69% of Americans Think the Founders Would Be Disappointed in Today’s Democracy—Here’s the 270-Year-Old Philosopher Who Called It First

Posted on by

(SeaPRwire) –   By: Gavin Thorne
69% of Americans believe the founding fathers would be disappointed in modern U.S. democracy, per an Elon University poll. That’s not just a fleeting partisan gripe—it’s a widespread national reckoning. Just 25% of 18-to-29-year-olds feel hopeful about America’s future, per the latest Harvard Youth Poll. Corrupt government officials top Americans’ greatest fears for the 10th consecutive year, per Chapman University’s annual survey. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson wrote in The New York Times that Americans now see threats from domestic political violence, polarization, and cultural dysfunction, not just foreign adversaries. Many believe the country’s survival is at stake as it prepares for its 250th independence anniversary.

Montesquieu’s *The Spirit of the Laws* was published in 1748, and it shaped the American founding more than almost any other text. At the Constitutional Convention, only biblical quotes were cited more often. James Madison once called him the “oracle who is always consulted and cited.” Historian Forrest McDonald noted that American republican ideologues could recite his core doctrines like a catechism between 1760 and 1805. His ideas on separation of powers are familiar today, but his theory of liberty is far more overlooked.

Montesquieu defined political liberty as a “tranquility of mind arising from the opinion each person has of his safety.” To be free, people must believe they are secure. That means the government must be structured so no one needs to fear another person—including public officials. If officials can arrest someone without due process, seize property, or revoke citizenship, no one can feel truly safe. Even actions targeting other groups feel threatening, because the rules could shift to target you tomorrow.

Montesquieu also warned that a country could have a free constitution on paper, but fail in practice if cultural norms clash with its laws. He called this a tyranny of opinion. Today, Americans might argue that racial equity or evangelical Christian demands justify ignoring the legislature or judiciary to serve their goals. In those cases, the Constitution is free in name only, not in practice. The laws that should protect people instead inspire fear, as they clash with personal moral beliefs.

Recent years have seen calls across the political spectrum to radical constitutional change, or to ignore the Constitution outright. People want to pack the Supreme Court, ignore its rulings, and abolish the Senate and Electoral College. Polarization worsens this appetite for disregarding constitutional norms. Each party champions a cultural agenda that the other side recoils from. Even when a party follows the law, its rule can feel like tyranny to the opposing side.

Polarization will erode what little remains of public trust in American democratic institutions until the system either undergoes fundamental reform or collapses entirely.

Author bio: Gavin Thorne, an investigative journalist based in Washington, D.C., who tracks special interest influence on federal legislation.