Is America a Democracy, Republic, or Empire?

Is America a Democracy, Republic, or Empire?


By Oliver DeMille



Some in Washington are fond of saying that certain nations don't know how to do democracy.

Anytime a nation breaks away from totalitarian or authoritarian controls, these "experts" point out that the people aren't "prepared" for democracy.

But this is hardly the point.

A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy--but where a strong leader is prepared for tyranny--is still better off as a democracy.

A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy but where an elite class is prepared for aristocracy is still better off as a democracy.

A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy but where a socialist or fundamentalist religious bureaucracy is prepared to rule is still better off as a democracy.

Whatever the people's inadequacies, they will do better than the other, class-dominant forms of government.

Winston Churchill was right:
"Democracy is the worst form of government--except all the other forms that have been tried."
False Democracy

When I say "democracy," I am of course not referring to a pure democracy where the masses make every decision; this has always turned to mob rule through history.

Of Artistotle's various types and styles of democracy, this was the worst. The American founders considered this one of the least effective of free forms of government.

Nor do I mean a "socialist democracy" as proposed by Karl Marx, where the people elect leaders who then exert power over the finances and personal lives of all citizens.

Whether this type of government is called democracy (e.g. Social Democrats in many former Eastern European nations) in the Marxian sense or a republic (e.g. The People's Republic of China, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--USSR, etc.), it amounts to the same oligarchic model of authoritarian rule.

Marx used the concept of democracy--he called it "the battle for democracy"--to argue for the working classes to rise up against the middle and upper classes and take back their power.

Ironically, he believed the masses incapable of such leadership, and felt that a small group of elites, the "vanguard", would have to do the work of the masses for them.

This argument assumes an oligarchic view of the world, and the result of attempted Marxism has nearly always been dictatorial or oligarchic authoritarianism.

In this attitude Marx follows his mentor Hegel, who discounted any belief in the power or wisdom of the people as wild imaginings (see Mortimer Adler's discussion on "Monarchy" in the Syntopicon).

The American founders disagreed entirely with this view.

A Democratic Republic

The type of democracy we need more of in the world is constitutional representative democracy, with:
A written constitution that separates the legislative, executive and judicial powers.
Limits all with checks and balances, and leaves most of the governing power in the hands of the people and local and regional, rather than national, government institutions.

In such a government, the people have the power to elect their own representatives who participate at all levels. Then the people closely oversee the acts of government.

One other power of the people in a constitutional representative democratic republic is to either ratify or reject the original constitution.

Only the support of the people allows any constitution to be adopted (or amended) by a democratic society.

The American framers adopted Locke's view that the legislative power was closest to the people and should have the sole power over the nation's finances.

Thus in the U.S. Constitution, direct representatives of the people oversaw the money and had to answer directly to the people every two years.

Two Meanings of "Democracy"

There are two ways of understanding the term democracy. One is as a governmental form--which is how this article has used the word so far. The other is as a societal format.

There are four major types of societies:
A chaotic society with no rules, laws or government.
A monarchial society where one man or woman has full power over all people and aspects of the society.
An aristocratic society where a few people--an upper class--control the whole nation.
A democratic society where the final say over the biggest issues in the nation comes from the regular people

As a societal form, democracy is by far the best system.Montesquieu, who was the source most quoted at the American Constitutional Convention, said:
"[Democracy exists] when the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power."
In a good constitutional democracy, the constitution limits the majority from impinging upon the inalienable rights of a minority--or of anyone at all.

Indeed, if a monarchial or aristocratic society better protects the rights of the people than a democratic nation, it may well be a more just and free society.

History has shown, however, that over time the people are more likely to protect their rights than any royal family or elite class.

When the many are asked to analyze and ratify a good constitution, and then to protect the rights of all, it turns out they nearly always protect freedom and just society better than the one or the few.

It is very important to clarify the difference between these two types of democracy--governmental and societal.

For example, many of the historic Greek "democracies" were governmental democracies only. They called themselves democracies because the citizens had the final say on the governmental structure and elections--but only the upper class could be citizens.

