Will America survive another 250 years?
Writing from Paris, I ponder the notion that, next year, America celebrates its first quarter of a millennium as a republic since declaring independence in 1776. But the more profound and unaddressed question is whether or not America will remain a republic for the next 250 years.
The reasons for this pessimism rest in several cruel ironies.
The first is that the basis for its political system — the Constitution and its checks and balances — is no longer fit for purpose. About four-fifths of Americans tacitly agree, no longer trusting the government’s competence to govern in their interests.
The second irony is that the only American who intuitively or otherwise grasps this reality and possesses a large enough ego potentially capable of governing in these circumstances is the president.
But, so far, Donald Trump has not displayed the necessary judgmental, managerial and leadership skills critical to leading in this broken system. In fairness, no American may be up to this task.
How did we get here? The Constitution went into force in 1789 when there were 4 million Americans. About 250,000 white, male land owners voted — not directly for president and only for the House of Representatives. Seventeen percent of the population were enslaved.
Governing under the Constitution was straightforward. Under Article I, the legislature made the laws. Under Article II, the president, as chief executive, carried out the laws. And under Article III the judiciary administered the laws.
But the contradictions, anomalies and complications in governing in future decades were conveniently deferred.
Where in the Constitution is the judiciary given the authority to invalidate a law as unconstitutional? Where in the Constitution is the authority to declare war given to the president, who as commander-in-chief can, order U.S. forces into battle?
And why did the Second Amendment begin with “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” and not “Americans shall have the right to keep and bear arms?”
Over the next 236 years, profound changes were made through 17 constitutional amendments and hundreds of thousands of laws and court rulings. But the fundamental contradictions among the three branches were never reconciled.
Political parties, eschewed by the Founders as “factions,” were purposely omitted from the Constitution. And when government shutdowns due to Congress’s failure to pass budgets on time became common practice, no constitutional relief was available.
Is America still a republic if its citizens cannot directly elect a president? Can it be a representative republic when districts are gerrymandered with substantial political minorities having little or no representation in Congress?
And can money be legally considered free speech in a republic where a naturalized U.S. citizen, with no spending limitations, can donate over $250 million to elect a president?
In these circumstances, it was perhaps inevitable that a Trump would emerge. Well educated by his first term, Trump arguably has extended the influence and authority of the presidency further than any of his predecessors with the possible exception of Lincoln. Critics assert he is destroying democracy.
Clearly, Trump has strong idiosyncratic ideas about fixing a broken government that, in his view, only he can repair.
Yes, he may not have the authority to impose tariffs or fire officials in his government meant to be independent and a check on presidential power. But so what?
Trump’s authority has stretched internationally, so far unsuccessfully, to end the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, while claiming success in stopping conflicts between India and Pakistan and Armenia and Azerbaijan.
And Trump has launched unprecedented attacks on crime in democratically controlled cities by mobilizing the National Guard and federal police officers.
Another irony persists. Despite this expansion of presidential power and authority, Trump lacks sufficient competent help in his cabinet and Congress to make this work.
The results are predictable: more bitter political partisanship and governmental gridlock unable to meet public needs, expectations and demands.
If courts determine the president does not have the emergency authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval, that will have deep and dangerous economic consequences. Both a recession and a government shutdown this fall may be inevitable.
On the Republican side, there is no Trump backup or replacement — period. Democrats are in complete disarray. Only two corrective actions are possible.
Trump could learn. And so could Democrats. But do not bet either will, now or by 2028.
This then is the grim reality. If the Founding Fathers magically materialized in Washington, what would they think about their creation?
The answer might not be a constitution.
Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., (@harlankullman) is UPI’s Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and former United Kingdom Defense Chief David Richards are the authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe.