We the People: United at 250

Last updated on: July 6, 2026 at 12:18 pm by Dorian Scott Cole

0 Comments

We the People: United at 250 2026-07-06T12:18:09-06:00 Dorian Scott Cole

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

We the People 250 - Gemini Generated

We the People 250 – Gemini Generated

Today, 250 years after our experiment in democracy was established, we are engaged in a strenuous debate about what freedom means. I was here for the 200th anniversary celebration in 1976, and I served in the Navy during the Vietnam era—serving family, God, and nation.

Having seen the pendulum of politics swing in both directions over a lifetime, I know firsthand that we have managed to stay united despite our deep differences. Yet, rarely has our nation felt so fractured. Freedom is not a permanent guarantee; it is a continuous negotiation between individual rights and collective survival.

We possess a remarkably resilient mechanism of control: “One Person, One Vote.” But we must ask ourselves: is this fundamental principle being usurped by subtler, quieter forces?

Today, we face two issues that threaten our democracy:

1. Democracy vs. Concentrated Capital

Is government by the consent of the governed, or by the wealthiest? “Consent of the Governed” was a driving force written into our Declaration of Independence, and enshrined in the intent of our Constitution in “We the People.”

While our government is democratic, our economic system is capitalist. Capital, by its very nature, is about wealth, not governing. There is no mandate in capitalism to put people or community in the formula.

Today, those with massive financial fortunes increasingly influence every hall of government. The wealthy possess the distinct advantage of compounding their wealth. They have the advantage of accumulating more wealth. They do this through everyday consumer spending. Corporations increase their stock value, building immense fortunes that stay in the stock market rather than returning to those who need it.

The data confirms the average citizen’s frustration. A landmark Princeton and Northwestern University study demonstrated that ordinary citizens have a near-zero impact on public policy compared to economic elites.

When wealth accumulates so heavily at the peak, those dollars inevitably buy political influence through lobbying and campaign finance, diluting or completely usurping the “consent of the governed.”

We have to decide whether we are willing to surrender self-governance to an autocracy that favors only the wealthy—beholden not to the populace, but to the balance sheet. This path leads to a society governed by the tyranny of private interests, where policy is used to further personal fortunes while the broader public suffers the consequences. It leads to those who use the tyranny of private police to do their bidding, as we’re seeing. And to those who use every decision to further personal fortunes while the broader public is left to pay the bill and do without.

2. Majority Rule vs. Minority Rights

Second, is our government truly by the people, or by the most powerful voting blocs? Is this country still united enough to ensure that while the majority rules, the minority is genuinely heard? Or do we define “equality” strictly by what the powerful desire and whom they choose to exclude?

These are the dividing lines of our current national debate. Feelings have always run deep when abstract principles are applied in real-world society, as people rightfully follow their conscience and traditions. In our system, those with the most votes win. Yet history also shows that once a structural change is implemented, societal adjustment and eventual acceptance inevitably follow.

But we must remember that we are a society balanced on majority rule and minority rights. These dual forces temper how we write and administer our laws. We see this tension in our current public, legislative, and judicial quandaries, such as the difficult debate over whether a transgender woman with male-developed musculature should be allowed to compete in women’s sports. Issues like these are profoundly challenging as we struggle to define the practical boundaries of equality, but they are issues that must be, and are being, systematically settled through our institutions. Justice is blind. Equality, fairness, and the public burden all must be weighed and considered.

The Central Issue: The Social Contract

Above all these debates sits one central truth: in a democracy, we are free to decide individually and collectively what we will accept. But for the system to function, our individuality must eventually align with collective aspiration. Without responsibility, freedom dies. The definition of freedom might tempt us to think of an absolute license to do exactly as we please. However, in a society that claims unity, it is our duty for each of us to maintain that unity by respecting the collective will, within the bounds of our own conscience—we must be true to self or we’re doomed.

Absolute freedom without collective responsibility isn’t democracy; it is anarchy. For a union to survive, citizens must trust the democratic process even when their specific side loses a vote. It cannot be “my way or the highway.” We move forward together, or we do not move at all. As both Jesus and Abraham Lincoln warned: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

General Christian

History and Religion

Uncategorized

US 250