Thus these nations were actually societal aristocracies, despite being political democracies.

Plato called the societal form of democracy the best system and the governmental format of democracy the worst.

Clearly, knowing the difference is vital.

Aristotle felt that there are actually six major types of societal forms.

A king who obeys the laws leads a monarchial society, while a king who thinks he is above the law rules a tyrannical society.

Likewise, government by the few can either have different laws for the elite class or the same laws for all people, making oligarchy or aristocracy.

In a society where the people are in charge, they can either rule by majority power (he called this democracy) or by wise laws, protected inalienable rights and widespread freedom (he called this "mixed" or, as it is often translated, "constitutional" society).

Like Plato, Aristotle considered the governmental form of democracy bad, but better than oligarchy or tyranny; and he believed the societal form of democracy (where the people as a mass generally rule the society) to be good.

Democracy or Republic?

The authors of The Federalist Papers tried to avoid this confusion about the different meanings of "democracy" simply by shortening the idea of a limited, constitutional, representative democracy to the term "republic."

A breakdown of these pieces is enlightening:
Limited (unalienable rights for all are protected)

Constitutional (ratified by the people; the three major powers separated, checked and balanced)

Representative (the people elect their leaders, using different constituencies to elect different leaders for different governmental entities--like the Senate and the House)

Democracy (the people have the final say through elections and through the power to amend the constitution)

The framers required all state governments to be this type of republic, and additionally, for the national government to be federal (made up of sovereign states with their own power, delegating only a few specific powers to the national government).

When we read the writings of most of the American founders, it is helpful to keep this definition of "republic" in mind.

When they use the terms "republic" or "a republic" they usually mean a limited, constitutional, representative democracy like that of all the states.

When they say "the republic" they usually refer to the national-level government, which they established as a limited, constitutional, federal, representative democracy.

At times they shorten this to "federal democratic republic" or simply democratic republic.

Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson frequently used the term "representative democracy," but most of the other founders preferred the word "republic."

A Global Problem

In today's world the term "republic" has almost as many meanings as "democracy."

The term "democracy" sometimes has the societal connotation of the people overseeing the ratification of their constitution. It nearly always carries the societal democracy idea that the regular people matter, and the governmental democracy meaning that the regular people get to elect their leaders.

The good news is that freedom is spreading. Authoritarianism, by whatever name, depends on top-down control of information, and in the age of the Internet this is disappearing everywhere.

More nations will be seeking freedom, and dictators, totalitarians and authoritarians everywhere are ruling on borrowed time.

People want freedom, and they want democracy--the societal type, where the people matter. All of this is positive and, frankly, wonderful.

The problem is that as more nations seek freedom, they are tending to equate democracy with either the European or Asian versions (parliamentary democracy or an aristocracy of wealth).

The European parliamentary democracies are certainly an improvement over the authoritarian states many nations are seeking to put behind them, but they are inferior to the American model.

The same is true of the Asian aristocratic democracies.

Specifically, the parliamentary model of democracy gives far too much power to the legislative branch of government, with few separations, checks or balances.

The result is that there are hardly any limits to the powers of such governments. They simply do whatever the parliament wants, making it an Aristotelian oligarchy.

The people get to vote for their government officials, but the government can do whatever it chooses--and it is run by an upper class.

This is democratic government, but aristocratic society. The regular people in such a society become increasingly dependent on government and widespread prosperity and freedom decrease over time.

The Asian model is even worse. The governmental forms of democracy are in place, but in practice the very wealthy choose who wins elections, what policies the legislature adopts, and how the executive implements government programs.

The basic problem is that while the world equates freedom with democracy, it also equates democracy with only one piece of historical democracy--popular elections.

Nations that adopt the European model of parliamentary democracy or the Asian system of aristocratic democracy do not become societal democracies at all--but simply democratic aristocracies.

Democracy is spreading--if by democracy we mean popular elections; but aristocracy is winning the day.

