George Santayana’s admonition that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” was apparently lost on progressive Democrats in Congress, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D–N.Y.), who appealed to President Biden to address what they recklessly described as “corporate price gouging in the real estate sector.” In a January 9 letter to the White House, 50 members of Congress urged the administration to use various agencies to impose a nationwide program of rent control, since, as the letter asserted, “the rent is too high and millions of people across this country are struggling to stay stably housed as a result.”
What the letter writers have conveniently forgotten, of course, is that the rental housing market is still reeling from the rent and eviction moratorium questionably implemented by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the midst of the Covid pandemic in the form of the CARES Act Section 4024(b). As a result of that moratorium, property owners—who themselves had to continue paying mortgages, property taxes, utilities and other operating expenses—found themselves with tenants who could decide whether or not they could afford their present rent, resulting in months of losses to property owners as tenants simply refused to pay rent—whether or not they could afford to. So the “corporate price gouging” cited in the Congressional letter may simply reflect the real estate industry’s effort to begin to recoup the significant losses experienced during the moratorium.
Rent control is not a rent moratorium, but it does reward tenants and punish rental property owners by a process euphemistically defined as “rent stabilization,” but which is actually a government attempt to control what rent a private property owner can receive from a tenant, with the assumption that private landlords can, and should, provide affordable housing to needy renters by absorbing losses forced on them in what should be an unencumbered marketplace.
Even if the Biden administration were successful in implementing a nation-wide program of rent control, the likelihood of which is questionably legal at best and well beyond federal authority and reach, rent regulations have historically resulted in the exact opposite effect intended by the municipalities that implemented them.
While policymakers have often looked to regulation in private marketplaces to induce desired social benefits, the lesson of rent control is simple: Not only has it consistently failed to serve those very individuals it was designed to help —namely, the poor and elderly —but it has a number of perverse effects, specifically, of actually creating a scarcity of affordable housing, speeding the deterioration of existing rental stock, polarizing owners and renters, and skewing the marketplace with artificially high and low rent levels.
Long positioned by its advocates as a government-sponsored housing program, rent control is, in fact, paid for exclusively by private owners of rental property. Its policies determine what rents may be charged, when and by how much rents can be raised, what actions an owner may take to evict or replace a tenant, whether and when an owner may occupy his own property and at what price, if at all, a property may be sold or transferred, or even if it can be demolished. Critics of rent control policies contend, in fact, that such regulations amount to an unconstitutional “taking” of private property without just compensation.
The fifty signers of the letter to the White House contend that something must be done about housing affordability. And if that something is a new rent control program, they and the other housing advocates looking at that option would do well to consider how rent control created far more problems than it solved in the housing markets that chose to use it:
The onerous effects of rent control do not penalize the corporate “gougers” the Democrats fantasize about in their letter as much as they do the small property owner, often of limited means and with less income than some of their tenants. In fact, while housing activists and liberal policymakers like to envision landlords as greedy operators of vast real estate empires, exploiting tenants at their will, the reality is that, as a Brookings Institution study found, “40 percent of residential property units are owned by individual investor landlords.” Moreover, the study found, “among those owning residential investment property, roughly a third are from low- to moderate-income households; property income constitutes up to 20 percent of their total household income,” and that, while the Democrats seek to protect only tenants, rent control will adversely affect their other constituents—property owners— since “unstable rent payments are even more detrimental for individual investors—often referred to as ‘mom and pop’landlords—who carry greater financial vulnerabilities.”
Cities with rent-regulated housing have a great disparity in the rent levels between rent-controlled units and market-rate units. The Cato Institute’s William Tucker revealed how price controls, including rent controls, typically create a ‘shadow market’ in which demand exceeds supply, creating a shortage —in this case of affordable rental units. Renters who cannot access controlled units, therefore, are faced with the option of having to choose from units elsewhere in the market with disproportionately high rent levels. “Although rent controls are widely believed to lower rents,” Tucker wrote, “data . . . collected from eighteen North American cities show that the advertised rents of available apartments in rent-regulated cities are dramatically higher than they are in cities without rent control.” Moreover, Tucker observed, “inhabitants in cities without rent control have a far easier time finding moderately priced rental units than do inhabitants in rent-controlled cities.”
Rent control makes controlled units scarcer by encouraging renters never to give up their units. Without a means test, with a scarcity of other controlled units to move to, and with the minuscule vacancy rates characteristic of cities with rent regulations, tenants have many disincentives to move or even look for alternate housing. Couples renting controlled large units with multiple bedrooms will continue to rent that unit long after their children have moved out, creating an inefficiency of housing use and preventing a new family who needs extra bedrooms from moving into a unit suited for them. Faced with controlled rents, a landlord is also naturally inclined not to want low or moderate-income renters, choosing instead those more affluent and secure tenants who are less likely to default on their rent payments and more likely to enhance and upgrade their unit.
There is no way—short of the creation of onerous and coercive new local bureaucracies—to efficiently, fairly, or accurately assess tenants who are elderly, disabled, or ‘low or moderate’ income, those individuals generally identified as being most in need of rent protection. Housing activists, and the rent control boards who have historically served as their aggressive advocates, have assiduously resisted any attempt at means testing, positioning it as invasive and in violation of tenant privacy. But while they are happy to let tenants self-assess their right to landlord-subsidized housing without any review of their actual ability to pay, they see no problem in evaluating every financial detail of a landlord’s ownership—up to and including determining the return he or she can enjoy on a property, how the property is maintained or improved, and at what profit it may be operated or even sold.
