A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Prophetic words from Benjamin Franklin? Perhaps. Given the budgetary gamesmanship currently on display in our nation’s capital, it seem appropriate to ask ourselves, what is the state of the American Experiment, and is it in danger?
I have often argued that the United States faces threats from enemies conducting unconventional warfare. Whether from Al Qaeda or any other actor who seeks to practice the Chinese theory of “unrestricted warfare,” I have long worried about the potential effects of subversion and sabotage on our financial, economic, communications, and electrical infrastructure – as well as on our political system. I have even wondered if the current government shutdown might leave us vulnerable to a massive terrorist attack. On the surface it would seem to be the most opportune time to attack: much of the US government is shut down, and those employees who are working are likely distracted by the political machinations in Washington and are stuck simply trying to figure out the impact of the budget showdown on their respective agencies. Sure, the national security apparatus is supposed to continue functioning; however, it is unlikely to be do so at peak efficiency in the midst of apparent political dysfunction.
However, in examining the potential of such heightened vulnerability, we should recall Napoleon’s course of action when facing an enemy experiencing a situation such as ours. His counsel was this:
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
So then we are relatively safer from attacks at the moment, if our enemies follow these wise words. And it is likely that they will, since Napoleon’s guidance is an ideal lesson for a combatant that aligned against a comparatively stronger one – which is true of any American foe. They will let the US Congress and President continue their domestic political battling in the hopes that the American Experiment will collapse from within.
I, however, do not think our system is dysfunctional. I think our founding fathers created the best possible form of government, one that is sufficiently flexible to continue to evolve with changing conditions. The problem is not the system, but rather the people who operate it. And of course, those people are us. We are responsible. We elected the officials whose political maneuvering is undermining our system of government. We have seen how, once in office, elected officials from both parties seek to solidify their political longevity by gerrymandering Congressional districts, resulting in a system in which threats to re-election do not come from an opposition party, but rather from within factions of parties. And this is among the most fundamental problems with our government today: elected officials are increasingly forced to prioritize raising money to fend off these intra-party threats to re-election, at the expense of the real, substantive work of governance. But we have elected them and now we have to live with them or vote them out.
In considering the many possible ramifications of the current government shutdown, I do believe our enemies are taking Napoleon to heart, and thus I am not so worried about the likelihood of an attack. The question, however, is whether we will heed Benjamin Franklin’s words and prove capable of keeping our Republic.
David S. Maxwell is the Associate Director of the Center for Security Studies and the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service of Georgetown University. He is a retired US Army Special Forces Colonel with 30 years of service.
Tom Murphy 
McCallister 
juris imprudent 
The USA, like many advanced economy democracies faces a number of existential threats. The nuke war one has receded into the background and will hopefully stay there.
Terrorist is NOT an existential threat for the foreseeable future, despite the hype attached to it.
The real existential threats to the USA are mostly internal. They are hyper-partisanship, budget deficits and the corrosive influence of money on Washington DC (read Wall Street banks).
Democrats keep wanting entitlements while Republicans want to keep spending (read MIC) and giving out tax cuts at the same time. This cannot continue. Meanwhile, the hyper-partisanship which started somewhere in the 1990s has grown to displace any form of reasoned debate. Compromise and deal making, once the hallmark of the US system is now seen as a fatal weakness by many. (Thucydides had some views on this – but that if for another day).
At the same time, Wall Street banks have gained so much influence in the post-Glass-Steagall era that they are able to control DC based politicians. Rather than allowing the banks and insurance companies to fail in 2008 or even allow a gradual collapse, the US Congress voted to socialize the losses onto the taxpayer! Banks make money on the way up and the taxpayer covers the losses on the way down. If this is not a form of socialism, then you have to ask what is?
Concurrently, the US Congress has abandoned its budget and economic role to the FED which is trying to use central planning and control to manage the economy, rather than allowing free market forces to determine winners and losers. The too-big-to-fail banks of 2008 are now even bigger and none of the problems have been fixed. I seem to recall that we used to ridicule the USSR for its attempts to centrally control a socialized economy…..
It is probably worth the effort for Americans to consider the words of Pogo: I have seen the enemy and it is us!
There are good points in both the essay and Mr. Quiggin’s comment.
With evident cynicism, I submit two questions: Has our citizenry, fueled by the adolescent punditry of talk radio and television commentary, become incapable of coming together to fix the problem? And, have we allowed the “expense of the real, substantive work of governance” to become institutionalized?
I hope the answer to both questions is “no.”
The demise of the American Experiment is highly exaggerated. I propose that the budgetary gamesmanship currently on display in Washington D.C. is a wonderful example of the American Experiment in action. I will agree that you could label the current political brinkmanship as politically dysfunctional if your political philosophy defends a strong central and centralizing government. I do not hold fast to this political philosophy and therefore welcome the political gamesmanship regardless of the merits and intrinsic worth of this political theater.
I submit that the problem is not only with the people’s representatives who manage the political system. Do we really believe that there is such a big difference between the politician of the 19th century and the politician of today? But let’s not only blame the politician. What about “we the people” who vote, or don’t vote, to elect the bandit class. One simple fix might be to restore the responsibility of selecting members of the Senate to the state legislatures so as to inhibit the corrupting influence of raising funds for reelection in one of the houses. This might keep the corruption local (and benefit the states directly) as state assembly-people are “encouraged” with gifts or in kind to vote for this or that person for Senator. Maybe we could actually introduce term-limits because we judge that a professional political class and the entire entourage of hangers-on, punditry, consulting and media (propaganda) establishment/class is actually a detriment to the Republic and not a benefit as we are encouraged to believe.
I’ve heard it said that the American Civil War changed the pre-Civil War axiom of “these United States” to “the United States”. It would be interesting to see the numerous studies and analytics (I assume these studies and analysis exists and if not, hire me and I’ll create a study) as to how a general collapse would manifest itself in the real world and how it would affect the functioning of a republican form of governance. If a financial collapse, how would a previously strong central federal government but now broke impose itself upon fifty distinct and separate states that may or may not seek to reclaim powers for themselves in accordance with the notion of powers not delegated, nor prohibited, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Maybe we could distil from our ten year long experience in Iraq and Afghanistan how “networked forms of governance” are managed instead of only focusing on how, when all is said and done, a strong U.S. supported central government failed to consolidate power in both Iraq and Afghanistan? How would a broke central government attempt to impose its centralizing templated solutions on fifty separate and distinct states?
Col Maxwell, fear not. Our founding fathers did indeed create the best possible form of government, one that is sufficiently flexible, adaptable and capable of evolving with changing conditions.
The US national debt is approaching 17 Trillion (with a T) dollars. The US Congress has failed in any meaningful way to address the debt/spending problem and the economy is only “recovering” after the 2008 crisis as the FED has turned to central planning of the economy as a means of survival. As a result the FED is now printing 85 billion dollars month in a failing attempt to prop up the economy. As is being seen now, the accounting and financial tricks are starting to run out and real accountability may actually have to start in the next year or so: no more QE, no more artificially low long term interest rates, no more Zombie banks, no more extend and pretend, no more soicalization of losses onto the backs of the taxpayers. If nothing else, bond markets and foreign holders of US treasuries may force accountability as the US dollar position as the global reserve currency comes in to question….
For the first time in its history, it is possible to make the claim that the financial class (read Wall Street) is telling the political class (read DC) what to do. By allowing market forces to disappear and having the FED and the Congress socialize losses for the Wall Street banks since 2007/2008, one of the greatest strengths of the USA is weakening. My own view, based on a reading of the Federalists Papers is that the founding fathers would spit if they could see what is happening in DC now. As they feared, the banks have too much influence and the population votes for whoever will promise them the greatest number of handouts.
As Kurt Vonnegut might have said: So it goes….
The voter will stop voting for those who promises them the greatest number of handouts when the gravy train stops. I personally have resigned myself to the fact that the present political class will not address the financial problem and the walls will eventually come tumbling down.
An interesting thought experiment is to imagine how the Republic respond when all accounting and financial tricks have finally run their course. How will it play itself out? What will it look like when the financial sector contracts violently or collapses altogether? How will this affect the Federal Government and its supporting and supported agencies i.e. bureaucracy, military, federally funded social and emergency services? And how will the bureaucracy, military, federally funded social and emergency services respond and in what degree and in what sequence when there is no more money to fuel the effort? I submit the student at Ranger School metaphor. The student burns fat until he burns muscle. It takes approximately x weeks for an average Ranger student to start to burn muscle. How long before the federal government starts to burn muscle? How would a transition from federal responsibility to state responsibility take place and what would it look like? Do we experience social violence or not and if not why not and if so, to what degree? This conversation reminds me of COL Maxwell’s discussion as to the requirement that we have a plan and COAs in place to mitigate the effects of an eventual nKorean collapse.
I’ve read a number of civil-defense plans but they all require federal funds to execute. Saving grace is that free market forces are likely to reassert themselves at the local level as local people begin to barter and reestablish a coin of the realm. You might have to pay for security but then the 2nd Amendment addresses this challenge; a well regulated militia and all that.
The American Constitution and Bill of Rights is a simple document; simple common sense rules for governance especially after you have downsized the federal government for whatever reason or if you need to start over after a collapse and these fifty states assume primary responsibility for governance. But we are not there yet…or are we?
Love the burning fat vs burning muscle analogy and believe that it is highly applicable in this case.
I tend to expect the “hyperpartisanship” argument to come from people who haven’t really studied U.S. political history. This isn’t anything all that new – though the media saturation of it is.
Political dysfunction is tolerable insofar as it does not negatively impact the average person’s standard of living. Fear of that was the motivation of both Tea Party and Occupy (and both of those as movements bore the mark of the incoherence of that fear). That does not mean the fear was utterly irrational. The Fed has been engaged in an unprecedented re-engineering of the economy based on monetary manipulation. If they end up getting it wrong (and honestly – how often are economists right?) it could be a generation or two before things get better.