Freedom--a truly widespread freedom where the regular people in a society have great opportunity and prosperity is common--remains rare around the world.

The Unpopular American Model

The obvious solution is to adopt the American model of democracy, as defined by leading minds in the American founding: limited, constitutional, representative, federal, and democratic in the societal sense where the regular people really do run the nation.

Unfortunately, this model is currently discredited in global circles and among the world's regular people for at least three reasons:

1. The American elite is pursuing other models.

The left-leaning elite (openly and vocally) idealize the European system, while the American elite on the right prefers the Asian structure of leadership by wealth and corporate status.

If most of the intelligentsia in the United States aren't seeking to bolster the American constitutional model, nor the elite U.S. schools that attract foreign students on the leadership track, it is no surprise that freedom-seekers in other nations aren't encouraged in this direction.

2. The American bureaucracy around the world isn't promoting societal democracy but rather simple political democracy--popular elections have become the entire de facto meaning of the term "democracy" in most official usage.

With nobody pushing for limited, constitutional, federal, representative democratic republics, we get what we promote: democratic elections in fundamentally class-oriented structures dominated by elite upper classes.

3. The American people aren't all that actively involved as democratic leaders.

When the U.S. Constitution was written, nearly every citizen in America was part of a Town Council, with a voice and a vote in local government. With much pain and sacrifice America evolved to a system where every adult can be such a citizen, regardless of class status, religious views, gender, race or disability.

Every adult now has the opportunity to have a real say in governance. Unfortunately, we have over time dispensed with the Town Councils of all Adults and turned to a representative model even at the most local community and neighborhood level.

As Americans have ceased to participate each week in council and decision-making with all adults, we have lost some of the training and passion for democratic involvement and become more reliant on experts, the press and political parties.

Voting has become the one great action of our democratic involvement, a significant decrease in responsibility since early America.

We still take part in juries--but now even that power has been significantly reduced--especially since 1896.

In recent times popular issues like environmentalism and the tea parties have brought a marked increase of active participation by regular citizens in the national dialogue.

Barack Obama's populist appeal brought a lot of youth into the discussion. The Internet and social media have also given more power to the voice of the masses.

When the people do more than just vote, when they are involved in the on-going dialogue on major issues and policy proposals, the society is more democratic--in the American founding model--and the outlook for freedom and prosperity brightens.

The Role of the People

Human nature being what it is, no people of any nation may be truly prepared for democracy.

But--human nature being what it is--they are more prepared to protect themselves from losses of freedom and opportunity than any other group.

Anti-democratic forces have usually argued that we need the best leaders in society, and that experts, elites and those with "breeding," experience and means are most suited to be the best leaders.

But free democratic societies (especially those with the benefits of limited, constitutional, representative, and locally participative systems) have proven that the right leaders are better than the best leaders.

We don't need leaders (as citizens or elected officials) who seem the most charismatically appealing nearly so much as we need those who will effectively stand for the right things.

And no group is more likely to elect such leaders than the regular people.

It is the role of the people, in any society that wants to be or remain free and prosperous, to be the overseers of their government.

If they fail in this duty, for whatever reason, freedom and widespread prosperity will decrease. If the people don't protect their freedoms and opportunities, despite what Marx thought, nobody will.

No vanguard, party or group of elites or experts will do as much for the people as they can do for themselves. History is clear on this reality.

We can trust the people, in America and in any other nation, to promote widespread freedom and prosperity better than anyone else.

Two Challenges

With that said, we face at least two major problems that threaten the strength of our democratic republic right now in the United States.

First, only a nation of citizen-readers can maintain real freedom. We must deeply understand details like these:
The two meanings of democracy

The realities and nuances of ideas such as: limited, constitutional, federal, representative, locally participative, etc.

The differences between the typical European, Asian, early American and other models competing for support in the world

...And so on

In short, we must study the great classics and histories to be the kind of citizen-leaders we should be.

The people are better than any other group to lead us, as discussed above, but as a people we can know more, understand more, and become better leaders.