Related to the decline in the market value of buildings put under rent control is the trend of owners to defer maintenance and repairs, since in the face of controlled rents, an adequate return on investment is difficult to realize. While tenants benefit from fixed rents, they often have to live in properties that are deteriorating and offering fewer amenities since owners cannot afford any extra expenses or investment in the face of limited rents.
A decline in the market value of properties, of course, can also significantly impact the tax base of a municipality, meaning that taxpayers in rent-controlled cities may often end up with lower property tax revenues and reduced public services and facilities as a result. A study by the Duke Financial Economics Center found that in Saint Paul, for example, “the introduction of rent control caused an economically and statistically significant decline of 6-7% in the value of real estate . . ,” and that, more importantly to the city’s taxpayers, “rent control [could result in] an aggregated loss of $1.57 billion in property value and a 4% expected shortfall in property tax revenue.”
Rent regulations serve to discourage homeownership opportunities and the creation of new housing. In regulated housing markets, investment capital also is not likely to flow in the direction of new construction. Investors are unlikely to put capital at risk when government interference limits their return, exposes their projects to uncertain approvals and permits, and offers no long-term guarantees for future rent levels and cash flows. A building permit analysis by HUD of the Saint Paul real estate market “shows an 84 percent decline in building permit activity in the six months since St. Paul passed rent control compared to the same period a year prior,” since, contrary to all rational real estate economics, even builders of new housing units faced the prospect of rent controls—a huge disincentive to build any new housing in the first place.
If policymakers decide they seek to provide more affordable rental housing for the country’s deserving tenants, it is clear that rent control is neither equitable nor efficient in providing that benefit. If property owners are called on to subsidize renters, then they need to be compensated fairly for the losses they experience in a regulated housing market. That compensation takes many forms but has included property tax abatements, building permit variances and tax incentives for creating new affordable housing, or rent vouchers (similar to HUD’s Section 8 program) to bring rents up to market levels when tenants could not otherwise afford to live in those units.
But it is an abuse of government authority to interfere with how landlords and tenants deal with each other in private markets and what rents are offered and accepted, especially since rent control, as has been shown, unfairly places the burden of providing affordable housing to the nation’s neediest tenants solely on the heads of private property owners instead of having all taxpayers provide that benefit through rational, productive, and efficient government actions that do not penalize landlords in inequitable, constitutionally-questionable ways.
Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of the forthcoming book, The Slow Death of the University: How Radicalism, Israel Hatred, and Race Obsession are Destroying Academia.
Republicans — all of them — should have stayed home.
You don’t show unity with a dictatorship. You don’t honor the Constitution by dignifying this insanity; instead, you legitimize the Constitution’s destruction.
Having said that, the Republican response to the creepy puppet’s tirade was excellent:
Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Arkansas:
The dividing line in America is no longer between right or left, Sanders said, “The choice is between normal or crazy, and it’s wrong”.
“Upon taking office just a few weeks ago I signed executive orrders to ban CRT, racism, and indoctrination in our schools, eliminate the use of the derogatory term ‘Latinx’ in our government, repealed COVID orders and said never again to authoritarian mandates and shutdowns,” she said.
“In the radical left’s America, Washington taxes you and lights your hard-earned money on fire, but you get crushed with high gas prices, empty grocery shelves, and our children are taught to hate one another on account of their race, but not to love one another or our great country,” she said.
“And while you reap the consequences of their failures, the Biden administration seems more interested in woke fantasies than the hard reality Americans face every day,” Sanders said. “Most Americans simply want to live their lives in freedom and peace, but we are under attack in a left-wing culture war we didn’t start and never wanted to fight.”
“Every day, we are told that we must partake in their rituals, salute their flags, and worship their false idols … all while big government colludes with Big Tech to strip away the most American thing there is — your freedom of speech,” she added. [source: NEWSMAX]
After listening to the State of the Union address, Americans know why the latest Reuters poll has Joe Biden at 41 percent approval.
Vice President Kamala Harris polls even lower—despite the obsequious efforts of the most biased media in history that has, in effect, merged with the Democratic Party.
The nation was reminded again why only 37 percent of Biden’s own party want him to run again.
Only a quarter of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction under his leadership.
Given all that, what could a president possibly tell a nation when he entered office inheriting a 1.4 percent inflation rate only to spike it to 7 percent? How did Americans’ 30-year mortgages of 2.7 percent soar to 6.5 percent in less than two years?
How does a president explain that eggs climbed to $7 a dozen, or a thin steak hit $15 a pound, or a sheet of plywood reached $95?
How does a president explain to Americans that gas averaged $2.39 a gallon when he took office and, even after draining the strategic petroleum reserve, it is still $3.50 a gallon—and recently spiked at $5 a gallon in many states.
Can Joe Biden explain why once affordable, or even cheap natural gas more than tripled in price in less than a year?
What can a president say when in his first two years, over 5 million foreign nationals poured into the United States—all illegally across a nonexistent border?
How could Biden explain the humiliation in Afghanistan? The draining of our arsenal of key weaponry? Or the inability to take down a communist Chinese spy balloon when it first brazenly floated above America—photographing military bases and missile sites as it crossed the entire United States with impunity?
