Maybe this Republic thing is a bad idea

Abraham Lincoln was certainly against slavery, but he led the Nation into war to preserve the Union, not to end the institution of slavery

One of the tragedies of over-simplified history lessons is how most people have lost a sense of why the Civil War was fought. My guess would be that if you ask an average high school Sophomore they would tell you that the North fought to free the slaves and the South fought to keep their slaves. Of course, it doesn't take too much research to realize that most people in the South weren't slave owners and most people in the North (Abraham Lincoln included) weren't abolitionists. Just to clarify, the Civil War was about slavery. It started because of the issue of slavery and as it lingered on for 4 horrible years, ending the institution of slavery became the method and the motivation (at least in part) for the North to win.

Captured Rebel soldiers. As the story goes, when asked by their captors why they fought they answered "Because you're down here!"

If you were to ask a Southerner in 1861 why they were fighting they might tell you it's because the Northerners invaded them. Perhaps this is why some Southerners still refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression". In principle though, they were fighting for the right to control their own destiny rather than being ruled by a Federal government that didn't understand them or represent their interests. The way the South saw it, if they didn't like how the Federal government was running things, they could choose to go their own way, just as the United States had split from England 85 years earlier. Although Lincoln initially had no intention of emancipating the slaves not a single Southern state had voted for him and in many states he didn't even appear on the ballot. It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to realize how one might feel that if they didn't vote for Lincoln and no one they knew voted for him, he didn't exactly represent them (and by "them" I mean Southern white men). When you like and agree with everyone around you but you hate and disagree with the far away government running things, it is a natural conclusion that smaller, more localized government would serve you better.

If you were to ask a Northerner in 1861 why they were fighting the answers probably would have been more varied. For Lincoln, it was a matter of preserving the Republic. It is easy for us to forget that during the mid-1800s our Republic was still seen as an experiment. Many of the European monarchies saw that experiment as one that was destined to fail. The central question was whether or not people can really govern themselves or if we would go the way of the Ancient Greeks. When Lincoln said that "A government by the people, of the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth" in the Gettysburg address, he was essentially arguing the case for our form of government. The Civil War exemplified the difficulty (and perhaps the fatal flaw) with Democratic Republics. Just because a representative wins the majority of votes doesn't mean that they represent everyone. So what happens when there is an issue [like Slavery] that is highly contentious and highly regional? The people will not see their vote as a choice between 2 different opinions about how to serve the people best but as a choice between good and evil. Inevitably, one side will be very upset. So what are they to do? As we all know, the Southern states decided to try and separate themselves. But what kind of precedent would this have set if states are permitted to secede the moment they don't like the outcome of an election? Would certain regions or counties secede if they didn't agree with their state governments? As a matter of fact, many did just that. The state of west Virginia is only a state today because they sided with the Union in the Civil War. Many other counties or regions of Southern States either successfully or unsuccessfully did the same.

"...if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." - Mark 3:25 (later adapted by Lincoln)

The great irony to me is that both sides were in some ways fighting for the same thing- the right to be represented in their government. Of course, it is an even greater irony is that for slave owners, exercising that right for themselves meant denying it to others. In 2013 most people seem to see the issue of whether or not this great Republican experiment can work or not as settled. Since the American Civil War democracy has become the prevailing form of government in the world. But is it the best form of government? I have to admit, I am not sure. The problem is that people don't always understand the details of government. One might argue that this is because people are too stupid or too selfish, but the reason we have a representative democracy is so we can elect professionals to understand the details for us. Otherwise democracy is just a series of ballot initiatives and it's easy to see where that leads...

"Do you want free stuff?"
"Yes!"
"Do you want to pay for it?"
"No!"

Ballot initiatives are a great way for politicians to avoid the responsibility that comes with taking a stand

The problem is that we aren't electing representatives that are willing to take responsibility for actually governing. In practice, "governing" has become an endless exercise in maneuvering and juxtapositioning in order for politicians to get themselves elected and re-elected and keep their party in power. Instead of saying that compromises and deal making are part of the sausage making of government and we have to trust the people we have elected to do it with our best interests in mind, we have made it into a childish game in which winning is the only thing that matters. If you are in charge, use your power to destroy the other side. If you aren't in charge, do whatever you can to obstruct the other side.To some degree, this has always been the case in American politics. I would argue that the 24-hour news cycle, the internet and the short attention span of most modern Americans all make this worse. We have little patience for understanding the complex nature of many of our problems. We need everything boiled down to catch phrases and sound-bytes.

