We tend to talk about our Republic in terms of our individual rights and all too often ignore or downplay the responsibilities that are the citizen’s rightful burden. A Republic is a participatory form of government. For our system of democracy to work the citizen must cherish his or her obligations to the Constitution as much if not more than their individual freedom. Adlai Stevenson once said: “Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.” For my purposes today I’m going to substitute the word “citizenship” for patriotism. Citizenship is not something that is practiced intermittently but rather it is an enduring responsibility. Citizenship demands that we are prepared to act individually and collectively in accordance with the Constitution. Citizenship is not a passive activity or spectator sport.
How many here have served on a jury? The Founders didn’t advocate juries because it was somehow perceived to be more “fair” to the defendant than trial by a judge. Rather they wanted we the people to participate and take ownership of our judicial system by putting the outcome of serious cases largely in the hands of citizens. Voting is another example. As citizens we are expected not only to show up at the polls occasionally but also to actively seek knowledge of the issues and candidates on the ballot. The Founders believed that in order for the people to be well informed there was a need for several critical enablers. Some are addressed directly in the Constitution, specifically in the 1st Amendment. The right to assemble, the right of free association and freedom of speech are particularly vital to a citizen’s full and unfettered participation in our political process.
To guarantee access to information the Founders also established or supported a number of institutions. Arguably the most important was a public funded school system. In an age where illiteracy was more common than not it was a revolutionary idea. A basic education allowed each individual to read and better reason for him or herself independently. They also moved quickly to establish the US Postal Service to carry the mail. Which was much more vital then since ALL long distance communication in those days was by what we now call snail mail. Also creating Local Libraries to provide free services to even the smallest communities. This was radical thinking in a time when books were expensive, rare and otherwise out of reach for the common man. Finally, as also enshrined in the 1st Amendment, a free press outside the control of politicians was considered absolutely essential to facilitate a well informed electorate.
I pointed out in an earlier piece that the Founders were more comfortable with a small standing or professional Army except in times of actual conflict. The Founders were not pacifists by any means but in their day Kings often raised large armies for suppression of their own populations. But that wasn’t the Founders only rationale. Their expectation was that National Defense as we now call it would be largely borne by the people in the form of mobilized Militias. That would also include the so called Unorganized Militia – basically every able bodied citizen. That by the way is the Constitutional basis for Draft Registration. That is not to say that every citizen is front line fighter material, but every one of us could and should be prepared to be called up to provide some service in time of emergency. WW II being the best and really only example of “full mobilization” of the majority of citizens in our Nation’s history.
Even in situations less dire than war, the Founders envisioned the people being routinely called to volunteer locally and even regionally if required. Not just to deal with external threats but also with natural disasters and internal dangers like criminal gangs. The concept of a sheriff forming a posse is a staple of Western movies. But it is also a real life example of we the people stepping up to assist and reinforce elected or appointed officials in resolving a crisis. And when the local sheriff needed help citizens dropped what they were doing, took up their guns and showed up. Ready to serve, ready to uphold the law and ready to fight if necessary. Not as an angry armed mob, not as vengeance seeking vigilantes but rather as staunch defenders of the rule of law. So when our Nation was formed, citizens expected to shoulder their share of the burden especially when faced with a tough or unpleasant task related to governance.
Since then our Nation has inexorably evolved from an agrarian culture, through industrialization and now into an information-centric society. We are richer, more powerful and have access to more information today than our Founders ever dared imagine possible. So it is not surprising that the relationship of the citizen to the most dangerous traditional duties has also changed over time. Not as the result of some insidious conspiracy or softening of our individual commitment to citizenship. Rather, one of the biggest factors driving this change has been “professionalization”. We have demanded increasingly more professional behavior from our soldiers and policemen specifically. That mandate and countless technological advances resulted in more complex and time consuming training requirements for even entry level candidates to those jobs. Even our Organized Militia elements like the National Guard must spend much more time training and actually performing their missions than ever before.
