On the Founding-Era Republic and Critique of Political Parties — Q&A

ENQUIRER: How close is the idea of The American Minervan to the founders?

DOMINIQUE: The American Minervan’s ideas are very close to those of the American Founders, particularly in their classical civic republican core, while consciously seeking to revive and regenerate a tradition that was at its strongest during the Revolutionary era and the first roughly 25 years of the Republic (c. 1770s – early 1810s). This project is a direct continuation and “re-construction” of the republicanism that the Founders deliberately drew upon when designing the U.S. system. There are many in Law school, e.g., that learn far more in this area than I do yet look at this country. There is no soul there. Just corporate law and the limitations of the business class. It is a mechanistic operation of learning the U.S. system. The United States was founded on a new re-construction of an ancient Roman civic philosophy called Republicanism, inspired by Cicero and the broader classical tradition, and built in explicit distinction from “pure democracy” and the historical failures of popular governments in Greece and Italy. The distinction from pure democracy is necessary given the mistaken notions about our government.

There is in scholarship, description of a “loose tradition of republican writers” that includes:

• Machiavelli and Italian predecessors
• English republicans (Milton, Harrington, Sidney)
• Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the English commonwealthmen
• And “many Americans of the founding era such as Jefferson, Madison, and Adams.”

The shared emphasis between all these thinkers and my political philosophy is civic virtue and political participation, the dangers of corruption, the benefits of a mixed constitution and the rule of law, resistance to arbitrary power (non-domination), bringing with me the entire catalogue and arsenal of classical examples from Cicero and Roman historians available to me as a citizen.

Personages I have thus far dealt with are Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams as exemplars of this broad tradition. Then there are even broader classical influences on the Founding generation as a whole, including George Washington (as a Roman-style republican hero) and Federalist-era figures like Alexander Hamilton and Noah Webster, who worked to shape early American national identity through republican institutions, education, language, and symbols.

It must be stressed, that the Founders were steeped in classical education (Greek and Roman history, philosophy, and rhetoric), which shaped their vision of the American citizen and institutions. If we wish to emulate this learning, then emulate it truly. The tradition’s strength in the first 25 years of the Republic is evidence of it not merely functioning as a political philosophy but as an organic “lifestyle and a way of thinking” striving for the full reconstruction of society. This republican phase was lodged between monarchy and democracy and encompassed the American Revolution and the first twenty-five years of the Republic.

In that early period, (i.) educated Americans deeply knew the histories of Greek, Roman, and Italian republics and their fragility; (ii.) only civic virtue, the sacrifice of personal interest to the public good could preserve the republic. “Love, not fear, was to rule” it was taught; and (iii.) classical models (Sparta, Athens, but especially Roman heroes) supplied pseudonyms, symbols, iconography, and ideals for the “New Citizen.”

This was the high-water mark of classical civic republicanism in America before it began shifting toward more liberal, individualistic, and majoritarian-democratic rhetoric in the 19th century, and then the tradition became lost, buried, caricatured and even demonized.

I want to develop and strengthen upon this seemingly lost tradition, and I acknowledges that this deeper republican meaning has been largely lost or diluted in modern America — often reduced to partisan associations with the Republican Party, limited government slogans, or tainted by historical hypocrisies (e.g., slavery). This is why I provided the angle of Black Republicanism before Marxism and Bolshevism. This is not merely nostalgic, but actively engaged in regenerating it as a living, force for national unification and progress.

These developments include:

• Restoring historical and philosophical precision, countering the modern emotional overuse of “democracy” by re-emphasizing the Founders’ deliberate choice of a republic with safeguards (mixed constitution, rule of law, civic virtue).
• The “real republican mind,” or cultivating an anti-authoritarian, virtue-oriented disposition that transcends left-right tribalism and party politics.
• Inclusivity and regeneration, by demonstrating the early extension of the tradition through “Black Republicanism” (figures from Phillis Wheatley to Frederick Douglass who wielded classical republican ideals against slavery and domination) and connections to the Haitian Revolution, traced all the way back to the foundations of Western Philosophy which Black people engaged in to challenge the Slaveholding phase of the Republic, thereby addressing the Founders’ contradictions while strengthening the universal anti-domination core.
• Advocating the creation of an association of true republican thinkers, civic education, and active moral commitment so that every citizen actively becomes the salvation of the Republic.

By taking the Founders’ classical republican framework, strongest in the early Republic, as the authentic root of an even older lineage, strips away modern distortions and partisan baggage, and makes the potential robust, spiritually infused, and an inclusive living tradition capable of fortifying democratic practices today. It is not an exact replica of 1787 thinking, but a deliberate regeneration of the Founders’ including their critics who sought to hold them accountable for their promises, deeper philosophical commitment.