We know the answers to all these questions.
Joe Biden simply did on Tuesday in his state of the union address what he always does: misinform, ignore, and attack!
Misinform. After sending inflation, energy, and interest rates to astronomical rates, and then seeing them momentarily taper off a bit, Biden declares that he “lowered” these indices that remain far higher than they were when he entered office.
He brags about a low unemployment rate. But Biden never discloses the better indicator of the labor participation rate that has declined under his tenure—or the fact he inherited a growing economy naturally rebounding on autopilot from a disastrous two-year COVID lockdown.
Ignore. Consider what he will never mention. China just violated international law and U.S. airspace. How did Beijing assume rightly that they so easily could get away with it?
There is no southern border. Joe Biden destroyed it.
He greenlighted over 5 million illegal aliens to enter the United States without audit or legality—even as smuggled Mexican drugs kill 100,000 Americans each year.
He never will concede he stopped the building of the wall. He omits that he demonized innocent border patrol officers. He nullified the immigration laws he swore to uphold.
Biden ignores the $4 trillion he has borrowed in just two years to inflate the national debt, now on its way to over $32 trillion this year. The middle class has bled 20-30 percent of their 401k retirement plans representing years’ worth of lost hard-earned savings.
Yet Biden promised hundreds of billions of dollars more in borrowing with no idea of how to pay back the already crushing national debt that will incur $450 billion just to service this year alone.
He skipped over how he demolished U.S. deterrence abroad after the greatest humiliation in modern military history, with the flight from Kabul and the abandonment of billions of dollars in military equipment.
He never mentions that Russia went into Ukraine because Vladimir Putin saw no downside after this debacle in Afghanistan, or that Biden’s own inept remarks about not worrying over a Russian invasion of Ukraine if it just proved to be “minor” probably played some role.
Attack! Remember, Biden comes to life only when he smears his enemies while calling for “unity” and “bipartisanship.”
Only then his voice rises, his brow furrows, and his face reddens. He claims that “the rich” avoid “paying their fair share,” even as he knows that just one percent of the country pays over 40 percent of all income taxes.
Biden somehow demagogued the lethal violence of black police officers against a black victim in Memphis into evidence of America’s supposed racism. He smeared all law enforcement—even as inner-city violent and hate crimes soared as never before.
He utterly lied about Republicans demanding a sunsetting of Social Security and Medicare.
He beat the dead horse of January 6 (while insanely connecting it to the attack on Paul Pelosi!), despite the stacked congressional investigative committee and the suppression of critical video evidence and email communications involving security lapses.
In sum, it was the same old, same old dishonest Joe Biden: misinform, ignore, and attack—and then call for “unity” as the country collectively slides into ruin.
About Victor Davis Hanson
Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, The Case for Trump and the newly released The Dying Citizen.
The school choice movement has been gaining serious traction over the past three years, and if the momentum holds, America might soon see most states funding students instead of systems. The idea that parents should decide where and how their children are educated has been the subject of debate for decades. But now that conversation is intensifying.
School choice was catapulted onto the national stage amid the COVID-19 lockdown when parents discovered what their children’s schools were teaching them. When it became apparent that many of these institutions were indoctrinating students with far-leftist views on race, sexuality, and gender identity, the predictable backlash ensued, with people showing up to school board meetings to protest the problematic material.
States Embracing School Choice
In 2023, several states are set to pass comprehensive school choice legislation that would make it easier for parents to send their kids to private and charter schools. Those who choose to homeschool will have a smoother experience as well if these bills pass.
One of the most highly touted educational measures being considered in many states would create education savings accounts (ESAs), similar to the laws passed in Arizona last year. ESAs are “state-funded accounts for parents who are looking for alternative education options for children besides their local public school,” according to The Hill.
The state would deposit a specific sum of money into the account every year to help parents pay for educational expenses such as private school tuition, tutors, homeschooling resources, and more. Each state pays a different amount. In Arizona, for example, pupils receive up to $7,000 annually. Currently, more than 15 states are considering proposals that would create ESA programs for students, among other provisions designed to help parents exercise more educational options.
After years of trying, Iowa became the first state this year to pass sweeping school choice legislation. In January, Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law a series of measures, one of which is the establishment of an ESA program that provides funding that can be used for private school tuition. Reynolds, along with Republicans in the state legislature, tried and failed twice to pass this type of legislation. But the third time was the charm. Next up was Utah, the second state to enact a universal school choice program shortly after Iowa. Republican Gov. Spencer Cox signed the new legislation, which created a state-funded scholarship program that will grant $8,000 to each student that can be used toward education-related expenses outside of public schools.
Texas, similar to Iowa, has not had an easy time enacting school choice legislation. But now signs are promising. With the current hubbub over education, parents in Texas are demanding better options for their children. GOP Gov. Greg Abbott has expressed support for such laws in the past, and Republicans in the state legislature are working feverishly during the current legislative session to craft a bill that will get enough support. However, they will face tough opposition from Democrats and Republican lawmakers representing rural areas of the state.
Arkansas, Nevada, and Oklahoma are looking to adopt ESA programs later this year as well, meaning that a significant number of states will be allowing parents to have more of a choice in their children’s education.
More Choices, Better Outcomes?
(Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post)
Naturally, those on the left are none too happy about the new developments in the world of education. Indeed, Democrats have tried everything from claiming school choice is racist to attempting to get the Justice Department to label parents protesting critical race theory as “domestic terrorists.”
This is not shocking given the fact that school choice is likely the best weapon against the effort to indoctrinate children. Passing laws barring the teaching of critical race theory can only do so much to address the issue. Indeed, some teachers have already found ways to work around these bans. Moreover, some school districts are enacting policies that allow for the grooming of children into transgender ideology and even in helping kids “transition” to the opposite sex.
But if parents are able to pick which schools their children attend – or to pull them out of schools altogether – progressives will have fewer kids to indoctrinate. This does not mean they will stop trying – but more educational options will go a long way toward protecting children from being propagandized.
Do you have an opinion about this article? We’d love to hear it! If you send your comments to editor@libertynation.com, we might even publish your edited remarks in our new feature, LN Readers Speak Out. Remember to include the URL of the article along with your name, city, and state.
Please respect our republishing guidelines. Republication permission does not equal site endorsement. Click here.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site, we will assume that you agree to this.OkPrivacy policy
People say the Republicans must move away from being “extreme”. B.S.! Extreme means consistent. There’s good consistency as well as bad. Hitler was bad consistency. So was Stalin. So are Iranian totalitarian mullahs. America’s founders were GOOD consistency. The Bill of Rights was a gloriously extreme document for its time. It still is.
By the way, what about the Democrats? They are now undiluted extremists. There are no moderate Democrats. Were it not for a few Trump appointees on federal courts, we would all have federal agents at our homes jabbing us with medical experiments. Emergency orders remain in permanent effect in blue states, meaning dictatorship at any time. They plan to take our gas stoves and gas cars, even if it means killing us. The FBI raids the homes of Republicans, not Democrats. People are forced to pay the huge tuition bills of strangers. Government is debasing our currency through hyperinflationary spending. The borders are completely open, and immigrants are made permanent wards of the state at the expense of Americans who are citizens, and immigrants who entered legally. The military is a shambles and the commander in chief is afraid to shoot down an enemy spy balloon. Why does nobody criticize the extremism of the people in power who control the culture, the entire agenda and virtually the entire government?
You won’t beat the ruthlessly consistent Communism and fascism of today’s “Democrats” without something at least as strong from the opposite, pro-freedom direction. Donald Trump did not fail because he was too extreme; he failed because he wasn’t extreme enough. In fighting the evil and occupying forces destroying America and civilization itself, it’s time to get ruthless and serious.
Why can’t criminal negligence apply to a President?
Of course, my question is rhetorical. There is ZERO chance of any leftist Democratic president being indicted, impeached or being held accountable in any way, unless he offends someone within the Party. But in our federal government, there is, from now on, only one Party. That’s why freedom loving states and localities simply have to secede from the negligent, dangerous monstrosity we permitted our federal government, over generations, to become.
The biggest problem, right now, are conservatives. They fantasize that Donald Trump will rise again, and sweep into office in a self-evidently rigged electoral college. Or that Ron DeSantis will do the same. We are past all that. There is no American republic. It’s over. It has been falling apart for a long time. Obama was able to kill it because it was so weak. And Joe Biden is simply the cashing in, the clown installed as a puppet as if to mock Americans for the negligence THEY and earlier generations have shown the legacy of freedom left to them.
There is no more American republic. Get used to it. It’s a nasty oligarchy with the potential to become the world’s most dangerous dictatorship. There’s a pretense of “rule of law”, which is supposed to be objective. But the truth is obvious: If you’re loyal to the Party, and if the Party likes you, then you can get away with absolutely anything; if you’re disloyal to the Party, you’re toast.
Forget the federal government of the U.S. as any meaningful source of justice, truth, rationality or credibility. There’s only your state (if your state government is not leftist), your locality (if you’re in a nonleftist city), and — most of all — yourself. In the challenging times ahead, it’s every man for himself. Deny that all you wish, until you can’t anymore.
I am saying all this not to depress anyone, but in hopes that the truth will set us free. Because pretending that reality is other than what it is — with the facts overwhelmingly staring you the face — is no path to freedom.
Biden claims inflation was already there when he came into office. It’s true–because of the massive spending by his own party in Congress, spending that still President Trump went along with.
Biden massively expanded the spending once selected as president, making the problem much worse.
The government is to blame for the mess. Biden’s party is the party of big government. In fact, they are really the only Party with power. So he and his kind ARE to blame.
Not only did Locke’s philosophy call for our 1776 revolution, it reaches out to us today . . . but with a twist. Where Locke gave little attention to the nuts and bolts of how a community goes about restoring free government after its dissolution, our Framers provided the solution in Article V of their Constitution.1
Locke didn’t conceptualize free government as either a contract or compact. If governed and governors are equal and interchangeable, as they must be in a republic, trust in one another is essential.
He reasoned that “trust” was the best term to describe the relationship between the sovereign people and the government of their creation. It is simply in the nature of a personal assurance, a fiduciary trust of governors to keep within their enumerated limits to achieve the ends of any government, which is the good of the governed.2 The people themselves decide if their governmental trustees violate their trust. To remain interchangeable, those who wield this power, fellow citizens all, must not develop an interest distinct from that of the community.3
The community grants powers for attaining certain ends and no more. If the ends are neglected, or power is put to other purposes, government is dissolved and the authority devolves back to the people/community. “Governments,” wrote Locke, “are dissolved . . . when the legislative, or the Prince (executive), either of them act contrary to their Trust.”4
Once trust is broken, that’s it. Who trusts anyone after they broke their word? Is the community to be a battered wife who keeps going back to her husband in the full knowledge that his promises are empty and his abuse will continue?
