OPINIONS
America Was Given a Republic. Now It Has to Prove It Can Keep It.
By Chad Dashly | The Current
Benjamin Franklin supposedly walked out of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and was asked what kind of government the founders had created.
His answer has echoed across more than two centuries:
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
Maybe Franklin wasn’t speaking to 2026.
But he might as well have been.
Because America is approaching a moment when voters will be asked a question much bigger than whether they like Donald Trump, dislike Donald Trump, support Republicans or prefer Democrats.
The real question is whether the institutions of the American republic still matter.
On November 3, 2026, Americans vote in the midterm elections. Every seat in the House of Representatives will be contested, along with roughly one-third of the Senate.
Normally, midterms are about taxes, inflation, health care, immigration and whether voters are satisfied with the president.
This time feels different.
This time the issue is power.
Specifically: How much power should any American president have?
And perhaps more importantly: Who is willing to stop him when he goes too far?
The Problem Isn’t Just Trump
Donald Trump remains the most polarizing political figure in modern American history.
His supporters see a president willing to challenge institutions they believe have become arrogant, unaccountable and hopelessly disconnected from ordinary Americans.
His critics see something much darker: a president steadily testing the limits of executive authority while demanding loyalty from institutions that were designed to remain independent of him.
You don’t need to embrace every accusation levelled against Trump to recognize the danger.
Presidents are supposed to have opposition.
Congress is supposed to challenge the executive.
Courts are supposed to interpret the Constitution independently.
The Justice Department is supposed to administer justice rather than political revenge.
The media is supposed to make powerful people uncomfortable.
Those aren’t inconveniences.
They’re the system.
And when those institutions stop behaving independently, it shouldn’t matter whether the president’s name is Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush or anyone else.
Conservatives, of all people, should understand that.
Limited government cannot mean limited government only when the other party controls it.
Congress Has Forgotten Its Job
Perhaps the most troubling development in Washington is not Trump’s behaviour.
It is Congress’s willingness to surrender its own authority.
America’s founders didn’t create Congress to serve as the president’s fan club.
They created three competing branches of government precisely because they didn’t trust concentrated power.
Ambition was supposed to counter ambition.
Congress was supposed to fight for its authority.
Instead, modern American politics increasingly rewards legislators for becoming extensions of their political tribe.
When their party occupies the White House, congressional leaders defend behaviour they would have condemned had the other side done exactly the same thing.
Democrats have done it.
Republicans have done it.
And the result is an executive branch that gets stronger almost regardless of who wins elections.
That should worry everyone.
Because eventually the president you despise inherits every power you were willing to give the president you loved.
Conservatives Should Be Especially Concerned
There is an uncomfortable irony here.
For decades, conservatives argued for smaller government, constitutional limits, individual liberty and skepticism toward centralized authority.
Those ideas were right then.
They’re right now.
Yet parts of the American right increasingly seem willing to tolerate enormous executive authority so long as the person wielding it is Donald Trump.
That’s not conservatism.
That’s personality politics.
A conservative shouldn’t want a Republican king any more than a Democratic one.
The entire point of constitutional government is that good institutions protect citizens from bad leaders—and protect the country from the excesses of popular ones.
If your theory of government depends entirely upon trusting the character of the person sitting behind the Resolute Desk, you no longer have limited government.
You have faith.
America’s Institutions Are Being Tested
There is another problem developing alongside political power: economic power.
America’s technology giants have become some of the most influential institutions ever created.
They control communications platforms, cloud infrastructure, artificial intelligence, advertising networks and increasingly large portions of the information Americans consume.
That concentration deserves scrutiny regardless of whether those executives are friendly with Democrats or Republicans.
The danger isn’t simply billionaires becoming involved in politics.
Billionaires have always been involved in politics.
The danger comes when political power, technological power, financial power and media power become increasingly intertwined.
A functioning republic depends upon competing centres of authority.
When everybody with something to lose decides it is easier to accommodate political power than challenge it, accountability disappears remarkably quickly.
Courage becomes expensive.
Silence becomes profitable.
That isn’t healthy for democracy.
This Is What the Midterms Are Really About
The 2026 midterms therefore aren’t simply a referendum on Donald Trump.
They’re a referendum on checks and balances.
Americans will decide whether Congress should continue marching alongside the White House or whether Washington needs more institutional friction.
And friction isn’t necessarily dysfunction.
Sometimes friction is exactly what constitutional government requires.
Presidents hate congressional investigations.
Administrations hate hostile committees.
Political parties hate divided government.
Good.
They are supposed to.
The American system was intentionally designed to make sweeping concentrations of power difficult.
Government wasn’t supposed to operate like a corporation with a chief executive issuing orders to compliant subordinates.
It was supposed to be messy.
Slow.
Argumentative.
Frustrating.
That’s a feature, not a bug.
America Doesn’t Need Another King
There is a tendency in modern politics to treat every election as an existential event.
Lose this election and democracy ends.
Lose that election and America disappears.
Most of the time, that’s nonsense.
America has survived terrible presidents, mediocre presidents, corrupt politicians, wars, depressions, scandals and periods of astonishing political stupidity.
It will probably survive Donald Trump too.
But survival isn’t the standard.
The question is what kind of country emerges afterward.
Because republics rarely disappear overnight.
Institutions erode gradually.
Norms become optional.
Exceptional measures become routine.
Political opponents become enemies.
Executive authority expands.
Legislatures become spectators.
And eventually people discover that powers they tolerated when their side was winning have become terrifying when the other side takes control.
