Chuck Schumer Can’t Save Us
We, the People, must take back the political debate that’s afflicting the nation. Democratic victories in the 2026 and 2028 elections would change the government, but they wouldn’t solve the problem of governance in America. Chuck Schumer can’t save us anymore than Donald J. Trump. It’s up to us to save ourselves.
The United States has just entered its 250th anniversary year of independence. Beyond the superficial gilded glitz, glamour, and merch President Trump has planned, the anniversary offers an opportunity to reflect on what our forefathers, e.g., Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin, and foremothers, e.g., Abigail Adams, Phyllis Wheatley, Martha Washington, and Deborah Sampson, would think of today’s America. How true has it remained to their republican values and ideals?
It’s a dialogue the nation’s politicians should listen to rather than lead. Many of today’s government leaders foster the deepening divide between Americans by placing party above people and casting complex problems in binary terms, e.g., “woke” or “(un)woke”.
There could be no better or more appropriate time for a national dialogue focusing on the state of our democracy. Americans have disapproved of the federal government’s direction for decades, no matter which party is in control.
Years of polling confirm that a majority of Americans agree with David Brooks’ conclusion that “conventional parties and politicians, whose time horizon doesn’t stretch past the next election, are hapless” when it comes to doing what’s in the best interest of a pluralistic society.
Our forebears warned us of what could happen when tribal factions, e.g., political parties and religious groups, dominate the political landscape. They knew from experience the dangers of authoritarian regimes and how factions can undermine democratic foundations.
George Washington chose not to seek a third term – something he could have had for the asking. His antipathy towards the monarchic system and its trappings was strong – no gilding, no thrones. No more than two terms and no images of living presidents on coinage should be allowed. He understood that the peaceful transfer of power lies at the heart of democracy; and, It must be exercised to stay strong.
Washington’s examples have, for the most part, withstood the test of time. The image of only one living president, Calvin Coolidge, has ever been minted. It was a 50-cent piece featuring both Washington and Coolidge. The coin was issued in 1926 to mark the nation’s 150th anniversary. Washington would have thought it a trapping of would-be kings.
The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution, limiting a president to two terms, didn’t take effect until 1951. With the exception of Frank Delano Roosevelt, every president voluntarily followed Washington’s example.
As he was leaving office, Washington issued a Farewell Address: To the people of the United States. Washington’s missive was a warning that now seems prescient. For him, factionalism, e.g., geographic, political, religious, etc., was the greatest threat to the new nation.
At the time of its birth, the title United States was more aspirational than factual. Stark cultural differences between geographic areas and state economies that characterized the original 13 colonies and demarked North from South in 1860, leading to a most uncivil war, are in evidence today.
The first president mistrusted political parties. An American Nostradamus, Washington anticipated today’s drift towards authoritarianism and how it could come about. The “alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension,” has led at different times to “horrid” consequences. (Emphasis added) It’s fair to say that the spirit of revenge is alive and well in Trump’s capital city.
Washington believed that despotism could take the form of one-party domination. Something he understood to be, at the very least, antithetical to the democratic principles on which the still young nation was founded.
Based on his experience and observations, he foresaw that “sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.” (Emphasis added) Washington would not approve of Trump stamping his name and face on everything from tickets to national parks to institutes of peace and the memorials to other presidents.
We, the People, are beginning to fear that Washington was right. Although the editors of the New York Times (NYT) conclude that the US is not (yet) a fully-fledged autocracy, they warn that, under Trump’s presidency, the slide towards authoritarianism is speeding up.
The NYT assessment is based on 12 “markers”, including limitations on free speech, usurping congressional power, using the presidency for personal gain, persecuting political opponents in the courts or through executive order, ignoring judicial opinions, and rewriting science and history to suit an autocrat’s narrative.
A growing majority of Americans, including two-thirds of independents, now view the president as a dangerous dictator, although most Republicans continue to approve of his actions. (See Figure 1)
The New York Times editors’ opinion and the conclusions of the surveyed political scientists are shared by most of the American public. The Values Survey of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that “increasing majorities of Americans view Trump as a ‘dangerous dictator’ rather than a strong leader.”
Trump’s “successes” have been the result of mob-like intimidation rather than moral persuasion, or good faith negotiation. Press the might of the world’s most powerful nation down on someone, and they are likely to bend a knee — or suffer its shattering. It’s assuming, of course, that he doesn’t just blow them up.
Although 85 percent of Republicans don’t (yet) see Trump as a dictator, 91 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents believe him an autocrat “whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.” (Emphasis added) The trend is not Trump’s friend.
The Democrats may retake control of either or both chambers of Congress in 2026 and the White House and Congress in 2028. It matters if they win as a rejection of Trump’s America First regime or because they finally find a way to connect with voters.