Locke’s dissolution due to violation of trust doesn’t mean the government folds up shop and everyone goes home. It means their subsequent actions are no longer legitimate or binding on the community. On closer reflection, we see every day what Locke had in mind. How many laws are outside the limits of our Constitution? Every violation of Natural Law or the supreme law of the land harms our respect for statutory law and especially non-legislative regulations that never deserved respect or obedience in the first place.
When trust is substituted in this way for either a contract or compact, Constitutional change is sanctioned. It secures the sovereignty of the people who have the perpetual power to cashier their governors and remodel their government.5
The great danger to free government occurs when the people recognize a breach of trust and do nothing about it. Rather than put our governors on notice of dissolution, that trust is at an end, people are more inclined to be patient and endure accumulated outrages. Locke wrote that if the governors resist reforms, then the people cease to be a community and a State of Nature is at hand, with all of its disadvantages. Should the State of Nature return, then there is no final judge here on earth, and the ultimate appeal can only be to God . . . in revolution. A real mess.6
But we needn’t accept as inevitable the bloody conclusions so common to republics IF we are willing to call out and correct violations on a regular basis through an Annual Article V Convention. Open Deep State criminality is less a disease and more a symptom of accelerating corruption that began long ago. One breach of trust followed another. The Deep State criminals are brazen; they flip off Congress and dare the nation to put them down. This is our sorry condition, in which a government of others not only recognizes no limits and acts contrary to its purposes, it functions under a separate set of unspoken standards that immunize them from the law.7
To Article V COS opponents, to those who believe a regular review of the people’s sovereignty at an Annual Article V Convention can only cause turmoil, John Locke wrote that when magistrates openly violate the trust put in them, the cynic may as well say that honest men may not oppose robbers because it may occasion bloodshed. If any mischief ensues, it is not the fault of he who defends his own right, but he who assaults his neighbors. If the innocent man must quietly quit all he has for the sake of peace, what kind of peace can there be which consists only in violence and rapine maintained for the benefit of the robbers and oppressors?
“Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” is one of the more famous questions in American history. Elizabeth Powel asked this of Benjamin Franklin on September 17, 1787, the last day of the Constitutional Convention. He replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”
Franklin was a delegate to the convention that had met behind closed doors for more than three months to address questions about the future of American governance. The delegates did not publicize their efforts until they emerged that day to present a newly drafted Constitution. From there, delegates to specially elected state conventions debated the document and put it to an up or down vote. A republic replaced the confederation of states when the ninth state ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788. Ratification by all 13 states did not occur until May 29, 1790.
Elizabeth Powel’s intimation that monarchy may have been an alternative may seem far-fetched today, but independence from Great Britain had occurred less than a dozen years prior, in 1776. The recent death of the British monarch Queen Elizabeth II offers a bridge from present to past as it calls to mind the shared history between the United States and Britain. Queen Elizabeth’s ancestor King George III was the monarch when America declared independence. At the queen’s funeral, her crown, scepter, and orb were dramatically displayed on the coffin, symbolizing the power, authority, and sanctity of the monarchy.
In colonial America, the colonists lived as British subjects under a constitutional monarchy and complied with the demands of the crown and parliament. As the colonies grew in population and developed independently, the colonists increasingly became more mindful of their rights. The famed statement, “no taxation without representation” is one example of a disputed issue between the Americans and the British, which also highlighted the lack of British recognition of their rights.
In response to these conflicts, the colonists formed a Continental Congress to address issues that went beyond singular colonial disputes. One of its most significant acts was the Declaration of Rights and Grievances in 1774, with the following preamble to the colonies’ list of rights: “That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights.”
Representatives in the Second Continental Congress subsequently voted to declare independence from the British when efforts to resolve their differences failed.
The Declaration of Independence included both grievances against the British and the statement of universal principles. The extraordinary phrase in the Declaration’s first sentence—To assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them—recognized a universal standard independent of man-made governments and institutions. It also included the phrases—all men are created equal and [assuming] a separate and equal station—which cast off the British monarch’s crown, scepter, and orb. All the trappings of monarchy, as shown in Queen Elizabeth’s televised funeral, ceased to have effect. Americans were no longer subordinate to the British monarchy and government; they assumed an equal station. Nor were there Kings and Queens in America’s future. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the 1787 Constitution underscores the notion that the drafters of the Constitution were serious about ridding the nation of any vestiges of royalty or nobility:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Upon declaring independence in 1776, Parliament no longer governed American affairs, former British subjects could become citizens of the new nation, and Americans could strive to become a free and self-governing people under new governance for the nation. This work continued in 1787 when Franklin and others participated in the Constitutional Convention, which laid the foundation for a new American republic.
