Famously, when someone asked Benjamin Franklin after the Constitutional Convention what kind of government they had drawn up for the new nation, he responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Our system, which could be called a representative democracy, a liberal democracy, or a republic, involves checks and balances, individual rights, and rule by the people. And Franklin’s underlying point is that this form of government, hopefully, can keep us a free and independent people. To “keep it,” as he implies, there is work for the people to do. A culture of independence needs to take root —forming a populace that doesn’t rely unnecessarily on others.
What independence looks like
Of course one can take this idea of independence too far. We all rely on each in myriad ways. I didn’t come into this world by my own initiative or provide myself food, clothing, safety, shelter, or anything else as a child. I still rely on others to this day. And that’s nothing to be ashamed of. But we should be self reliant insofar as is appropriate.
This is one area where my faith and political worldview synthesize nicely. In Catholic social teaching, there is a concept called subsidiarity, which all of the various rights and responsibilities are fed through. Catholic Answers defines it by saying, “Subsidiarity is the principle, formulated by the Catholic Church, that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized competent authority rather than by a higher and more distant one, whenever possible.”
This has a lot of similarity to our American vision of federalism. There are a few things that are best dealt with by the national government — immigration, defense, interstate relations — but otherwise, as the 10th amendment says, everything else should be “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Getting the balance right
The question is: Where does one’s self-reliance end and reliance on an authority further up the chain begin? Our impulse should always be to push this responsibility further down the chain, to ourselves whenever possible. Having the opposite impulse, or assuming a larger institution should handle it, comes with dangers that the American founders saw clearly. Trusting, for example, the Soviet government with your basic necessities and safety could be a deadly choice.
When we view those larger authorities with proper caution, we are likely to direct as much responsibility as possible down to our communities, families, and self — where Edmund Burke’s oft-referenced “little platoons” of civil society can flourish.
But when we view those authorities as mostly benign and just a source for getting what we want and need with the least effort, our determination for self reliance begins to weaken. For some, the impulse can even be a very well-intentioned one, to use the more distant institutions to help those who really need it. This might even be the right thing at times. But the prudent citizen will always first look for a more local source, ideally the individual, who can take responsibility in that area.
Maintaining this prudence when government appears the easier or more compassionate option is an ever-present danger for a free people. That is the worry I believe Franklin had when he said, “if you can keep it.” An independent republic can be lost easily through this kind of complacency. So it’s vital to constantly and honestly assess where that balance is and to try to achieve that proper level of self sufficiency.
A culture that does not want to do the hard work of caring for themselves and those around them is not one that “can keep it.” With this perspective, it becomes more than a personal failing when one refuses to care for their children or to achieve what they could in their career or to volunteer to help those who do require more reliance on others. These failings create spaces that the government fills with programs and, ultimately, control. And with each step, a once independent people become a little less so.