ANTICIPATION OF CRITICISM TO REVIVAL OF REPUBLICANISM

I would anticipate that others would see this as helpful to the Republican Party, even though it challenges both or all political parties and polarized spectrum. Perhaps Democrats would fear this, but I would hope it contributes to reform of the parties, or the disruption to post-Trump parties or manifestations of the Republican Party that is coping, not deeply reflecting on how Trump emerged from within them. I am strong and defiant in the view, that the modern use of democracy is intentional, and the same cannot be as easily done if the full vision of the U.S. system is revived.

Any critique that this revival of classical republicanism secretly (or effectively) helps the Republican Party is understandable in our hyper-polarized environment, but it is superficial and will ultimately miss my project’s substance. It rests on the assumption that any positive use of the word “republicanism,” emphasis on constitutional limits, or critique of pure majoritarian “democracy” must be partisan code for conservative positions. I repeatedly and explicitly reject any alliance with the modern Republican Party (capital R). On the “About” page, I state that the GOP cannot be defined as Republican. It has become associated with racism, religious dominionists and oligarchic greed — something explicitly anti-republican. Noam Chomsky’s criticism of the party as “off the spectrum” is correct. The modern GOP models itself on old Right worldviews that historically stand in opposition to true republican tradition. It is the weakest link in upholding the Republic, while through propaganda claiming to represent “the Revolution of 1776.” The facts undermine their own narrative.

CLASSICAL CIVIC REPUBLICANISM transcends the left-right spectrum, that stifles thought. This effort is anti-factional in the classical sense echoing Madison and Cicero. Both major parties are symptoms of corruption and decline rather than allies or enemies. Any observer who reads sees my critique as a challenge to polarized tribalism on all sides, not just one. Some Democrats may fear this — at least initially. However, in contemporary progressive discourse, any defense of republican institutions (mixed constitution, checks and balances, civic virtue over raw majoritarianism, or reminders that the Founders feared “pure democracy”) is often framed as anti-democratic or as Republican talking points (“We’re a republic, not a democracy”). Parts of the left that prioritize expansive majoritarian power, rapid social change through democratic means, or view classical and Founding-era rhetoric as inherently tainted by slavery and elitism might see this revival as regressive or threatening.

I ask though, more threatening than Alex Karp’s “TECHNOLOGICAL REPUBLIC,” a farce and inversion?

Many of you, who are thoughtful I hope, who are equally concerned about democratic erosion (corruption, executive overreach, factional extremism, declining civic literacy, or norm-breaking by either side) would likely find much to value. The project’s core commitments: non-domination, rule of law, anti-arbitrary-power, and civic virtue as a bulwark against tyranny apply equally to threats from populist authoritarians on the right and illiberal majoritarianism or identity-based factionalism on the left. The emphasis on regeneration through education and moral discipline is not inherently partisan and is a demand for higher standards from all citizens and leaders.

By reviving a deeper, pre-partisan republican ethos, I offer a framework that could discipline and improve both parties rather than empower one:

• Reduces destructive polarization: By treating the left-right spectrum and party duopoly as distorting and “stifling,” it encourages citizens to judge policies and leaders by republican standards (common good, virtue, non-domination, constitutional fidelity) instead of team loyalty. This could weaken the incentive for parties to cater to extremes.
• Elevates civic virtue over raw power: Both parties currently reward tribal signaling, short-term wins, and factional mobilization. A republican revival demands self-restraint, prudence, deliberation, and rotation in office — qualities that would pressure parties to field better leaders and pursue more responsible governance.
• Strengthens institutional loyalty: It reminds Americans why the Founders built a republic with safeguards. This could foster cross-party consensus on defending core institutions (rule of law, separation of powers, federalism) against populist or ideological assaults from either direction.
• Promotes civic education and long-term thinking: The project’s call for an “association of true republican thinkers” and widespread civic literacy could create a more informed electorate that holds both parties accountable, making reform from within more likely.

Classical republicanism is not a partisan tool, but a mirror held up to the entire political class, and what the public sees versus the reality of the nature of the so-called two political parties. It judges parties by how well they serve the res publica (the public thing), not by how well they serve their base. In an era of mutual accusations of threatening “democracy,” this tradition offers a more demanding and historically grounded alternative: a Republic that requires virtuous citizens and leaders on all sides to endure. That is why this effort is more threatening to entrenched partisan habits than helpful to any single party. I would say, that lastly, I am not an enemy. The population, the classes have become enemies to themselves, by supporting politicians and parties who undermine the best interests of the working-class.