A Well-Administered Government
Franklin’s participation in these efforts was expected, as he was a towering figure in colonial America. He was known best as a printer, writer, and publisher. He was not university-educated like Adams, Jefferson, and Madison but had been an apprentice in his older brother’s print shop. His curiosity and self-directed study led him to pursue his interests in politics and science. He was a man whose learning and wisdom had also been formed by his experiences throughout America and in foreign countries. Most colonists and citizens in early America did not venture far from their hometowns or states, but Franklin had traveled to England, France, Scotland, and Germany in private and official capacities, and had lived abroad for several years. He also had experiences with foreign governments, including serving as U.S. Ambassador to France.
America also benefited from Franklin’s political skills. He was a delegate to the second Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, and among the five who drafted the Declaration of Independence. He signed the 1776 Declaration, the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France that secured French support during the Revolutionary War, the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War with the British, and the 1787 Constitution.
Franklin was more than 80 years old during the convention, and his speech was the last delivered, read by fellow delegate James Wilson. The content gives insight into his views of not only the document, but government in general. He began by expressing his doubts about the work just completed.
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being obliged, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.
An example of Franklin changing his views relates to the previous comments about declaring independence. As a colonist, he supported the British. In an exchange with William Strahan in 1769, he gave a sober assessment of the relations between the two countries and the potential for malice and mutual hatred that prevailed between other countries. He concluded his letter with the hope that his predictions “may all prove false Prophecy” and that they both “live to see as sincere and Perfect a friendship establish’d between our respective Countries.” Franklin’s hope did not come to pass. His experiences with British officials and their poor governance of the American colonies eventually led him to join the fight for independence.
Despite Franklin’s doubts about the newly drafted Constitution, he sought to persuade his fellow delegates to sign the document. He spoke candidly to them.
I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views.
Similar to the qualification in his response to Elizabeth Powel, “a republic . . . if you can keep it,” Franklin included another qualification in his speech to the delegates: “there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred;” A well-drafted Constitution is a first step, but his added requirement that it must be well administered is necessary for it to be a blessing to the people. Those who work in government—legislators, the president, judges, and officials—contribute to a well-administered government.
Franklin gave a vote of confidence to the work that he and his fellow delegates had just completed when he added, “I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years.” He did not say that it would be well administered forever but a course of years. Would it be 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years? Even though Franklin’s fellow delegates heard this speech more than 200 years ago, questioning whether the current American government is well-administered and a blessing to the people engages citizens in a continuous assessment of their government.
Franklin’s warning that “[it] can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other” links government to the character of the people. This prompts the question: what is required of a people to maintain a good government and their liberty?
George Washington stated in his 1796 Farewell Address that religion and morality support political prosperity; and virtue or morality support popular government. Franklin had long before addressed the importance of virtue, having sketched his intended writings on the subject in a letter to Lord Kames in 1760. The character of the people in a republican government matters because of the prominent role that they play in participating in governance, selecting their representatives, and voting on matters that concern both citizen and nation. The sovereign authority in America’s constitutional republic also resides in the people. A corrupt people are no longer self-governing and thus fall prey to tyrannical and despotic governments. iStock/Getty Images
The Document, the Implementation, and the Citizenry
There is a progression of topics in Franklin’s speech to the Convention delegates. He begins with the new foundation of the Constitution, continues with the administration of the new government, and then discusses the people. In other words, his speech encompassed the document, the implementation and execution, and the citizenry. In addition to the necessity of the people being of good character, Franklin expanded the scope with reference to their opinion.
Much of the Strength and Efficiency of any Government, in procuring & securing Happiness to the People depends on Opinion, on the general Opinion of the Goodness of that Government as well as of the Wisdom & Integrity of its Governors.
In his Politics, Aristotle included a discussion of judging the goodness of government and its rulers. He distinguished between governments that rule on behalf of the common good and those whose rulers use the government to further their own interests. The former garners the good opinion of the people, whereas the latter does not. The British government advanced its own interests rather than those of the colonists. The colonists’ opinions of British governance were such that they could no longer remain under its authority, which eventually led them to declare independence from the crown.
Franklin’s statements are also applicable to citizens in modern-day governments. In a republic, it is particularly important to assess the government and its governors. If their political leaders or institutions are deemed inadequate, the people must act.
Franklin ended his speech with a call for support of the new Constitution. “I hope therefore that for our own Sakes, as a Part of the People, and for the Sake of our Posterity, we shall act heartily & unanimously in recommending this Constitution, wherever our Influence may extend, and turn our future Thoughts and Endeavours to the Means of having it well administred.” Thirty-nine delegates signed the document on September 17, 1787, and submitted it to the people.
These excerpts from Franklin’s speech demonstrate how he pairs concepts that lead to good government. It is not just the Constitution but how it is administered; it is not just the people, but their character and their opinion of the government and its governors; it is not just any opinion, but opinion as to the goodness of the government and the wisdom and integrity of its governors. He moves from the Constitution’s text to the people to those who govern, thus encompassing the whole of the new American republic.
What may have seemed a throw-away line in his exchange with Elizabeth Powel is now seen in a different light when the political skills and experience of Franklin are known. This wise man’s response —A republic . . . if you can keep it—was profound. There are two parts to it: the first identifies a form of government and the second, similar to the excerpts quoted from his speech to the Convention delegates, is cautionary. Both parts require elaboration.Caroline Brehman/CQ via Getty Images
A Republic . . .
