Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A Republic, if we can keep it

Part XI: Washington's 'Rising Sun' chair

Opinion

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

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less