A good government has to do things that are painful sometimes, just a like parents sometimes have to punish their children. Sometimes taxes need to be raised. Sometimes benefits need to be cut. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the benefit of us all. The good thing about monarchy is that the monarch doesn't have to worry about getting elected and re-elected. They are free to do what is right for the people. Now I am not suggesting that single party rule like China or North Korea is best. Absolute power breeds absolute corruption. But when I look at monarchies that have an elected parliament that keeps a balance of power between the monarchy and the democratically elected government, for example the UK, Japan, Norway, Sweden and Denmark... well I have to say that things don't look so bad. Those nations are some of the richest in the world with the strongest middle classes. They have the best health care and the best education.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and King Harald V of Norway. Norway is ranked #1 in the Human Development Index, 7th in Education, 4th in GDP per capita, 7th in Education  and 11th in health care. FYI, the US is ranked 4th in the HDI, 8th in GDP per capita, 13th in Education and 38th in Health Care

This discussion is really an exercise in rhetoric. It's not like we are going to appoint a King, or re-attach ourselves to Britain after 237 years. The question now is how can we elect a better government and hold them accountable to do their job? First, we need to accept some responsibility. We need to accept that we won't always get our way. We need to accept that if we want better representatives we need to be better educated and stop making every issue into black vs white/right vs. wrong.

The promise of our country is that everyone should be able to have a chance to make it. That doesn't mean everyone owns a mansion and a yacht. It means that everyone, no matter where they come from and how much money their family has, should have an opportunity to be the best they can be. If it works, it is good for everyone. It means that our society can benefit from the ideas, innovations and hard work of everyone, not just a chosen few that have the resources to be relevant. But parents won't be able to prepare their children if they are constantly worried about what they are going to put on the table for dinner. No child can get a good education if they are worried that they might get caught up in a drive by on their way to school. The value of a college education is limited if going to college means crippling yourself in debt for 20 years. And would be entrepreneurs will never be able to take the risks they need to if they can't afford to start their own business because they can't afford to get sick.

It's always the first line that everyone remembers, but it's the last line that is really worth thinking about. Will the government of, by and for the people perish from the earth? TBD

The job of our government is to keep this promise alive. Right now, our government is failing us. If this Republican experiment is really going to work, we cannot resign ourselves and we cannot simply split off and form our own country. We have to be smarter and better informed and we have to elect a government that really does represent our interests.

The Way Forward for the Republican and Democratic Parties

John C Fremont was the first presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Though he lost to James Buchanan in the 1856 election, Republicans would win 14 out of the following 18 Presidential Elections

Although we have had the same 2 dominant political parties in this country since 1856, neither party looks anything like they did 150 years ago. Come to think of it, the Democratic party of 1856 scarcely resembled the Democratic party of Andrew Jackson, elected just 20 years before.

In the 1850's, the issue of slavery would come to define both parties. The Republican Party was a coalition of former Whigs, Conservatives and Free Soil (Anti Slavery) Democrats. Though the new party lost the 1856 election, they did not lose another until 1884 and in total, Republican Presidential candidates won 14 out of the 18 elections from 1860 to 1928. That's not to imply that all of those elections were landslide Republican victories. In many cases, they were quite close actually. For example, the 3 times that Grover Cleveland ran for President in 1884, 1888 and 1892 resulted in very small margins of victory each time (Cleveland won in 84 and 92 but lost in 88 despite winning the popular vote).

The 1880 election map looked like many others in the late 19th and early 20th century. Even with "the Solid South", Democrats needed support in the North in order to win

After 1856 the Democratic Party was no longer the party of slavery, but the battle lines were still drawn along the Mason Dixon line. Though a Democrat from the deep South wasn't elected from 1848 until 1976, the South voted for Democratic candidates consistently until 1964. Yet even if Democrats could count on their Southern base, the fact remained that without some support from the North, it would impossible to elect a Democratic President. Woodrow Wilson cracked that code in 1912 and exploiting a divide in the Republican Party and becoming the choice of Progressives. Yet because of disenchantment with Wilson's Idealism in the aftermath of World War I and the looming Great Depression, many voters returned to the Republican Party in 1920, 24 and 28. It took the spectacular failure of Herbert Hoover to bring about a more long-term shift.

Woodrow Wilson struck a chord with Progressives but his idealism eventually was his undoing

FDR won the 1932 election the same way that Wilson had, by appealing to Progressives. But unlike Wilson, Roosevelt (like most great Presidents) was a pragmatist, and that is why he was re-elected 3 times. Modern Conservatives like to chastise the broad government spending of the New Deal, saying that it was World War II rather than the New Deal that really lifted America out of the Great Depression. Whichever way you feel though, it is a fact that Roosevelt was always willing to re-evaluate and get rid of programs that didn't work. He never clung too tightly to his ideals that he wasn't willing to change. If FDR were running for President today, the opposition would surely adopt a strategy of labeling him as a "flip-flopper". Though sound bytes make this easier in today's world, the line between flip-flopper and pragmatic has always been thin.

