In 1820, discussing the issue of slavery Thomas Jefferson opined, “We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.”
Jefferson’s words might also serve as an accurate distillation of citizenship requirements in 21st-century America. We are marred by a seemingly divisive climate, making it understandable if one feels they do indeed have the wolf by the ear with two undesirable options.
Many want American democracy to do something for which it was never designed—provide simplistic solutions for insoluble challenges. No yarn in isolation can effectively account for the American narrative. It is an uneven road pregnant with greatness and paradox. Birthed as a colonial enterprise, America’s secession document (Declaration of Independence) spoke against the portions of British rule the Founding Fathers opposed but conveniently left the door ajar for what could be understood as the benefits of empire.
The American story is dominated by an abridged version that does not cause discomfort. It historically abhors nuance except when explaining moral inconsistencies.
American democracy is difficult because of the expectations placed on the citizenry. This is what Benjamin Franklin meant when asked if we had a republic or a monarchy, and he responded, “A republic if you can keep it.”
Can we keep it? The question has been periodically posed at critical moments in American history. Not only was it the question asked at the signing of the Constitution, but also during the War of 1812 and when shots were fired at Fort Sumter in 1861. The question returned in the form of the Great Depression, and it stares ominously in the mirror today.
Though it is a cliché to refer to America as an “experiment”, that’s exactly what it was at its inception and what it continues to be. We are constantly testing the hypothesis of whether the people can govern themselves. America is a radical concept sustained by requisite numbers of people believing in the ideals of liberty and equality.
President Kennedy said, “Democracy is not perfect and freedom has many difficulties.” Do such imperfections mean the experiment has failed? Is illiberal democracy that’s spreading across Europe the answer?
The current moment is not rooted in America’s failure but in its ability to move closer to its committed goal. Since America’s origin, many held the unspoken belief that the American creed was for white people. The founding generation’s primary concern was the white male landowner’s pursuit of happiness.
Pluralism rooted in the ethos of the Declaration of Independence currently moves at a pace that exceeds the comfort of many within the dominant culture, especially those still clinging to an implicit understanding of who should be the exclusive beneficiaries of America’s largesse. America as it is currently constructed may not be what the Founding Fathers “intended,” but is moving methodically toward the organic outcome of a nation committed to liberty and equality.
The complexities of democratic rule are vulnerable to demagogic blowhards who offer overly simplistic solutions ensconced in certainty to conceal their primary goal being the pursuit of power. They are not interested in solving problems or looking to the future, their goal rests largely on identifying an enemy to fear and hate, thereby securing their power base. It’s a hackneyed playbook that still has traction if it can convince enough people to view the world through a myopic lens that can only see their challenges and the faux solutions provided by the demagogue
Demagoguery offers a convenient shortcut, bypassing norms, and disregarding democratic guardrails to placate people’s fears. It falsely adds to the abridged version of a peaceful time that omits unsavory realities. It spins a fable of ubiquitous harmony. If one reads the disclaimer to this myth, they quickly realize that to return to this era that never existed they must relinquish rights and responsibilities that have sustained the nation for 236 years.
Though it may appear counterintuitive, substantive change and discomfort are historical correlatives. Regardless of the issue, be it enslavement, women’s suffrage, LGBT equality, etc., was there not also a chorus of opposition suggesting the proposed change was something the country was not ready to assume?
Change does not occur at the pleasure of the opposition’s timetable. The American project was designed so that its great moments are often intertwined with tension.
We cannot, nor should we, dismiss the undercurrent of otherness that’s at the core of our current divisive climate. Let us also take sober satisfaction that a portion of the crisis moment can be attributed to a nation moving closer to its original commitments.
The fact remains, that we’ve always had the wolf by the ear. We just made the mistake of equating the lack of growling with contentment.