Every democracy has begun with a Fundamental Agreement between its citizens. And every failure of a democracy has started with citizens breaking that agreement—influential or powerful ones or a large number of others. In America, it has been assumed as obvious and unspoken, especially to recent generations of young people. I've asked a small sample to tell me what it is, and none of them could do it.

The agreement is this: We'll decide major issues and choose our representatives and leaders by voting—in processes we've agreed on—and then we'll accept what and whom the majority votes for, until the next vote.

The first part just says we'll have a democracy.

The second says we'll have voting processes that fits our circumstances. America, for example, is too large for everyone to vote on every issue, so we'll elect representatives to make our laws and administer our government, following a Constitution we've agreed on. That agreed process may also constrain or require decisions by the majority. Our Bill of Rights is the strongest example, but other statutes and court decisions can do the same.

The third clause is the critical one for the survival of a democracy. We'll accept the result. It doesn't mean we'll all like it, keep our disagreements silent, or refrain from trying to influence subsequent votes. But it does prohibit working to invalidate the result or thwart its implementation. That includes violent protest, encouraging lawbreaking, spreading false propaganda, legislative or judicial action, and other forms of "resistance," lawful or not, to stop or reverse the democratic result before the next vote.

Since 2016, major players are breaking the Fundamental Agreement at a level not seen since 1860, and it's a serious threat to the republic. They include congressional Democrats, most of the media (you know them), columnists (you know them), celebrities, some wealthy political activists, and organized "anti" groups. We may know soon whether to add federal law enforcement officials to that list.

The consequences are many, especially lack of progress on important issues, as the resistors value thwarting the democratic result above problem solving and the welfare of the country.

Perhaps more important, it has become acceptable, even fashionable to break democracy's fundamental agreement. As many countries have shown, when the agreement goes, resistance to democracy itself grows. Opposition turns violent, and freedom of speech, opinion, and political activity are suppressed (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Venezuela).

The techniques of resistance we've seen destroy democracies in the twentieth century are now perceptible in America—less radical now, but clearly present. Some are:

Action by Congress. Democratically elected bodies have often turned on democratically elected opposition, or on democracy itself (e.g. the Roman Senate creating the Emperor, the Bundestag giving Hitler extraordinary powers). We haven't had the latter yet, but the former has made news for three years. The Mueller investigation was based much less on evidence than on animus, as its result showed. The current impeachment drive is even more egregious, showing the Fundamental Agreement is to be broken by any means possible.

Judicial action. Judges more often attack policies than office holders. Since 2016, we've seen many injunctions against actions clearly endorsed in the election.

Propaganda. Formerly disinformation from a totalitarian government, it now comes in many forms, from many sources, and through many channels. The list of newspapers and TV and radio networks is easy to make. The media applauds breaking the Agreement and participates. It becomes more important than truthful reporting.

Intellectuals, especially college faculty, have distorted concepts and terms to disparage traditional values. Just two examples:

"Justice" as "social justice," labeling inequality of outcomes as unjust and demanding government action to correct it, giving it a name. But calling it "justice," nearly reverses the meaning of that term.

"Fascism," a metaphorical Italian word for collectivism, forced by the state, has been redefined to mean its opposite. Individual liberty and limited government are now "fascism."

Through our education at all levels, young people are taught the rationale for resistance and, as they reach adulthood, encouraged to join it. The history that clearly shows the need to keep the Fundamental Agreement is rewritten or, more often, ignored. This is not new. I got it in college many years ago.

Breaking the Agreement is much more serious than campaigning against opponents or policies. As it becomes acceptable, it’s probably the main reason we’ll not be able to answer Franklin: "A republic, and we intend to keep it."

---