Hang together: The importance of changing from one president to the next
In 1776, Benjamin Franklin famously said, “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall hang separately.” Clever, but what was his point, and what does his advice mean in 2020?
But before I answer my question, let me explain what prompts me to pose it. In a recent professional survey – not a poll – 40 percent of both Republicans and Democrats said that the other party was “not just worse for politics – they are downright evil.”
Although we may have consequential disagreements with each other, this extreme attitude is incompatible with who we aspire to be. In a democracy, viewing people with whom we disagree on matters of legitimate debate as enemies puts us on a road to catastrophe.
The Commission on the Practice of Democratic Citizenship reports that when Americans are asked “What unites us across our differences, the increasingly common answer is ‘nothing’.” Now, we are in the process of sorting out an extraordinarily contentious election wherein the candidates leveled inflammatory charges against each other, charges which suggested doom if the other side wins.
A central aspect of our responsibility as citizens is to accept the results of an election with which we do not agree. Your preferred candidate will often lose. Take for example the elections of Donald Trump and Barack Obama.
In the case of Donald Trump, 65 million people preferred Hillary Clinton – more than her competitor – and were most probably disheartened when she lost in the Electoral College. With respect to Barack Obama, John McCain supporters were no doubt disconcerted by his defeat. But how else would you have us choose our leader and our commander-in-chief if not by a competitive election? The unattractive alternative is to be ruled as a “subject” — not a citizen — by an autocrat who has power that has been seized, not earned.
Our Constitution begins with three important words, “We the People.” With these words, we signal our choice to govern ourselves as a collective body and by the rule of the law, not the edicts of unelected rulers. We manifest our consent by voting. Thus, the majority wins in an election, normally by popular vote or when the presidency is at stake, in the Electoral College; and to put it bluntly, the minority does not.
But in a larger sense, we all win because our system has worked its will, and the democratic process established by our Constitution has determined the outcome. The winner of an election may not be your personal choice or my choice, but the winner is our collective choice, whether it be Barack Obama or Donald Trump. We must abide such choices until the next election, or democracy itself fails.
An important aspect of elections is what political scientists indelicately call the “consent of the losers.” If a candidate who does not win attacks or rejects the certified result, the candidate is rejecting democracy itself and encouraging the candidates’ followers to do likewise.
Challenging election results including asking for recounts and filing lawsuits are a legitimate part of democracy, but when all the dust has settled, an unsuccessful candidate must become part of the transition. Graceful concessions by those who do not succeed — including by a candidate’s supporters — become an essential part of the glue that holds a democracy together and pave the way for a peaceful transfer of power.
By the same token, a winning candidate must not gloat or dismiss those who did not vote for him or her, but must, instead, reach out to be the president of all the people, not just the candidate’s supporters. Leaders who measure every issue through a myopic partisan lens inevitably sow toxic division among us. As Harry Truman taught us, there is a time for politics, but there is also a time for country.
Our Constitution is a social compact, a compact which confers unique human rights on each of us. In return for these precious rights, our system also requires that we embrace a reciprocal obligation that goes along with them, the obligation to accord to others what you expect them to accord to you. Individual rights cannot exist without this balance.
If you do not accept my rights, why should I honor yours? If you won’t accept my winning candidate, why should I accept yours? To borrow from boxing, our Constitution gives us an accommodating ring for the spirited contest and rules to make the fight fair. If we jump from the ring and begin to throw chairs at each other, however, we abandon the rule of law at our peril.
If you are aggrieved by the result of an election, you are not without a remedy: due process of law. Carl Schurz, a Union Army General in our Civil War, is often quoted as saying, “My country, right or wrong,” but the rest of his quotation is often omitted: “if right, to be kept right, and if wrong, to be set right.” Office holders must stand for reelection on a regular basis.
To enable you vigorously to pursue these remedies, the First Amendment gives you rights to freedom of speech, to peacefully assemble, loudly to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and to a free press.
Most importantly you have an untrammeled right to vote. The Supreme Court has called the right to vote “fundamental,” because it is “preservative of all rights.”
Change, however, must reflect the will of the people, and the will of the people is not easy to ascertain or to authorize. The task is staggering. The diversity of interests in our nation is immense: young and old, wealthy and wanting, conservative and progressive, capitalist and socialist, rural and metropolitan, different ethnicities, religions, secular convictions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
Unlike dictatorships, democracy does not offer an instant fix. Due process can be slow, noisy and unpredictable, but robust debate and thoughtful deliberation after a full hearing are its lifeblood. Without appropriate process, democracy cannot exist. Although it is called due process, it has momentous substance. The “how” we elect our leaders is as important as what the outcomes are.
President Jimmy Carter said, “We become not a melting pot, but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams.” Yet out of all of these vast disparities, we expect to create “e pluribus unum”: one from many. Unless we can accomplish this feat, we will not achieve our goal of one nation with liberty and equal justice for all.
Making one out of many, however, does not mean that we must lose our identities and beliefs. It means only adding a critical dimension to who we are as individuals, the element of sincerely pledging allegiance to our constitutional democratic enterprise.
Ben was correct when he admonished us to hang together. Our Constitution promises a path to “a more perfect Union,” not one that will always deliver our personal preference in elected officials.
But just think, we might have been born in North Korea under Kim Jong Un, in China under Xi Jinping, in Russia under Putin, or Venezuela under Maduro.
Aren’t we fortunate to live here, doing our best to hang together? Now let’s put our shoulders to the wheel to make it work!