The new U.S. Constitution laid the foundation for a republic, a form of government that had never been present in America at a national level. To explain the Constitution and persuade delegates to support it, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, writing under the pseudonym Publius, published 85 essays commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers. Publius defined a republic as “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people”.
Franklin’s speech to the delegates, quoted above, linked the power and sovereign authority of the people to the administration of government to underscore the connection between government and people. A republic, which derives its powers from the people, is a sharp contrast to the constitutional monarchy that governed colonial America and the confederation. While the 13 original colonies drafted constitutions upon declaring independence, each state retained its sovereignty and delegated power to the United States. The adoption of a confederation of states ultimately proved to be inadequate in the governance of the new nation. The new constitutional structure in 1787 preserved the states but replaced the confederation.
Publius further defined a republic as “administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.” Recall the words from Franklin’s speech: “there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered.” It is not simply going through the motions to fulfill tasks, but it must be administered well. Publius’ definition also included three requirements: pleasure, limited period, good behavior.
The word “pleasure” is not in the Constitution, but the concept of serving at the pleasure of a government official or the people is. For example, the president’s cabinet members serve at his pleasure; he can hire and fire at his own discretion. Representatives, senators, and the president serve defined terms, with the president limited to a four-year term before standing for reelection. Article III, Section 1 includes the language: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” There is a contrast between those serving in a republic who have specified terms or conditions and a hereditary monarchy. Elizabeth Powel’s question included two possible choices: a monarchy or a republic. When America declared independence, the presence of monarchy was abolished in America. A decade later, the people again rejected monarchy and ushered in a republic framed by the Constitution. Monarchy was thus twice rejected.
There are advantages to a republican form of government. First, it serves as a check on faction, as explained in Federalist 10. A group with different opinions or interests within a larger group allows for a healthy exchange of ideas. When those groups become factions, party strife, and dissension may occur. Publius called factions one of the great threats to free government. In a republic, a majority vote can stop a faction. If the faction represents a majority, a means to defeat it in a large republic is by taking in “a greater variety of parties and interests.” Publius argued that in an extended sphere, it would be “less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.”
Justice is a check on the majority, as Publius argues in Federalist 51:
In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.
A second advantage of a republican form of government is that it protects against pure, raw democracy, which in the worst form leads to mob rule. Publius explained in Federalist 10 that a republic “refine(s) and enlarge(s) the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, (including elected officials and representatives or judges) whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” These words remind the body of people electing representatives to choose candidates who will govern with the best interests of the country in mind.
A third advantage of a republican form of government is that it brings together the many and the few. The people—the many—participate in governance by electing their representatives—the few—who are drawn from the people. One of the reasons representatives in the House have two-year terms is to ensure that they are closer to the people. Publius explains in Federalist 52: “it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people.” Regrettably, a trend in recent decades is a return rate greater than 90 percent for incumbents. When politicians hold their offices for decades, the common interest is subverted.
These advantages in the republican form of government are but a few of those that emerged from the convention. Yet, Franklin added a cautionary note “. . . if you can keep it.” Why was he skeptical?
. . . If You Can Keep It
Republican government was not a new pursuit in the history of government. Rome was the most famous republic in the classical world, and more recently many countries have republics that vary based upon their governing principles. Anticipating America’s unique challenges, the framers made three additions to the U.S. Constitution.
First, there was a concern whether a republican form of government in the United States could stand up to the dramatic expansion that was possible and likely. At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, there were 13 states and a vast expanse of land that lay beyond the borders of these states. Some 25 years after the ratification of the Constitution, the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 expanded the landmass of the United States, doubling the size of the republic.
While Publius argued that extending the sphere was a positive means of pushing back against factions, it is legitimate to ask whether an extended sphere would prevent the elected officeholders from being close to the people in a representative form of government. One response is to recall that the original Constitution was intended to be a limited government. Its scope of authority was delineated carefully. An example is the enumeration of legislative powers in Article I, Section 8. It circumscribes or limits what legislators can do.
Another example is the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The states had their own Constitutions and governed within their boundaries when the Constitution was ratified. There was also an orderly process for new territories to form and new states to enter the union. Within these states, there was local governance. The 1787 Constitution was transformational, but much of what was in place with respect to local and state governance remained, and so provided continuity.iStock/Getty Images
A Carriage for a Sedan
From Franklin’s time to the present, significant changes have taken place. Were he living today, he would trade in his carriage for a sedan, and he would arrive in Paris in a matter of hours instead of spending weeks on a ship. The serious consideration is how to “keep” a republican form of government that was introduced 235 years ago. Politics is dynamic, not static. The drafters of the Constitution recognized that social conventions would change, and political exigencies and unforeseen events would arise. They included an orderly process to amend the Constitution in Article V. In addition to the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, there have been 17 additional amendments. Others have been proposed, but not ratified.
These three examples—orderly expansion, maintaining a republican form of government, and the amendment process—demonstrate how the drafters of the Constitution anticipated challenges and potentially destabilizing events and provided the citizens and their government the means to “keep” the Republic within a constitutional framework.
Other concerns are present in the United States that make Franklin’s cautionary statement very real. One of the requirements of a successful republican government is the participation of the people. An educated citizenry is a necessary component to achieve this. Franklin drafted Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in 1749, long before the events that led to America adopting a republican form of government. His mention of the commonwealth and public service links it to the present conversation.
