Tip-Off #154 - A Bold Promise
Tip-Off #154 - A Bold Promise
"The peril of democracy is its promise: without discord, it would not be necessary." - after James Madison, Federalist No. 10.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, political philosopher Francis Fukuyama famously proclaimed “the end of history,” meaning the triumph of liberal democracy as the ultimate political system. Yet many overlooked his more nuanced conclusion: this could bring about what Nietzsche called “the last man”—a state where humanity, freed from great struggles, descends into mediocrity and boredom. Ideological resolution could mean cultural stagnation and deeper spiritual malaise.
The old tension between oral and written culture once redefined history. Writing enabled transmission across generations while reducing the communal aspects of recollection. Reliance on external records and individual interpretation diminished the importance of shared rituals and lived experiences in understanding the past.
This shift is evident in today's fierce debates over teaching history. In the U.S., efforts like the 1619 Project, the federal Archive's periodic alteration or obscuring of controversial history, debates over Confederate monuments, the interpretation of January 6, and social media's role in shaping collective memory all reflect urgent attempts to control competing realities. The rise of terms like “alternative facts” underscores the ongoing fight over controlling the truth. Memory is a sales pitch, carefully curated and manipulated to favor the latest grievance. Nostalgia makes up for what isn’t true. Glorifying "simpler times" is easy in the absence of evidence.
The Founders lived in harder times. But for taxation, it would have been easier to remain a British colony. Jefferson and Hamilton were fierce rivals, divided over liberty, equality, and federal power. Both favored a two-party system; both disagreed with George Washington, who thought parties meant factionalism. Debates over the U.S. Articles of Confederation reached an impasse, while broader conflicts and uprisings, particularly Shays' Rebellion, exposed the document's fundamental weaknesses. Even so, the subsequent Constitution that sought to address these problems barely avoided bloodshed and achieved ratification by a narrow margin; its passage was marked by intense debates and fears of violent civil unrest. Too much was at stake for any early version of today’s fallback: “We'll somehow muddle through.”
Before the Civil War, the "Know-Nothings," formally called the American Party, was a prominent political force involving a president, members of Congress, and business leaders. People often cite the Civil War as the pinnacle of national turmoil. We can better understand its root causes and today's "polarization" by examining the fundamental tensions that shaped our nation's founding.
The struggle over history, memory, and identity is a crisis inherent in democracy. Political conflict and deep division are not indicators of failure but essential aspects of democratic life that require resilience and fortitude. Without them, democracy is a tyranny of the same—an unchallenged monotony that stifles growth and silences dissent.
Formerly enslaved statesman Frederick Douglass would likely have agreed that "times such as ours will come again." He spoke of democracy as a bold promise, not just a form of government but a way of life. His words stand: "Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters." Democracy, like freedom, is sustained only by those working through the storm, resisting the illusion of quieter times.
Nietzsche described "the last man" as being liberated from great struggles and sinking into mediocrity. Frederick Douglass believed that democracy could bring us back to the great struggles that make us who we are: “It is not light that is needed, but fire.”
Notes and reading
Federalist No. 10 - As a key author of The Federalist Papers, particularly No. 10, Madison discusses the necessity of a democratic system’s openness to discord and division, which leaves it exposed but also adaptable. To manage factionalism, Madison advocates a large republic where diverse interests can balance one another, ensuring no single faction dominates.
The End of History and the Last Man - Francis Fukuyama (2006). A modern classic, now updated with a new afterword. - Fukuyama is an American political scientist, political economist, international relations scholar, and writer. (Stanford)
Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (1982) - Walter J. Ong, SJ (St. Louis University). A foundational work in the study of communication, linguistics, and cultural anthropology, highly regarded for its insights into how the shift from orality to literacy shapes ways of thinking, remembering, and interacting.
American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804 (2016) and The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832 (2013) - Alan Taylor (University of Virginia). Taylor respects counter-narratives and incorporates diverse viewpoints emphasizing the complexities of early American history. Taylor’s focus on the entangled issues of slavery, war, and regional tensions offers a fresh and critical examination of early American history.
“Know-Nothings” - Members of the party, when asked about their activities, often claimed to "know nothing," hence the name. They split over slavery, to the advantage of neither side. The “Know-Nothings” were far more significant than their nickname suggests.
The Essential Douglass: Selected Writings and Speeches - Frederick Douglass, edited and with an introduction by Nicholas Buccola, Claremont McKenna (2016).
"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation…” in "West India Emancipation” speech (Canandaigua, New York, August 4, 1857),
“It is not light that is needed, but fire.” in “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” or the Fifth of July speech (Rochester, New York, July 5, 1852).
About 2 + 2 = 5: https://williamgreen.substack.com/about - revised
Reading this makes me wonder if we are still treating the present as if it were the end of history. Perhaps we want "ideological resolution" and its "cultural stagnation," so long as culture stagnates the way each of us wants it (and, I'm afraid, tries to live it). The apolitical promise of 1992 has yet to arrive. Perhaps also the need for resolution is inherent in ideology, which I think is a cheap substitute for actual opinion. Arendt (who, as you've gathered by now, is the brightest star in my constellation of political theorists) worried that our country's unity would not remain in plurality, as it was for the Founders, but would come to resemble the French Revolution’s concept of “le peuple,” which, Arendt said, carries “the connotation of a multiheaded monster, a mass that moves as one body and acts as though possessed by one will." If we don't want to develop and discuss opinions -- if we want to stay at home and cling to prepackaged ideologies instead -- we may end up with the wrong kind of unity, the kind you describe here. Anyway, I found your call for democracy as a way of life stirring.