Hayworth: America should be ‘a republic,’ but Biden won’t keep it

The first day of September could very well have signaled the last day of meaningful political freedom in the United States…

As darkness fell in Philadelphia, Joe Biden stood in front of Independence Hall — the site of our nation’s founding — to deliver a screed that may lead to its ultimate undoing…

Certainly the content led to confusion among the White House image makers; the “word merchants” supplied a lofty title, claiming the subject matter was “The Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation,” but the “optics crew” chose to bathe the national monument in blood-red floodlights.

And behind the presidential podium was Joe Biden, who was not there as the leader of a nation, but instead as the purveyor of political pornography.

In less than 25 minutes, Biden perverted our entire political process, adding new venom to his vitriol. Joe ensured his remarks would be “historic” by claiming that millions of everyday Americans who disagree with him politically should now be regarded as a threat to the nation.

Three minutes into his speech, Joe barked out his central theme: “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

Lest you think the criticism contained in this column is overwrought, understand this distinction. While “extremism” has been the left’s favorite label for every GOP candidate and cause since Barry Goldwater, Biden broke new ground by failing to separate citizens from his personal political opponents.

Had Joe simply said “Donald Trump has misled MAGA Republicans into following an extremism blah-blah-blah,” Biden would be spared the rightful scorn he’s now receiving.

We all know that “politics ain’t beanbag” and that the demonization of opposing candidates, while lamentable, has been so commonplace for so long that it falls within the bounds of accepted political rhetoric. What is unacceptable is the demonization of all who disagree.

Absurdities abound in the aftermath.

“The City of Brotherly Love” became the backdrop for a “Declaration of Political Hate.” Joe Biden, who claimed in his inaugural address that he would be a “uniter,” instead revealed his desire to be a divider. And the man who serves as our current commander-in-chief believes he’s justified to name those who oppose him politically as “domestic enemies.”

Undergirding all that was wrong with this “presidential address” was Biden’s fundamental misunderstanding of the type of nation he leads… literally.

While he called it a “republic” once, Joe used the word “democracy” 26 times in a speech that ran just under 25 minutes.

Biden is scarcely alone in his misuse and overuse of “democracy.” The fact that so many of us regard the term as synonymous with “republic” reflects the triumph of an earlier effort to change our political lexicon and, in so doing, alter our politics.

Progressives of both parties deliberately started using the word “democracy” in the early 20th century, implying that majority rule was the guiding light in governing.

“Big Guy,” J.D. Hayworth, Author

Benjamin Franklin, present at the creation of our government and an active participant in its founding, viewed democracy with distrust. As Franklin put it, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.”

Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights will you find “democracy.” Instead our founders refer to our “republic,” a government based upon the rule of law. In fact, the aforementioned Ben Franklin, when asked about the type of government our founders devised, offered this response: “A republic… if you can keep it.”

Franklin was many things — a printer, inventor, diplomat and statesman — and his above response sounds like a letter of prophecy from a founding father to his modern-day progeny.

Can we keep our republic?

Written by J.D. Hayworth for West Valley View ~ September 15, 2022

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *