On the American Experiment, I Remain Optimistic
No, seriously. I am.
The continuation of American democracy is not preordained. Benjamin Franklin famously quipped in 1787 that what we have is a “republic, if you can keep it.” Fast forward to 2025, and Franklin’s words are haunting. Today’s headwinds against our republic involving, in particular, the three branches of the federal government are fierce.
Within the executive branch, the President has centralized and accumulated vast amounts of power beyond what his modern predecessors ever exercised. The invocation of “emergencies,” which have lead to a panoply of unilateral executive actions, for existing, long-standing issues has become practically routine. Institutions created by Congress that once imposed normative checks on an ambitious executive have been transformed into extensions of the executive and its policy aims. The military, which has assiduously avoided in modern times any unwarranted deployments on American soil absent true emergencies, are now asked to patrol American streets for inexplicable reasons and without a clear objective, an action that, in my view, disrespects the men and women of our military and their talents.
At bottom, any legal constraints on the executive have been set aside in favor of achieving preferred policy objectives and a robust view of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
As I had written before, the executive is free to vigorously pursue its goals within constitutional limits, but in its constitutional obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” it must work with Congress to achieve its aims. With the same political party controlling the two political branches, this would seem quite achievable, right? Wouldn’t Congress jump at the opportunity to police its own realm (i.e., lawmaking) while working to advance common policy goals with the executive?
Yet Congress is silent. It has refused to protect its own institutional prerogative as the most powerful branch in our constitutional system and, instead, has favored subservience to the executive. Examples are abound. Article I of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to set tariffs and appropriate funds. It can create and eliminate federal agencies. But as the executive exercises unilateral control over these areas, Congress has acquiesced.
This leads us to the third branch, the federal judiciary. Their overall record is mixed. Over 300 cases challenging the federal government’s actions are pending in the courts. So far, judges in 27 cases ruled against the government. When these matters reach the U.S Supreme Court, many times in the form of emergency applications to halt lower court rulings against the government, the government has prevailed in 18 out of 25 appeals.
Lately, when the Supreme Court issues its rulings on emergency applications, which are preliminary in nature, the Court has repeatedly declined to explain its decisions. Naturally, this has caused frustration not only for the public, but also for lower court judges themselves who are left with the unenviable task to somehow divine the will of the Supreme Court from rulings that are merely several sentences long.
Ultimately, I think the jury is out on whether the federal judiciary (particularly the Supreme Court) can meaningfully check the executive and set the boundaries of lawful conduct. Some recent rulings from the Supreme Court are troubling, especially - in my view - its most recent decision in Noem v. Vazquez Perdomo temporarily pausing a lower court order that prohibited federal immigration enforcement agents from stopping individuals solely based on, among other things, apparent race and ethnicity, and whether individuals spoke English with an accent.
Beyond government, our public discourse has reached a feverish pitch. A recent Pew poll suggests that “Republican and Democratic voters not only disagree on plans and policies, but also cannot agree on basic facts.” The recent horrific killing of Charlie Kirk, a prominent young leader on the right, has shocked our political system and, unfortunately, represents one of too many instances of political violence in modern times.
Despite the numerous challenges, I remain hopeful that the American experiment will continue. This Nation navigated through dark times before, and my earnest hope is that the current moment is a mere blip in the long of arc of history. Unlike so many other nations, no common heritage binds us here in the United States. We are a pluralistic country with ancestors hailing from all over the globe. Instead, we are bound by certain fundamental principles, most of which are embodied by our founding documents. The power of the government, for example, is derived from the consent of the people. All of us are created inherently equal to each other. Each and every one of us enjoy the unalienable right to life and liberty, and we have every right to pursue happiness.
Though I am hopeful, it certainly isn’t enough to wait for a better day. Neither we nor our elected officials can sit idle. The moment demands our engagement and our attention. For starters, Congress should act. For the rest of us, voting will be vital. This year, New York City and the states of New Jersey and Virginia will hold critical elections this fall. All members of the U.S. House of Representatives and a third of the U.S. Senate will be on the ballot in 2026.
Beyond voting, talk to your neighbors. Engage your local, state, and federal representatives. You would be surprised to learn how excited elected officials are to hear from their constituents.
I think we can keep our republic. We just need to act.