind a famous story that emerged from the final day of the Constitutional Convention.

The date is Sept. 17, 1787, and Madison is waiting for his turn to sign the newly drafted Constitution. Autographing the parchment will be the last act in a four-month production that will forever change the world. The “father of the Constitution” stands behind an aging and feeble Benjamin Franklin, who, Madison recounts, is staring at the chair that bore George Washington throughout the proceedings.

Made from mahogany by a master cabinetmaker, this Chippendale chair is exquisite. The back splat is ornate, the seat is covered in the finest leather. But Franklin is peering at the crest rail, the very top of the chair that supported General Washington’s head. Carved at the center of that crest rail is a half sun, an intricate and striking ornament to a magnificent piece of furniture. The sun’s rays are embellished in gold, as are the forehead, eyes and nose of the sun’s most pleasant face. All in the delegation would have been awed by its beauty.

Franklin begins to speak. “Painters,” he says, “have found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. I have, often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.”

The sun will rise again on the American republic. If we have faith.

Read More

Is Bombing Iran Deja Vu All Over Again?

The B-2 "Spirit" Stealth Bomber flys over the 136th Rose Parade Presented By Honda on Jan. 1, 2025, in Pasadena, California. (Jerod Harris/Getty Images/TNS)

Jerod Harris/Getty Images/TNS)

Is Bombing Iran Deja Vu All Over Again?

After a short and successful war with Iraq, President George H.W. Bush claimed in 1991 that “the ghosts of Vietnam have been laid to rest beneath the sands of the Arabian desert.” Bush was referring to what was commonly called the “Vietnam syndrome.” The idea was that the Vietnam War had so scarred the American psyche that we forever lost confidence in American power.

The elder President Bush was partially right. The first Iraq war was certainly popular. And his successor, President Clinton, used American power — in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere — with the general approval of the media and the public.

Keep ReadingShow less
Conspiratorial Thinking Isn’t Growing–Its Consequences Are
a close up of a typewriter with the word conspiracy on it

Conspiratorial Thinking Isn’t Growing–Its Consequences Are

The Comet Ping Pong Pizzagate shooting, the plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and a man’s livestreamed beheading of his father last year were all fueled by conspiracy theories. But while the headlines suggest that conspiratorial thinking is on the rise, this is not the case. Research points to no increase in conspiratorial thinking. Still, to a more dangerous reality: the conspiracies taking hold and being amplified by political ideologues are increasingly correlated with violence against particular groups. Fortunately, promising new research points to actions we can take to reduce conspiratorial thinking in communities across the US.

Some journalists claim that this is “a golden age of conspiracy theories,” and the public agrees. As of 2022, 59% of Americans think that people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories today than 25 years ago, and 73% of Americans think conspiracy theories are “out of control.” Most blame this perceived increase on the role of social media and the internet.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illness, Presidents, and Confidantes

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks at the Economic Club of Washington, DC September 19, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Illness, Presidents, and Confidantes

Ever since the reality of President Biden’s mental and physical decline has been made public, ink is being spent, bemoaning that the nation was at risk because the President was not fit to make crucial decisions twenty-four hours a day.

Isn’t it foolish that, in a constitutional republic with clear separation and interdependence of powers, we should rely on one human being to make a decision at three in the morning that could have grievous consequences for the whole nation and the world? Are we under the illusion that we must and can elect an all-wise, always-on, energizer-bunny, superhero?

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

Trump's reliance on inflammatory, and often dehumanizing, language is not an unfortunate quirk—it’s a deliberate tactic.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

From ‘Obliteration’ to ‘Enemies Within’: Trump’s Language Echoes Authoritarianism

When President Trump declared that the U.S. strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, it wasn’t just a policy claim—it was an exercise in narrative control. Predictably, his assertion was met with both support and skepticism. Yet more than a comment on military efficacy, the statement falls into a broader pattern that underscores how Trump uses language not just to communicate but to dominate.

Alongside top officials like CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump claimed the strikes set Iran’s nuclear ambitions back by years. However, conflicting intelligence assessments tell a more nuanced story. A leaked Defense Intelligence Agency report concluded that while infrastructure was damaged and entrances sealed, core components such as centrifuges remained largely intact. Iran had already relocated much of its enriched uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency echoed that damage was reparable.

Keep ReadingShow less