Second, we face the huge problem all great democratic powers have eventually faced: how to reconcile our democratic society at home with our imperialism abroad.

As George Friedman has argued, we now control a world empire larger than any in history, whether we want to or not.

Yet a spirit of democratic opportunity, entrepreneurial freedom, inclusive love of liberty, freedom from oppressive class systems, and promotion of widespread prosperity is diametrically opposed to the arrogant, selfish, self-elevating, superiority-complex of imperialism.

This very dichotomy has brought down some of the greatest free nations of history.

On some occasions this challenge turned the home nation into an empire, thus killing the free democratic republic (e.g. Rome).

Other nations lost their power in the world because the regular people of the nation did not reconcile their democratic beliefs with the cruelty of imperial dominance and force (e.g. Athens, ancient Israel).

At times the colonies of an empire used the powerful democratic ideals of the great power against them and broke away.

At times the citizens of the great power refused to support the government in quelling rebellions with which they basically agreed (e.g. Great Britain and its relations with America, India, and many other former colonies).

Many of the great freedom thinkers of history have argued against empire and for the type of democratic republic the American framers established--see for example Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, the Bible, Plutarch, Tacitus, Augustine, Montaigne, Locke, Montesquieu, Gibbon, Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, and Madison, among others.

The Federalist mentions empire or imperialism 53 times, and not one of the references is positive.

In contrast, the main purpose of the Federalist Papers was to make a case for a federal, democratic republic.

Those who believe in American exceptionalism (that the United States is an exception to many of the class-oriented patterns in the history of nations) now face their greatest challenge.

Will America peacefully and effectively pull back from imperialism and leave dozens of nations successfully (or haltingly) running themselves without U.S. power?

Will it set its best and brightest to figuring out how this can be done? Or to increasing the power of empire?

Empire and Freedom

Some argue that the United States cannot divest itself of empire without leaving the world in chaos.

This is precisely the argument nearly all upper classes, and slave owners, make to justify their unprincipled dominance over others.

The argument on its face is disrespectful to the people of the world.

Of course few people are truly prepared to run a democracy--leadership at all levels is challenging and at the national level it is downright overwhelming.

But, again--the people are more suited to oversee than any other group.

And without the freedom to fail, as Adam Smith put it, they never have the dynamic that impels great leaders to forge ahead against impossible odds. They will never fly unless the safety net is gone.

The people can survive and sometimes even flourish without elite rule, and the world can survive and flourish without American empire.

A wise transition is, of course, the sensible approach, but the arrogance of thinking that without our empire the world will collapse is downright selfish--unless one values stability above freedom.

How can we, whose freedom was purchased at the price of the lives, fortunes and sacred honor of our forebears, and defended by the blood of soldiers and patriots in the generations that followed, argue that the sacrifices and struggles that people around the world in our day might endure to achieve their own freedom and self- determination constitute too great a cost?

The shift will certainly bring major difficulties and problems, but freedom and self-government are worth it.

The struggles of a free people trying to establish effective institutions through trial, error, mistakes and problems are better than forced stability from Rome, Madrid, Beijing, or even London or Washington.

America can set the example, support the process, and help in significant ways--if we'll simply get our own house in order.

Our military strength will not disappear if we remain involved in the world without imperial attitudes or behaviors. We can actively participate in world affairs without adopting either extreme of isolationism or imperialism.

Surely, if the world is as dependent on the U.S. as the imperial-minded claim, we should use our influence to pass on a legacy of ordered constitutional freedom and learning self-government over time rather than arrogant, elitist bureaucratic management backed by military might from afar.

If Washington becomes the imperial realm to the world, it will undoubtedly be the same to the American people. Freedom abroad and at home may literally be at stake.

The future will be significantly impacted by the answers to these two questions:
Will the American people resurrect a society of citizen readers actively involved in daily governance?

Will we choose our democratic values or our imperialistic attitudes as our primary guide for the 21st Century?

Who are we, really? Today we are part democracy, part republic, and part empire.

