The U.S. Founder’s Urgent Message for 2025: A Republic — If You Can Keep It

At its core, democracy means the majority of raised hands prevails, nothing more. However, such “pure” democracies no longer exist — for good reason. What we have instead are republics that codify their principles through democratically agreed-upon frameworks.

The key distinction is that power no longer stems directly from a popular vote, but from a constitution and a set of laws designed to protect individual rights against the shifting — and potentially highly arbitrary — whims of the majority.

Elected representatives operate within this structure and are presumed to operate on behalf of the people. By definition, this system imposes limits on all extreme actions.

To see how — and why — this system works, it is very instructive to compare Germany’s democracy and that of the United States today, the proto-fascist thoughts of U.S. Vice President JD Vance that he launches at Germany notwithstanding.

He obviously is doing so in order to detract from the extreme deterioration of U.S. democracy over the past two months. A development, coincidentally, that will forever stain his name in the history books.

Germany as a case in point

Germany defines itself as a social market economy, rooted in a specific view of humanity and principles for societal coexistence. The essence of its Constitution (Grundgesetz) is encapsulated in Article I: “Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar“ (The dignity of the human being is inviolable). That sets the stage for everything else to come.

Republicanism in action

From the outset, owing to its history, the Federal Republic of Germany has strictly prohibited Nazi symbols and related expressions under Section 86a of the German Criminal Code.

Consequently, it is entirely legitimate for the “Alternative für Deutschland” (AfD) party to face potential exclusion from politics if certain members of that party contradict the Basic Law, provided there is thorough governmental scrutiny.

Likewise, it is reasonable for other parties to refuse cooperation with the AfD. While outsiders may perceive this as anti-democratic, it is not, as the Basic Law itself was democratically established.

Yet, the AfD and its supporters argue that they are being excluded in an anti-democratic manner, citing the 20% of the electorate that supports them.

However, due to the “eternity clause,” which protects Articles 1 and 20 of the Basic Law defining Germany as a democratic, federal and social state governed by the rule of law, the prohibition of Nazi symbols under Section 86a is virtually impossible to overturn without fundamentally altering Germany itself.

A systemic challenge

Hard right wingers relentlessly warn of democracy’s endangerment while emphasizing their own perceived disadvantages. Ultimately, they seek to undermine the entire system.

Their goal appears to be a form of cultural revolution, a backdoor strategy to bring about the republic’s collapse. At issue is not the (often feigned) threat to (an entirely abstract) democracy, but rather the threat to our (very concrete) republic.

Germany as a model

The German Basic Law has served as an influential model for other post-Second World War constitutions worldwide, including those of South Korea, Spain, post-apartheid South Africa and several Eastern European countries.

Its success in guiding Germany through reconstruction and democratization has demonstrated its effectiveness in preventing authoritarian backsliding.

Furthermore, its strong human rights protections, the structure of its Constitutional Court as well as its finely balanced federal power-sharing system with the states have made the Basic Law an attractive source of inspiration for constitutional design and partial adaptation elsewhere.

Vance causes profound confusion

At the Munich Security Conference in February, Vice President J.D. Vance declared Germany undemocratic for marginalizing the AfD. Whether this statement was naïve, unwise or just deliberately provocative, it reflects a different understanding of how a republic functions.

In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Like a voice from a different time

This broadly protects free expression, granting individuals significant latitude to speak freely at any time. It also signifies ultimate distrust in the elected government.

When Vice President J.D. Vance referenced these thoughts when he addressed the Munich Security Conference, he sounded to German and European participants almost like a voice from the 18th century.

The original concept of a republic — as a framework to eliminate violence both internally and externally and allowing citizens to thrive — provides common ground because it offers protections against absolutist rulers via an effective set of checks and balances.

More narrowly, the reason why Vance and his claims about a lack of democracy in Germany if not Europe in general have caused so much head shaking and disillusionment is that the Trump administration is, among other targets, very keen on restricting the freedom of the press. At best, the Trumpists have a very autocratic view of all the elements that make up a vibrant democracy.

A republic, if you can keep it

Asked during the formation of the American republic whether the new government of the United States would be a republic or a monarchy, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”.

His remark pointed to the fragility of a republic, which depends on active civic engagement and vigilance to maintain it to function effectively. Franklin thus saw a sharp contrast to a monarchy or unchecked democracy, which could lead to instability or tyranny.

It is self-evident that, under present circumstances, the American republic is devolving exactly in the direction that Franklin and the Founding Fathers were very worried about.

They were keenly also aware of that a republic relies on the rule of law and a strong collective will and accountability to uphold its ideals in order to prevent corruption, tyranny or the erosion of democratic principles.

Conclusion

At Davos, Vice President Vance appeared like a visitor from a time capsule, grandstanding before Europeans whose historical experience has evolved beyond the theoretical framework of democracy outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

His speech carried a tone of paranoia, and he was unavailable for questions. The most charitable interpretation is that he appeared as a representative from a world of constitutional uncertainty.