Just as Republican Presidents had been in power most of the time from 1860 until 1932, Democrats won 7 out of 9 Presidential elections between 1932 and 1968 and with a bigger and more powerful country and a more powerful Federal Government these victories were just as, if not more significant. Republicans had to find a way to turn the tables. They did it by bringing white southern voters into their coalition by adopting religion as a part of the Republican platform. Of course, many will also argue that Republicans also played to Southern racism in subtle ways as well but however they did it, they did it well. In the course of one election cycle, Republicans managed to reverse 136 years of Southern voting patterns. Overnight the South became the crucial voting block for either party to win the Presidency. Even the 3 Democratic Presidents from 1964 to 2008, (LBJ, Carter and Clinton) were all from the South. Richard Nixon was the first to recognize the opportunity at hand. Before Nixon, abortion was not the political issue it is today. In fact, Nixon was himself Pro-Choice until he realized that he could gain a significant percentage of the religious vote by taking a firm Pro-Life stance in his 1968 campaign. Later on, Lee Atwater would refine the political tactics that would define elections until 2008. To this day, Democrats have not figured out an effective strategy against these tactics.

Jimmy Carter along with Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only Democratic Presidents elected between 1964 and 2008. What did they have in common? They were all Southern boys.

In 2008 and 2012 however, it became clear that winning the Southern vote would not be enough to elect a Republican President. Demographic shifts meant that a coalition of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and Liberal Whites could not be beaten. Now, again, Republicans are left trying to figure out how to divide the Democratic coalition. A couple "easy targets" are Hispanics and gays. Many Hispanic and gay voters already have a lot in common with Republicans, so Republicans don't have to distance themselves from their Xenophobic and Homophobic history too much to chip away at those blocks. In my opinion though, these votes won't make up for the continued demographic shifts unless something more drastic is done.

Rand Paul might just be the savior of the Republican Party

When I checked Facebook this morning, I was amazed to see many of my Republican friends anxiously posted their support for Rand Paul's Filibuster against drone attacks. Certainly, much of the support for Rand Paul may be coming from libertarians that either ally themselves more closely with his stance against taxes or those that simply hate Obama (i.e. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend") but Rand Paul may have put his finger on something that could create a serious rift in the Democratic coalition. Since World War II, both parties have increased military spending and increased the American military presence around the world even there are [arguably] no serious threats to our national security. Even as our National Debt has skyrocketed, neither party has wanted to be the one to back down on military spending. Meanwhile, neither party has presented a realistic way out. Republicans talk about cutting entitlement spending but even if we completely dismantle the American social safety net we can't fix our debt problem without looking at the elephant in the room: the $700 billion we spend every year on our military (by the way I wrote about this in my last post). I believe that there are many anti-war Democrats out there that feel strongly enough that we need to cut military spending to vote for a Republican, as long as they aren't too offensive on social issues. Even if you disagree with the Libertarian views of Ron and Rand Paul, you have to respect their straightforward logic. Instead of resorting to political trickery and deception, voter suppression and gerrymandering, they are some of the only ones to actually present a clear vision and way forward for Conservatives that holds up to any serious scrutiny.

The Democratic Party has a choice about whether they want to stand with the 99% or the 1%.

Though demographic shifts are undeniable, Democrats should be careful not to get to comfortable. A major crisis is looming and Democrats can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. You can bet that Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure the latter, even if it means actually contributing to the crisis. Since not much has changed since the financial collapse of 2007/2008, the same problems (e.g. lack of serious government oversight & regulations) that caused the collapse are still in place. Just as neither party has done much to stand up to the military-industrial complex, neither party has done much to stand up to the big business and the super rich. I believe that Democrats have a unique opportunity right now to ally themselves with "The 99%" and distance themselves from the "1%". The Occupy movements as well as the popularity of some recent YouTube videos about wealth inequality demonstrate that these ideas have traction. Democrats may lose a few votes (and certainly a lot of campaign contributions) in the short term but they can afford to right now. If they make a full court press against the small number of people and corporations at the very top that have recorded record profits and wealth while the rest of us have suffered it will pay off in the long term. If and when the next crisis hits, Democrats will be in a position to blame the 1%. I know that this sounds like a childish blame game but but this is the sausage of politics. Though both parties have done a good job representing the interests of the super rich so far, if Democrats continue on this path they will be the ones to take the blame for the next collapse simply because there is a Democrat in the White House when it happens and they could pay the price for the next 20 years.

A Storm is coming...

I do not pretend to know the future, but I think history gives us many clues. Looking at the past, it is too easy for us to believe that everyone failed to see the crises that were about to happen, but this is rarely true. Most often, many people saw the storms brewing but were unable to stop them. The smart one's didn't try to stop the storm, only prepare for it. Others engaged in exercises of futility and tried to stop the inevitable. I don't know which party will do a better job preparing for the upcoming storm but if I had to guess, neither one will bother to look up to the sky until it's right on top of us.