Can we find a way to mesh all three, even though the first two are fundamentally opposed to the third?

Will the dawn of the 22nd Century witness an America free, prosperous, strong and open, or some other alternative?

If the United States chooses empire, can it possibly retain the best things about itself?

Without the Manifest Destiny proposed by the Founders, what alternate destiny awaits?

Above all, will the regular citizens--in American and elsewhere--be up to such leadership?

No elites will save us. It is up to the people.




To get Oliver's books on similar topics, including The Coming Aristocracy and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America's Destiny, go to oliverdemille.com.






*******************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America's Destiny.


Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

The Urgent Need for More George Washingtons

By Earl Taylor, Jr. ~ National Center for Constitutional Studies

The Urgent Need for More George Washingtons

As we move into a New Year there seems to be some similarities between our situation today and that of the transition from 1776 into 1777.

Near the end of the year 1776, the thirteen colonies had begun to form a very loose confederation. The war against the tyrannical King George III was not going very well. The disastrous defeat at New York had forced Washington and his army to retreat into a position that the British generals had all but declared victory. It looked rather hopeless to many people that real freedom would ever be possible.

“I Will Not…Despair”

In addition to the tragic loss of New York which forced the American army to retreat down the full length of New Jersey, there was the fall of Fort Washington and Fort Lee, the fearsome advances of the British, the plotting of Washington's Generals Lee and Reed against him and the overwhelming reality that the enlistments were up for more than two thousand of his fifty-four hundred troops. Still Washington wrote, “I will not…despair.”

Amidst all this discouragement, one of the men present during the New Jersey retreat, a fiery young patriot named Thomas Paine, sat by the campfire for light and using a drumhead for support, penned the familiar passage that Washington later used to try to energize his troops:
“These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph....Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

Washington knew that freedom-loving Americans needed a victory, even a small victory, to prove that, in spite of all the defeats, it is still possible to win against overwhelming odds.

A Much-Needed Victory at Trenton

As small as it was, Washington 's victory over the British-hired Hessian troops at Trenton had a much greater meaning. It showed that, indeed, the forces of freedom can win, and little by little, begin to chip away at the powerful forces of soul-destroying tyranny. Of the Trenton battle Parry and Allison wrote:

“It was a glorious and almost unbelievable victory for the beleaguered American commander and his troops. Nearly 1,000 Hessians were taken captive; another 115 were killed or wounded. Four Americans had been wounded, but not a single one was lost in battle—although in the fierce night before, two had tragically frozen to death.

“‘The enemy have fled before us in the greatest panic that ever was known,' one of the patriot soldiers wrote after the victory. ‘Never were men in higher spirits than our whole army is.'”
Could it be compared to the small but significant victories in our day seen at the November 2, 2010 elections?

Washington Not Lulled into False Sense of Security

In the wake of the Trenton and Princeton victories, many Americans began to proclaim high praise for General Washington. His brother-in-law, Bartholomew Dandridge, seemed to echo the feelings of many when he wrote to Washington saying: "It is plain [that] Providence designed you as the favorite instrument in working out the salvation of America . It is you alone that can defend us....I am sure you have no idea of your real value to us."

An article in the Pennsylvania Journal, published about six weeks after the victory at Princeton, described Washington in glowing terms:

“In his public character he commands universal respect and admiration. Conscious that the principles on which he acts are indeed founded on virtue, he steadily and coolly pursues those principles, with a mind neither depressed by disappointments nor elated by success, giving full exercise to that discretion and wisdom which he so eminently possesses. He retreats like a general and acts like a hero. If there are spots in his character, they are like the spots in the sun, only discernible by the magnifying powers of a telescope.”

Washington was indeed beginning to be viewed as a hero in the eyes of many. His countrymen had been given a closer look at the capabilities of their commanding general, and they liked what they saw.

Surprisingly, Washington did not react favorably to this rising tide of popularity and praise. "Everybody seems to be lulled into ease and security," he wrote. They needed to be shocked into the possibility of a potential disaster: "I think we are now in one of the most critical periods which America ever saw."

