America 250: What does a “more perfect union” look like? | America, Actually

The American experiment, 250 years in, is rated a C++, acknowledging both achievements like the Declaration of Independence and the iPhone, and failures such as slavery and income inequality. The key question now is how to shape the next 250 years and craft a new social contract for a deserved democracy. Historian and professor Heather Cox Richardson, known for her Substack "Letters from an American," posits that rather than "reinventing" itself, America has consistently addressed new challenges by expanding its democracy to more closely adhere to its foundational principles, which were initially limited in scope but expansive in potential. She believes we are currently in such a moment of adaptation. Richardson identifies the arts—music, new languages, clothing styles, sculpture—as the initial seeds for envisioning the world anew. However, she stresses that these ideas alone are insufficient. True national shifts occur when Americans reconnect with their historical narratives, finding examples of agency where previous generations actualized their best traditions. She draws a parallel to Hungarian voters who recently united across political divides by appealing to a shared love for their country, reminiscent of the American Republican Party's formation in the 1850s, the Populist movement in the 1890s, and the progressive movements of the 1920s and 30s. Discussing contemporary American politics, Richardson explains that Donald Trump is a product of at least 40 years of right-wing rhetoric adopted by the Republican Party. This rhetoric laid the groundwork by appealing to sexists and racists who joined the Republican Party after the 1965 Voting Rights Act, forming a libertarian, small-government elite reliant on these votes. Trump, however, "flipped the script," empowering these groups while nodding to the establishment's desire for tax cuts. This resulted in a "personalist autocracy," where power is sought not for the party or cronies, but for the individual leader. Richardson argues that the American system itself is not inherently flawed to the point of inevitably producing a Trump. Instead, she suggests that many "dropped the ball" after the 1960s and 70s. During this period, a new form of government emerged, recognizing the worth of individuals in a way that pre-1965 governments did not, leading many to believe the country was on an irreversible path toward liberal democracy. This complacency, however, allowed the radical right to step in and offer a national narrative that instilled a sense of crucial agency in their followers, making them feel like protectors of America. The January 6th, 2021, events, with rhetoric like "this is 1776," exemplify this sentiment. Trump's actions, by tearing down democratic guardrails, have ironically spurred many previously disengaged citizens to become involved in protecting democracy. On the topic of nationalism, Richardson cautions against the perception that Democrats or liberals shy away from a positive American narrative. She attributes some of this sentiment to the Vietnam War era, where the American flag and other symbols became associated with negative connotations, which the radical right then capitalized on. She differentiates between the radical right's search for a "perfect past"—an authoritarian and even fascist impulse—and a more nuanced understanding of American history. She challenges those who wish to "make America what it once was" to name a specific, perfect time, asserting that no such past exists. Instead, Richardson views the story of America as a continuous struggle by those excluded from its promise to expand its principles to include more people. Democracy, she argues, is a process, not a fixed achievement. This perspective acknowledges the "horrors" of American history while also celebrating the individuals who intervened to mitigate these issues and advance progress. She emphasizes the importance of reclaiming a clear view of the past, embracing both its darkness and the efforts of those who strived for a better society. Reflecting on foundational documents, Richardson surprisingly selects the Gettysburg Address as having the most relevance for the future, over the Declaration of Independence. While acknowledging the Declaration's importance in establishing the principles of equality, access to resources, and a say in government, she highlights Lincoln's framing of these as a "proposition" being tested. This concept—that the ideal of a nation founded on these principles is a continuous, ongoing test—is, for her, the heart of being an American. Lincoln's concluding words, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth," serve as "marching orders" for the unfinished work of American democracy. In a thought experiment to draft a new foundational document for America's next 250 years, Richardson and the interviewer propose several key elements: 1. **Affirmative Right to Vote:** "We the people," with a clear emphasis on "one person, one vote, for real this time," protecting against issues like the Electoral College and gerrymandering. 2. **Environmental Protection:** A fundamental governmental role to ensure clean air, clean water, and climate care. 3. **Public Funding of Elections:** To remove money from politics. 4. **Robust Public Education:** Essential for an educated populace, which is fundamental to democracy. This directly opposes voucher movements that undermine public education. 5. **Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices:** Not an age ceiling, but defined terms, acknowledging that historically, justices were younger due to the demands of circuit riding. 6. **Basic Healthcare:** A human right and a necessity for a strong nation, as weakening a population through illness undermines the country. 7. **Two Years of National Service for Young People:** To foster a sense of shared purpose and allow young adults to mature and find their footing before contributing meaningfully. Richardson notes that this list closely resembles the proposals of Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century, made to protect American democracy, not from a "far-left" perspective, but from the grounds of national preservation. They decide to call this hypothetical document the "America Actually Manifesto."