It hasn’t been possible in a very long time for untrained amateurs to simply “fall in” to these ranks in time of crisis and perform to an acceptable standard. Moreover, in a time of modern communications and transportation assets a sheriff can now get fully trained support from other LE faster than he can assemble an untrained citizen posse. That is not to say that the armed citizen no longer has any role in “providing for the common defense”. But rather accepts the fact that a civilian’s in extremis participation is not as central to our Local, State or National security systems as it once was. I for one believe that professionalization in our security services has been both necessary and positive. And I do not think it represents a threat of any kind to the future of our Republic. However, in my opinion, there is an area where this trend towards “professionalization” has become a serious problem. And that is in politics.
Far too many of us are consciously avoiding involvement in public sector activities. We have become comfortable with “hiring it done” by someone else. Oh, we bitch about it all the time. We hate “career politicians” and “the establishment”. We shout at the TV and complain to our spouses (at least I do). But we don’t do much else. We’re mad…but not really motivated. That is why 95% of incumbents get re-elected each and every cycle. That is why many candidates run unopposed – even at the National level. But we the people can choose to do better than that. So ignore the cynics. Don’t skip jury duty. Learn the facts of the issues and the records of the candidates. Support a campaign. Fight against a campaign. If you can’t stand anybody, run for office yourself. Do your duty. Be a real citizen and shoulder 100% of the burden and then some. Take action. Of course Vote. But don’t just cast a ballot, participate in the process! The fact is that we aren’t true Citizens and this isn’t a Republic if we don’t.
Tags: Terry Baldwin
Hmmm…..I always perceived the “point to be”, was responsible INDIVIDUALS. “Citizen” is not used in either the BoR, nor the Constitution, for good reason. Maybe because “citizen” is not too far removed from “subject”. Some would call me on semantics – I would call them on their comprehension of the founding documents and the direction our Founders sought for this country. Some may say our country was founded by people who understood freedom, liberty and the price of subjection. Some, like myself, would emphathetically state there is a good reason for that.
Jeb,
I hoped this would spark discussion but I never expected anyone would take umbrage at the term “Citizen”.
I suggest you re-read the Constitution. The copy I have uses Citizen (capitalized)quite frequently. As in phrases like “natural born Citizen” which has been in the news lately.
And not just as a matter of semantics but also the point of my article, the term “citizen” speaks to an individual’s obligation under the Constitution – while the term “individual” does not.
I assure you, a Citizen is really the opposite of a “subject”. At least the Founders thought so.
TLB
While I am with Mr. Baldwin in spirit, there are definitely points that have me parting ways. We are a Republic, because the Founding Fathers were afraid of creating a Democracy.
The Electoral College is an evil, fucked-up half measure that served as a compromise between Direct Democracy and what GOV wanted: The Senate to elect the POTUS.
Mr. Baldwin’s question re: jury service resonated strongly. How many times have I served on a jury? Zero. How many times have I had jury duty? about a dozen. What cut questions did I get, repeatedly, during jury selection that led to my exclusion?
/ Do you have any LEO experience? (Yes)
/ Are you a veteran? (Yes)
/ Do you have an advanced degree? (Yes)
Mr. Baldwin’s article touches, lightly, on the concept of The Four Boxes Of Governance: Soap, Jury, Ballot, Ammo.
At present, three of them don’t seem to be working too well.
I’ve gotten dropped b/c I’m an attorney myself.
I’d like to participate. Besides, wouldn’t you want someone in the room that can help explain the law, rather than leave a bunch of people who don’t “speak the language” to figure it out themselves?
Granted in short life I have had I have never had jury duty. Granted every time I have been told I will. I have been deployed. So I don’t know how the selection goes. But if they don’t make you swear or affirm to tell the truth. Why not just say no. Serve on the jury and be a non Leo or a veteran. So you can can give your ¢2. But that might be something that I wouldn’t be able to do myself. So your call
I recently had summons for jury duty and they do make you swear that the information given is truthful.
I was never given a call to show up at the courthouse after I checked in via the internet and over the phone, so I assume I was not needed.
Considering I am a veteran myself and a criminal justice major, I am sure I would have been dropped if I was called to report in with the rest of my group.
No way I would lie/BS my way onto a jury. If I wound up being part of putting some dirtbag away that deserved it, and it was every figured out that I did what I did, I just laid the groundwork for a mistrial. Said dirtbag gets, at a minimum, a second go at the Freedom Apple and I get (probably) Some Kind Of Felony. No Thanks.