The negativity surrounding Trump’s second term and the state of the economy and job market are reasons enough for voters – particularly independents – to switch sides.
The problem for the Democrats is that nobody really likes them – at least as a party. It’s hardly clear they like themselves. Notwithstanding the party’s winning ways in this year’s off-year elections, e.g., gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey, NYC mayoral, and two utility commissioners in Georgia.
Sixty-eight percent of Americans believe the Democratic Party is “out of touch” with the concerns of everyday people. Voting Democratic can be nothing more than a rejection of Trump’s illiberal populism.
President Trump and the Republican Party are thought nearly as out of touch with the realities faced by ordinary people as the Democrats – 63 percent and 61 percent respectively. (See Figure 2)
During Biden’s four years in office, an average of 29 percent of Americans thought the country was going in the right direction, while 63 percent on average thought the wrong direction. Today, those numbers are only slightly changed, although Trump’s policies are the near opposites of Biden’s, e.g., clean energy, tariffs, the environment, and healthcare.
According to Gallup, only 15 percent of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing in October, which included the shutdown of the federal government due to the national legislature’s inability to keep the government open. During the Biden administration, Congress (two years of which were controlled by the Democrats) had an average approval rating of 23 percent. Since 2008, Congress’ rating has hovered around 20 percent.
The president makes no bones about his demand for unquestioned loyalty. Once his champion, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has gone from champ to chump, having lost Trump’s support because she backs extending the Obamacare subsidies her constituents need to afford health insurance and expects transparency on the Epstein files.
Trump saw Greene’s demands as disloyal (to him), and bad for party unity. Her constituents didn’t seem to fit into his thinking. Intimately familiar with Trump’s brand of vilification that he reserves for former friends and blue states, e.g., Jeff Sessions, Minnesota, and Illinois, Greene has chosen to resign from Congress rather than put herself and her district at the mercy of the president.
Christopher Lasch, “something of a populist icon,” who counted both Jimmy Carter and Steve Bannon as fans, wrote:
“The old dispute between left and right has exhausted its capacity to clarify issues and to provide a reliable map of reality.”
In The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, Lasch confirmed Washington’s fears that parties would come to be “dominated by rival elites committed to irreconcilable ideologies.” He accurately observed that a binary loyalty standard, e.g., Trump or no Trump, obscures “the views Americans have in common.”
Decades of polling confirm that a majority agree with David Brooks’ conclusion that “conventional parties and politicians, whose time horizon doesn’t stretch past the next election, are hapless” when it comes to doing what’s in the best interest of a pluralistic society.
We, the People, have a lot more in common than binary politics suggest. Populist or progressive, Reagan Republican or Blue Dog Democrat, Californian or Iowan, we agree on at least one thing – our parties are failing us.
The spirit of America has become the “Spirit of Revenge and Dissension” that Washington warned the infant nation would happen if the different interests couldn’t learn to compromise for the common weal, which is not to say splitting everything down the middle.
Lasch saw that ideological purity leads to symbolic issues replacing substantive ones on political agendas. But, worst of all, it has “distorted our view of the world and confronted us with a series of false choices: between feminism and the family, social reform and traditional values, racial justice and individual accountability.” Add to this a regulated or unregulated environment, partner or persecutor of traditional allies, religious freedom, or a state religion?
If nothing changes, the 2026 and 2028 elections are likely to return power to the Democrats. But to what end?
If history repeats itself, as it often does, the next Democratic administration will work diligently to swap out Trumpist policies for its own. However, as the surveys suggest, they will be largely trading one set of disapproved of policies and priorities for another.
The swing between hyperpartisan policies is not progress. It’s a sign of societal insanity to keep repeating the pattern in hopes of a better outcome, i.e., a government that a large majority of us actually approve of.
No recent poll was more worrisome (to me) than a New York Times/Siena College survey that found nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the country is “incapable of overcoming its deep divisions.” According to the poll:
“Americans were most likely to point to problems in the political culture as the most urgent. They named polarization and the state of democracy more often than immigration, inflation or crime.”
Those results strongly suggest that most Americans see themselves as victims, without the wherewithal to do anything about it. It’s what wanna-be dictators want us to believe.
Today’s polarization once again suggests that the title of the “United States” is more aspirational than factual — much as it was at the nation’s founding and through years of civil war.
Fortunately, polarization is a problem that We, the People, are in the best position to resolve. Let’s make this, the 250th anniversary of America’s independence, a time to renew our collective commitment to the Constitution and each other through civil discourse.
Lead image credit: Washington at Verplanck by John Trumbull courtesy of Wikimedia.