Washington Foresees Need for
Spiritual Preparation for Coming Battles

As the American army was emerging from the difficult winter encampment at Morristown , and in preparation for the coming battles of the New Year 1777, General Washington issued strict orders to ensure that his troops were preparing themselves spiritually for the coming difficulties. "All chaplains are to perform divine service...every...Sunday," he declared, and he ordered "officers of all ranks" to set an example by attending. "The commander in chief expects an exact compliance with this order, and that it be observed in the future as an invariable rule of practice. And every neglect will be considered not only as a breach of orders, but a disregard to decency, virtue, and religion."

He had already issued a general order stating. “The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.”

Washington Not Deterred by “Ignominious Epithets”

Washington 's stirring challenge in his day is ever so applicable in our own day as we face criticism and derision from similar foes. Said he:

“Let it never be said that in a day of action you turned your backs on the foe. Let the enemy no longer triumph. They brand you with ignominious epithets. Will you patiently endure that reproach? Will you suffer the wounds given to your country to go unrevenged? Will you resign your parents, wives, children, and friends to be the wretched vassals of a proud, insulting foe? And your own necks to the halter?...Nothing, then, remains but nobly to contend for all that is dear to us. Every motive that can touch the human breast calls us to the most vigorous exertions. Our dearest rights, our dearest friends, and our own lives, honor, glory, and even shame urge us to fight. And my fellow soldiers, when an opportunity presents, be firm, be brave. Show yourselves men, and the victory is yours.”

Washington had a strong conviction of the
influence of God in guiding America 's destiny

It is, no doubt, the desire of freedom-loving Americans today to have national leaders that could bear the same testimony about America that Washington did:

“We may, with a kind of pious and grateful exultation, trace the fingers of Providence through those dark and mysterious events which first induced the states to appoint a general convention, and then led them one after another...into an adoption of the system recommended by that general convention, thereby, in all human probability, laying a lasting foundation for tranquility and happiness, when we had but too much reason to fear that confusion and misery were coming rapidly upon us. That the same good Providence may still continue to protect us, and prevent us from dashing the cup of national felicity just as it has been lifted to our lips, is [my] earnest prayer.”

Washington had an intense desire to teach the science of government to our youth and to not dilute America 's greatness in their minds with teachings from foreign lands

Multiculturalism in education and the thought that America is just one of many good systems from which one may choose to live under, had no place in Washington's philosophy:

“A primary object...should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? and what duty more pressing on its legislature than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”

“It has always been a source of serious regret with me to see the youth of these United States sent to foreign countries for the purpose of education, often before their minds were formed or they had imbibed any adequate ideas of the happiness of their own, contracting, too frequently, not only habits of dissipation and extravagance, but principles unfriendly to republican government and to the true and genuine liberties of mankind, which thereafter are rarely overcome.”

Washington felt America must remain
the great neutral nation of the earth

“I hope the United States of America will be able to keep disengaged from the labyrinth of European politics and wars....It should be the policy of united America to administer to [other nations'] wants without being engaged in their quarrels.

“My ardent desire is, and my aim has been (as far as depended upon the executive department), to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic, but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country; to see that they may be independent of all and under the influence of none

“I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another;… and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy.

Washington felt that morality and religion were
inseparable and indispensable supports to our Republic.

Our first president dispels the modern myth that one can be a moral person without religion. Religion is necessary to give morality a standard. And be careful, he said, when someone with advanced educational degrees claims that religion is not necessary for morality or freedom. He would label such modern philosophies as deceptive and false:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.... Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education ... reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Upon hearing of the death of Washington , Thomas Jefferson quoted the scripture, “verily, a great man hath fallen this day in Israel .” But Jefferson was not without hope that the Creator would provide others to come to maintain what his friend George Washington was so instrumental in starting. Said he: “And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society.”

Should we not this New Year resolve to make an intensive effort to teach, identify and support those who have the same values and character as our great Founding Father, George Washington?