At a minimum, every CITIZEN should vote.
Sadly, not a single Founder would recognize today’s form of federal government as one they created, let alone envisioned. Through Federalism, the Founder’s empowered the States (States Rights), not the federal government for good reason.
Good stuff; two random thoughts:
My first grade daughter brought home a book about Lexington and Concord last night. We read it together and I told her, quite proudly, that as an Army Reservist, I’m a modern-day “minuteman”. I started my career in the Nat’l Guard, so I consider myself grandfathered in to the local militia b/c that’s who i went to Iraq with.
Second: yes, Vote. But not just every fourth november. Local elections, primaries, off-year federal elections… all are important. I have to really bust my wife’s chops to get her to the ballot box in non-presidential election years. I’m usually succesful, but not always. And don’t worry, I always go even if she does not.
Sadly, I’m quite sure she’s more active/involved than most citizens…
And good point about running for office. And while we rail against career politicians, I also wouldn’t want that job, not on the national stage at least… I don’t think I’d appreciate that level of scrutiny on my private affairs for someone else’s political gain.
The local school board would be a good place for me, to keep the local luddites from banning books.
And career politicians is another thing the Founders never envisioned. They thought a man (given the year) should do his civic duty, if elected, serve a term and then go home. They did not even consider term limits simply because they had real career, farmer, merchant, lawyer, you name it.
Around here, even elected school board members hang around for 10, 20 years! I always thought having a child in the school system should be a legal requirement to be elected to the school board; truly a vested interest.
Billy,
The career politicians abound. Why ? Because the electorate allows them to. Reelecting them time and time and time again.
My local school board is filled with career hacks. Several years ago my small community formed a small group (4 citizens) to challenge the incumbents. Their platform ? To cease teacher salaries from escalating and to cut school taxes. The teachers, their families, friends and the incumbent school board members mobilized their families and friends to disparage and defeat the school board challengers. Guess what ? The school board challengers were all defeated. Imagine that !
What was it that Ben Franklin said about democracy ? “Two wolves and a lamb deciding what is for dinner.”
So much for voting….one’s ruling elites maintained by the majority.
We are in deep dung in this country.
Career politicians abound because we don’t stop them from the grassroots. Once they’re in place, the only way to get rid of them is to vote for the other party, even if it is worse.
More reason for us to be involved in the political process at all levels and often.
I’d add that local politics should be every bit as important to you as what goes on in D.C., if not more so. I get very upset with people who complain loudly (with justification) about the federal goverent being too powerful, but can’t name their state representative, let alone governor. Similarly my local TEA party complained against federal taxes, but have no interest in fighting against the county wasting money, where they could actually have an effect.
The reason is they don’t want responsibility. People would rather be angry about something they can’t fix than take responsibility for something the can.
I must respectfully disagree with one small part of this article. While your point is certainly valid that part of the appeal of a jury trial is that it is participatory in nature, the Founding Fathers (many of which were lawyers) made it abundantly clear that they felt the right to a trial by jury was more fair than a bench trial.
It’s a good article and I agree with the point you were making, but there are countless examples of the Founding Fathers espousing the virtues of the right to a trial by jury for common law matters (matters of equity are a different ball of wax).
In any event, I don’t mean to sound incessantly critical or take away from your point, and I hope I’ve done a good enough job making it clear that I’m not trying to be pedantic or just ruffle your feathers for the fun of it. Thanks for the article.
Mr.E.G.
You are certainly making a valid point. In my defense I was emphasizing the deliberate participatory nature of our judicial system – above other considerations.
I admit it would be better if I had said: “The Founders didn’t ONLY advocate juries because it was perceived to be more “fair” to the defendant than trial by a judge.”
Thanks! TLB
Well said, sir. Hear, hear!
The problem with running for any political office today is that it is not about your character, your convictions, your values, your principles, your ethics, or your morality that of today, but a witch hunting, discrediting, defamation, and slandering machine of your past and who you are associated with. It is not on the merits of your accomplishments or ambitions. It is a game show of the reality type, and a disgusting one at that. The whole sh*t sandwich is a deterrent to running. Not to mention unless you have masters or doctorate and come from lineage of politicians, no one thinks you’re qualified to hold office even though nothing stating such requirements are within the U.S. Constitution nor any state Constitution that I am aware of.
