‘If you can keep it’

As the story goes, when Benjamin Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention, a woman approached him and asked what kind of government the new nation would be getting. “A republic, madam,” Franklin reportedly said, “if you can keep it.”

Franklin knew that there would be many pressures upon the system that the Founders had designed, pressures that could cause the then-fledgling republic to mutate into something else. Despite those pressures, that system has managed, in one way or another, to survive a civil war, two “world wars” (three, if you count the Cold War as one), several economic meltdowns, multiple waves of immigration and innumerable conflicts small and large, foreign and domestic.

Today, there are again concerns being raised about the viability of the American republic and its processes of democratic governance. The executive branch of the federal government has grossly exceeded its authority in a number of areas, and the legislative branch has offered token resistance at best. Public trust in all branches of government has reached historically low levels, and dissatisfaction with the performance of the ruling class as a whole (that includes folks like CEOs) has never been greater. Economic uncertainty is increasing, as the consequences of the financial excesses of the last few years begin to materialize.

But at the same time, more information is available than ever before, both on issues and on candidates. Citizens have new and powerful tools at their fingertips for educating themselves, making their own opinions known, finding like-minded spirits, organizing themselves into powerful coalitions and making real and meaningful impacts on the development and implementation of public policy.

The situation is ripe for one of two developments: either the emergence of a new civic consensus, a renegotiation of the social contract that reinvigorates public participation in politics and creates a more responsive and accountable government, or the emergence of a new demagogue, a strongman (or woman) who marshals the populace and whips them into line by propaganda, force of personality and just plain force.

Starting as you read these words, I figure we’ve got just about a year to make up our minds.

Though I have not succumbed to complete despair, I have to say that I am not overly optimistic at the moment. I recently asked myself a simple question: “Which Presidential match-up is likely to generate the most revenue for media outlets and other parts of corporate America?” Not which candidate would offer the more business-friendly climate if elected, mind you—I mean which of the possible contests would in and of itself sell the most books, T-shirts and bumperstickers? Which would generate the most heated debates on TV, spawn the greatest number of websites, polarize the population the most?

If you answered “Why, Rudy versus Hillary, of course,” then I’d have to say you’re probably right. On the basis of that assumption alone, I am willing to go out on the proverbial limb and predict here and now that absent any kind of metaphorical bombshells falling on either campaign, Giuliani vs. Clinton (“The Rematch of the Century! And this time, it’s PERSONAL!”) will indeed be the result by the time the dust settles sometime next spring or summer. That campaign, if history is any indication, will be ugly indeed, even by the standards of contemporary American politics. And as you may have noticed, the consensus that has been emerging in the media lately is exactly for that match-up—despite the fact that large sections of each party have serious reservations about each person, and not a single primary vote has been cast.

As for me, at this point I am seriously planning on writing in Stephen Colbert. (Seriously.)

But we shall see. We have managed to answer Franklin’s challenge so far, and there are specific things that can be done to answer it in these times as well. More about those in upcoming columns.

- Skip Mendler