With our politics in 2018 transformed into a cartoonish version of Caesarism, one wonders: Could this experience lead to a revival of a healthy and robust republicanism in America? Given certain aspects of the Obama presidency as well, we’re now closing in on a decade of vaguely authoritarian, celebrity-focused, cult-of-personality politics. Will Americans finally decide enough is enough? Is it too much to hope for a rethinking of the tendencies that have propelled us in this direction?
Consider our post offices. They, along with other government buildings, have tended for quite a while to display photos of our president and vice president. They haven’t been giant photos, and we’re not obliged to bow to them or take off our hats in their presence—but why are they there in the first place? And haven’t they been something of an entering wedge into a kind of obsequiousness toward our leaders that has become too prevalent on all sides of our politics?
Perhaps legislation that Rep. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.) is planning to introduce could spur a healthy reaction against this kind of dimestore leader-worship. Rep. Donovan is talking about a bill mandating that U.S. Post Offices display official photos of the president and the vice president. He came up with this idea after a constituent complained that a local post office still displayed photos of former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden, but was not displaying photos of President Donald Trump or Vice President Mike Pence.
One sees how a Republican using the U.S. mails could be annoyed by the asymmetric treatment of the former and current occupants of the Oval Office. Surely the obvious response to this isn’t a law requiring equal display of silly photos, but an inquiry: Why are such photos there in the first place? Do we need this style of decoration in our public spaces?
If something has to be featured on the walls of our post offices, why not facsimiles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Or rotating portraits of different Founders? Or perhaps each post office could put up photos of local men and women who have acted with valor, contributed to the community, or lived exemplary lives?
In any case, perhaps this little incident will prompt renewed appreciation for the proper republican attitude toward our president, nicely captured by Abraham Lincoln addressing the 166th Ohio Regiment on August 22, 1864: “I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has.”
This republican modesty far more befits a self-governing people than the faux-grandiosity of our current politics. And such republican modesty is in no way incompatible with a high view of the meaning of our republican experiment. As Lincoln said in the same brief speech, explaining what the soldiers were fighting for:
Is it possible that a rejection of the costume jewelry adorning today’s political scene might be the predicate for restoring a true appreciation of the real and inestimable jewel of free government?