Jon,
I agree that we have serious problems with how we vet and choose candidates. We the people have allowed the lines to be largely erased between Politicians and Celebrities. And we confuse campaigning with entertaining.
As soon as someone tries to talk policies and issues we get bored and turn the channel to find the candidate who puts on the better show. That way we don’t have to think…we can just emote. I don’t blame the modern political candidate for that. They are just giving us what we apparently want.
There was a time when the local citizens “drafted” the best and brightest in their communities to represent them. People that they respected. I’d like to go back to that healthy dynamic.
And as Billy mentioned above politics was part time work back then. And it didn’t pay well and didn’t make you famous…outside of the community that you served. It would be good if we could go back to that too.
Still, I remain optimistic. All of that nonsense is cosmetic surface rust on a system of government that is sound and solid cast iron. The big money and the smoke and mirrors can be dispensed with anytime. If and when we the people demand it. I hope that happens soon.
TLB
I agree wholeheartedly.
I am deeply concerned–and this is not exclusively oriented towards Terry’s interesting article or the commenters here–that a whole lot of us lack a solid grounding in what was going on here in America during the period the Revolution was birthed and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution created.
This includes me, and most of my military retiree friends (my civilian friends don’t know or care). I was born in 1953 and retired from the military in 1997. I’m the product of a solid, conservative, Midwestern primary, secondary, and university and advanced education, like a whole lot of us. I thought I’d been educated in the Country’s foundations; so did my friends.
Most of us here have a real but inchoate feeling of frustration and outrage about what both political parties have done to this country in the last 25 years. Our anger has reached a crescendo during the current junta’s term, but our feelings the Constitution has been ignored and subverted go back a lot further than that.
Many of us “think” we know what the people who created this Nation had in mind, and what motivated them at the time. But when I honestly examined my own knowledge and asked dozens of knowledgeable friends, our conclusion was . . . we didn’t REALLY know. Yes, we are angry. Yes, we can easily see this Country has drifted from our political, social, and moral roots. But EXACTLY how and why, not so much.
I challenge everyone interested in understanding what our Founding Fathers and most everyday Americans were thinking to read Bernard Bailyn’s seminal “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.” It’s available on Amazon and is a fairly quick read.
Bailyn is a Harvard history professor, but the book was written in 1967, before Hah-vahd went full socialist. He’s generally considered the leading analyst of Revolutionary War history and meaning, and the book is amazingly easy to read (unusual from an Ivy League professor!).
I don’t know what you know, but I’m pretty sure this book will open your eyes in ways that will blow your mind. You’ll certainly have a much more solid grounding on what our forebears intended and the true meaning of American Exceptionalism. You’ll also probably be even angrier at how this Nation has been transformed into something that would be abhorrent to the creators.
Most of all, you’ll know precisely what you’re talking about.
This is the best example I’ve heard of the way for the states to take the power back from the federal government by simply using the methods described by the founders. Another Harvard grad but this guy understands Liberty.
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-308-nullification-the-gateway-drug/
“Juries” ? Surely you jest.
My experience and EXPENSE of a jury trial when the defendent is a government entity means the judge will do all he can to protect the defendent government !
In a 1st Amendment jury trial where I was the plaintiff, the jury ruled 8-0, unanimous, against the government and in favor of myself and the citizens I represented. The government attorney appealed. The judge overturned the jury’s decision in my favor and in the favor of Freedom of Speech ! Upon my appeal of his overruling of the jury, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the overruling judge and upheld his ruling to destroy the jury’s verdict.
I’ve participated much more in this once, former Republic than almost anyone reading this blog. My time, effort, untold expense and belief there could be justice in Amerika, were dashed by those who defend the tyranny of our government….the Federal judiciary.
Please, spare the rhetoric regarding the purpose and intent of juries. They are nothing more than false hope and a facade there will be justice for the aggrieved citizenry. Those wearing the black robes are the true arbiters of “justice”. Not “We The People”.