A Republic, If You Can Keep It

Benjamin Franklin's response to Elizabeth Willing Powel's question: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy? 1787 September 17

There has been a lot of chatter about “democracy” of late, you know, mob rule. I would categorize myself as a threat to democracy, and I would advise Trump to embrace the label.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner, and justice is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Ben Franklin

I would offer that thē reason, or at least ā reason why a republic is hard to hold on to, is that the majority advocates, sometimes violently, for democracy. The majority is the mob, and goddammit they want to rule! Anyone who disagrees is a threat to democracy!!! I’ll add as a side note; the 2nd Amendment is there to ensure that the lambs can be (and should be) well-armed to contest the vote. It’s no coincidence that the wolves want to disarm the lambs (for our safety, of course); only after disarmament can the majority have its way with the minority, uncontested. History abounds with examples of this progression, the results of which include tens of millions of deaths at the hands of governments.

But that’s not the point of this post. What prompted me to write this post was a video by Glenn Greenwald, and Osama bin Laden’s “letter to the American people,” published in November 2002. This letter was scrubbed from the internet after too many people started reading it, from the point of view of the higher powers. I found it using the “internet archive wayback machine;” nothing ever leaves the internet, or at least that should be our assumption. Our government didn’t want you to think, much less believe, that there might be legitimate reasons for the attacks of 9/11. I’m not saying there are or are not legitimate reasons, that is for you to decide, and not for governments to decide on your behalf; read the letter, think critically, and decide for yourself.

Within the letter, bin Laden challenges the notion that the victims were innocent. From my perspective he makes a legitimate point. Our Constitution begins with the words, “We the People…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” We said it’s our republic, we said it’s our Constitution, we said it’s our government. And while we don’t hold ourselves accountable for the behavior of our government, bin Laden challenges us to do just that. In the letter are:

…two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?

(Q2) What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

In answer to Q1, paragraphs 3a-e are worthy of discussion (I am selective here, purely for the purpose of brevity):

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) …the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support… The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes… So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people…

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

So. Can we hold ourselves blameless? Or, are we accountable for the actions of our government? Does bin Laden have a legitimate point? Never mind the fact that we ourselves, and our allies, have killed millions of civilians in our many wars.

From our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

First I would say, the government has left behind its purpose in securing our rights, and is rather destructive of those rights; the list of abuses is practically endless. Again, its all for our safety, of course. And, as this founding document makes clear, “it is the right of the people (not the the government itself, not the individual states) to alter or abolish it…” I’d go so far as to say it is our duty, to alter or abolish the government. The next two paragraphs of the Declaration say as much:

…all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Just sayin’, in my view the evils are beyond sufferable.

My answer to the questions posed above: We are not blameless, we are accountable, and bin Laden has a legitimate point. If we are going to hold on to our republic, we need to hold our ourselves to account, and take strong action to rein in the government, soon.

Along that line of thought, I want to celebrate a heroic act. In the wake of 9/11 a truly horrible law was passed, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The vote total in the Senate was 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting; the vote total in the House was 420 ayes, 1 nay and 10 not voting. The sole nay vote was by Barbara Lee, D-CA. Lee was the only member of either house of Congress to vote against the bill.

Congresswoman Lee was heroic. And she was on the right side of history; the powers granted by the law have been abused repeatedly since its passage. See below for additional background.

---

For additional background see the Netflix series, Turning Point: 9/11 and the War on Terror.

Also check out: