Could I Ever Become a Republican?

The short answer is "Never!" The long answer is maybe I am one already. Is this craziness? Well, a few weeks ago I read a conservative pundit who drew a distinction between being a Republican and "republicanism." I decided to look up the latter term and here is what I found.

According to About.com, republicanism stresses: "(1) the importance of civic virtue, (2) the benefits of universal political participation, (3) the dangers of corruption, (4) the need for separate powers, (5) a healthy reverence for the rule of law, and (6) the paramount value of political liberty." Hmm. What is there not to like about this definition?

1. Take civic virtue. "Civic virtue helps people understand their ties to the community and their responsibilities within it." (Sarah Bosin) Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone) defines three civic virtues: active participation in public life, trustworthiness, and reciprocity. Yes! We could definitely use more of these. On one hand, there is a tendency in our country toward individualism and disconnection from community. On the other, we increasingly define "community" as those to who look and think and act just like us. In this narrow sense, "community" becomes a divisive concept, leading to suspicion, bigotry, and hatred. What we need is for our sense of community as a nation to be restored.
2. This means that all must be actively invited to participate in public life. At a minimum this requires that all are encouraged to vote and that each vote count. More than this it means that all are encouraged to speak and that each voice is heard. It requires that the rights of the minority and the weak are protected, and that the disadvantaged are given an opportunity to rise above the confines of their dispossession. Admittedly I made this last leap rather quickly. The connection between universal participation in public life and the need for equal opportunity may be questioned by some. Furthermore, the means by which equal opportunity should be afforded is not entirely clear. In particular, the role of government in all of this is open to discussion (see below). Nevertheless, I assert here that the link between participation in public life and opportunity is real and it is important.
3. The dangers of corruption are beyond controversy. No one would argue the fact that corruption in government, business, law, or religion is undesirable. The word corrupt comes from the same Latin root as rupture, and it literally means "intensely broken." It implies something good gone bad, something originally sound now broken. Corruption, it seems to me, is the exact opposite of civic virtue. It is putting individual desires ahead of the needs of the community. Closely related to corruption is the notion of waste. The causes of corruption are many, but among the most common are money and power (and often together). Another might be fear. If republicanism stands for preventing and rooting out corruption and waste, then I am all for it.
4. One way to guard against corruption is separation of powers. This idea formally refers to the branches of government with their distinct roles, a cornerstone of our republican form of government. Yet the concept is even broader than this, from separation of church and state to an independent media, including unbiased regulation on many levels. The problem is that none of these protections is fool-proof. Each of the entities just named is subject to the forces for corruption. The principle, however, is sound: Power must be shared. A "republic" is not a monarchy, nor is a republic in my opinion an oligarchy or plutarchy. A republic is a form of government of the people for the people.
5. The key that allows a republic and the sharing of power to be feasible is respect for the rule of law. No individual or group is above the law. All are equal under the law. No one will openly disagree with this premise, though many try to circumvent the law for their own purposes. And many want to argue about who should make the laws, who should get to interpret the laws, and how.
6. "From these concepts, one paramount value stands apart -- political liberty. Political liberty entails not only freedom from government interference in private affairs; it also places great emphasis on self-discipline and self-reliance. Political liberty keeps government out of individuals' lives (unless to do this threatens the republic as a whole); it also prevents the government from becoming a guardian to its individuals. The role of government in a republic is to safeguard the collective republic." (About.com)
   

When I began this exercise my purpose was to dig a little deeper into the history and philosophy of republicanism. What I am posting here hardly scratches the surface. The Wikipedia article on republicanism discusses a number of other definitions in which a republic may be considered compatible with plutarchy, oligarchy, even a (constitutional) monarchy. Digging deeper, I also spent some time considering libertarianism in view of Point 6 above. My point is that I am having trouble deciding where to stop digging. Once one breaks the surface of political philosophy, there is so much to be excavated. This morning, for example, I read one of Federalist Papers comparing a republic with a democracy. Fascinating topic (not to mention James Madison's incredible writing style). Furthermore, once one "gets to the bottom of" political philosophy, the relationship to economic theory begins an even deeper excavation. It never stops.

So why bother? I do not have the resources (particularly the time) necessary to do justice to any of this. Moreover, political philosophy is not even my primary interest. I am much more interested in social issues, for example, or religion and spirituality, or health and fitness. Nevertheless, I cannot escape the politics. (1) most of the "non-political" topics in which I have an interest end up having political implications, and (2) in any case, my civic responsibility is to be as informed as possible and to be an active participant. So ...

Could I Ever Be a Republican? The longish answer is that I already am a small-'r' republican. I embrace all six of the basic tenets of republicanism listed above, particularly the first five. In principle I also agree with the sixth: political liberty. Where I have an issue, I suppose, is in: (a) what kinds of things threaten the republic as a whole, and (b) the difference between becoming a "guardian" of and promoting the welfare of its individuals. To quote James Madison (entirely out of context): "It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie."

The short answer in the first sentence is that under any present circumstances, I could never be a capital-'R' Republican. In my humble opinion, the present Republican Party does not stand for the first five tenets above and has gone way overboard on the sixth. I know this is an unsupported blanket statement that requires digging deeper. For what it is worth, I am not exactly happy with the present Democratic Party. The only thing I can do to help fix our broken system of government is to inform myself and be willing to become more active.