The good Education of Youth has been esteemed by wise Men in all Ages, as the surest Foundation of the Happiness both of private Families and of Common-wealths. Almost all Governments have therefore made it a principal Object of their Attention, to establish and endow with proper Revenues, such Seminaries of Learning, as might supply the succeeding Age with Men qualified to serve the Publick with Honour to themselves, and to their Country.
In addition to educating the youth, there were also proposals for a national university. The university was seen as a means to make “republican citizens” to achieve the goals of a permanent union. George Washington’s December 7, 1796 statement to the United States Congress recognized that “among the motives to such an institution, the assimilation of the principles, opinions, and manners of our countrymen, by the common education of a portion of our youth from every quarter, well deserves attention.” He envisioned a plan “for communicating it [the science of government] to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country.” The plan never came to fruition, but it is noteworthy that Franklin and Washington recognized the importance of the education of youth and young adults to the perpetuation and prosperity of the nation.Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Miseducation Bolstered by Cancel Culture
There is a present-day crisis in education that imperils the perpetuation of American political institutions. Curricular changes that stem from efforts to upend the traditional foundations of America are seen most recently in the advancement of critical race theory and the “1619 Project” in schools. Critical race theory dates to a legal studies movement at Harvard Law School in the 1970s. In a legal setting, instead of an individual’s actions being judged by the rule of law, the theory advocated a broader scope that considered, among other things, a disadvantaged background or racial injustices when determining innocence or guilt. The aim was to transform the principle of equality before the law by consideration of other factors that went beyond the action or behavior of the accused.
What has come to be known as “The 1619 Project” originated as a series of articles published in the New York Times Magazine in August 2019. It was originally presented in the following manner: “The 1619 Project is a major initiative from the New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” The language “understanding 1619 as our true founding” was subsequently removed, but the curricular programs were launched.
These two movements are bolstered by what is commonly referred to as cancel culture. Those in political, educational, and activist circles stifle or target the speech and activity of others who question or challenge them. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, but speech must be understood in the broadest sense. Speech, dialogue, and debate are necessary and beneficial in a republic for many reasons. They advance participation among citizens and those who govern and contribute to unity and fellowship, even when there is disagreement. These pursuits also foster the prospect of living in a good political community by articulating ideas, aspirations, and goals; bringing to light solutions to problems; and contributing to the resolution of differences.
These movements of critical race theory, the “1619 Project,” and the attack on speech and ideas imperil both education and the republic. There is also a link between these movements, slavery, and the republican form of government announced to Elizabeth Powel on the last day of the Convention. The Constitution is not pro-slavery, but the Convention delegates made compromises regarding slavery (including the Three-fifths Compromise, the slave trade clause, and the fugitive slave clause) to complete the final document.
With respect to the question of a republic, one can ask whether there was a republic throughout the United States upon ratification of the Constitution. Arguably, there was only a partial republican form of government in those states where slaves were denied the opportunity to consent to and participate in governance. We again look to the language of the Declaration of Independence and recall that Franklin was on the drafting committee. It includes the phrase, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The incongruity of proclaiming that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights is seized upon by those who question and discredit the founding. Franklin, however, took a different approach.
Franklin had owned slaves as a young man, but he later joined the effort to abolish slavery. He became president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery in 1787. Among their goals was to abolish slavery and integrate freed slaves into American society. After ratification of the Constitution, he published essays supporting the end of slavery and, two months before his death, he petitioned Congress in February 1790 to address slavery. Congress tabled the Petition. It took 76 years after ratification of the Constitution to pass the Civil War Amendments that ended slavery. Although discrimination persisted, former slaves from that point on could participate as citizens in the republic and be among those who were not deprived of their unalienable rights as recognized in the Declaration of Independence.
In a 1784 letter Franklin wrote to Charles Thomson, he described the transition that occurred in America since declaring independence. “The several colonies were distinct and separate governments, each jealous of another and kept apart by local interests and prejudices.” Franklin identified several contentious issues which “afforded little Opportunity of acquiring National sentiments.” Over the period of eight years, “the time elapsed since we became a Nation,” he gave this assessment: “And I am happy to think that the people every day become more and more impressed with the necessity of honorably paying our debts, supporting public credit and establishing a national character.”
This mention of a national character provides direction for meeting the current challenges of keeping the American republic. The attacks on the founding of the nation, in part due to the continuance of the slavery that began in colonial America, can be met with a call to reassert a concept of a national character whereby all Americans are included. The divisiveness and fragmentation into groups undermine the nation and may well destroy the republic. While Franklin also expressed his concerns that Britain would attempt to recover what she had lost or “at least to be revenged for what she has suffered,” Americans, too, must guard against these same acts by those who attack or attempt to change or end the American constitutional order. Franklin wrote that it was necessary for America (and her French allies) “to be on their guard and not suffer themselves to be duped by the arts of their common enemy.” Americans, too, must not be “duped” and be ever mindful of keeping our republic.
This essay is adapted from a speech given on September 23, 2022, during the Constitution Week events at Lake Havasu, Arizona.
Elizabeth Eastman holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Claremont Graduate School, an M.A. in Liberal Education from St. John’s College, and a B.A. in French Literature and Civilization from Scripps College. She has taught in political science and history departments and in the liberal studies programs at colleges and universities around the country. She was the 2020-21 senior scholar in residence at the Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization in Boulder, Colorado.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 