If You Can Keep It

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. And  citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

President Trump has taken a confrontational approach to long-standing norms and Constitutional provisions regarding the separation of powers. He has stymied the rights of Congress to exercise oversight by refusing to bring Cabinet level appointments for confirmation and to provide requested materials.  He has diminished judicial branch integrity by implying that judicial interpretations of the law are influenced by their demographic background or political affiliation. He has taken unprecedented steps to expand his executive powers by invoking emergency conditions to transfer monies to his projects after such spending was disapproved by Congress, and by invoking  national security interests to justify his imposition of tariffs, including on traditional allies such as Canada. 

The President’s promise of unconventional governing was part of his appeal during the 2016 election, and many applaud the way that it has played out in practice.  His authoritarian behaviors, however, call into question the continued viability of America’s ability to maintain the separation of powers created by the founding fathers to ensure that the ambitions of the executive could be held in check by the other two.

Most Americans give little thought to the importance of this dynamic.  Focused on their daily lives, many feel that this is just partisan politics in play.  Others, who see the problem,  feel that they can’t  make a difference.  That’s where being a republic comes into play.  We democratically elect representatives to keep informed, represent our views, and safeguard our Constitution.

This brings us to our whistle-blower, who understood the gravity of a presidential action that sought to influence a foreign power [and hence be subject to blackmail by this power] to provide dirt on a political opponent. This  individual came forward, at some risk, precipitating our current imbroglio. Not surprisingly this individual has come under attack as being unpatriotic when just the opposite is true. Would that those who provided him/her with the information also stepped forward to publically voice their concerns.

Political realities ensure the President’s characterization of the call will be supported by most Republicans.  The same was true during the Congressional inquiry into President Nixon’s cover-up of the break-in of the Democratic National Committee offices. In the past select Republican leaders worked to ‘keep our republic’ by putting their country before party.  Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee put facts before party during the Watergate hearings by asking what the President knew and when he knew it.  Keeping our republic requires the same courage this time around.