That is why Franklin’s warning still matters.
Keeping the Republic Is the Voters’ Job
The founders didn’t promise America permanent liberty.
They built machinery that could preserve it.
But the machinery only works if citizens demand that it work.
That means insisting presidents obey constitutional limits even when you voted for them.
It means expecting Congress to act like an independent branch of government.
It means defending courts when they issue decisions you dislike.
It means tolerating journalism that makes your side uncomfortable.
It means accepting that political opponents are still citizens.
And above all, it means remembering that America is bigger than whoever happens to occupy the White House.
Donald Trump isn’t America.
Neither is the Republican Party.
Neither is the Democratic Party.
America is the Constitution.
The institutions.
The separation of powers.
The rule of law.
And the stubborn idea that nobody—not a billionaire, not a judge, not a president—is supposed to be above them.
Franklin said America had been given a republic if it could keep it.
Nearly 240 years later, Americans are still answering him.
On November 3, they get another chance.
Footnote: Chad Dashly has a clear thesis: the issue isn’t whether you love or hate Trump; it’s whether you still believe in limited government when your own side controls it.
BC STORIES
Why the Early Election Gamble Backfired on the NDP
The B.C. Conservative Party is set to claim two-thirds of legislative seats after David Eby’s snap election call backfired, leaving the NDP seeking new leadership.
Voters Deliver Decisive Result in 2026 Snap Vote
Following the outcome of British Columbia’s 2026 snap election, the Conservative Party of B.C. is set to capture two-thirds of the seats in the legislature, leaving the NDP searching for a new party leader. Outgoing Premier David Eby initiated the vote two years ahead of schedule, citing the need for a fresh mandate to confront U.S. trade challenges while also seeking to capitalize on internal Conservative divisions.
However, the early vote call drew criticism from within his own party. NDP MLA Ravi Parmar, who won a tight contest in Langford-Highlands, stated that electors sent a clear signal that the early election was a mistake. According to Parmar, the party spent the campaign defending the timing of the vote rather than promoting its platform, which severely hurt their leadership.
Record-Low Voter Turnout and Campaign Missteps
Preliminary figures indicate voter participation dropped to just over 48 per cent. Total votes fell for both major parties compared to 2024, with Conservatives dropping by approximately 50,000 votes and the NDP seeing a decline of about 275,000. Mario Canseco of polling firm Research Co. pointed to poor messaging and rainy weather as factors, noting that Eby’s campaign remained focused on attacking former Conservative leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay, even though she had resigned two days prior to the election call.
Canseco noted that voters perceived interim Conservative leader Lorne Doerkson as a steady presence, making the NDP’s warnings of party instability ineffective. Late-campaign efforts by Eby to draw Green Party voters to the NDP also proved insufficient, as calculations showed the Conservatives would have won even if all Green supporters had shifted their ballots.
Analysis of a Political Miscalculation
Political science lecturer Stewart Prest from the University of British Columbia described the early call as a major political blunder and an own goal driven by partisan hubris. He noted that Eby ran a negative campaign that ultimately failed to resonate with the public.
Former Conservative leader John Rustad attributed his party’s victory to public dissatisfaction with the opportunistic timing of the election. Rustad, who became the party’s sole MLA in 2023 before leading them close to victory in 2024, said voters have used the past two years to become more comfortable with the Conservatives, who have not governed the province in a century.
Campaign consultant Mike McKinnon, who advised calling the snap election to secure a stronger mandate for trade negotiations, admitted the decision proved far more damaging than anticipated. Unlike the 2020 early election under John Horgan, where public frustration quickly faded, McKinnon acknowledged that Eby remained stuck defending the decision throughout the entire campaign.
OPINIONS
Why Premier-Elect Lorne Doerkson Must Clear a Party Rulebook Hurdle After B.C. Election
B.C. Premier-elect Lorne Doerkson faces a party constitutional clause after leading the B.C. Conservatives to a majority victory, ending a decade of NDP rule.
Internal Rule Poses Post-Election Hurdle for Premier-Elect
Following a decisive victory that delivered a two-thirds majority government to the B.C. Conservatives on Saturday, premier-elect Lorne Doerkson is moving quickly to resolve an internal administrative constraint regarding his leadership. Under the party’s current constitution, an interim leader is barred from seeking the permanent leadership in a subsequent ballot unless two-thirds of the party’s membership votes to change the clause.
Addressing reporters on Sunday, Doerkson dismissed concerns that the internal provision would prevent him from serving as premier. He characterized the matter as an administrative detail with further details coming imminently, asserting that he remains party leader and is thrilled to be premier-elect of a united party.
Party Leadership Transition and Local Mandate
Doerkson, who won the riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin after switching from B.C. United earlier this year, assumed the interim leadership shortly before outgoing NDP Premier David Eby called a snap election on Sept. 22. The election outcome brought an end to nearly ten years of NDP governance in British Columbia, completing a rapid rise for a party that captured under two per cent of the vote in 2020.
The brief leadership transition followed the sudden departure of Kerry-Lynne Findlay just days prior to the campaign. On Saturday, Findlay offered congratulations online for what she described as a historic victory, while newly elected West Vancouver-Capilano MLA Caroline Elliott—who previously lost a close leadership contest to Findlay—expressed full support for Doerkson, stating he had earned the trust of British Columbians.
Constitutional Amendment and Base Reaction
To secure Doerkson’s position, the party’s board confirmed it intends to pursue appropriate measures to amend the constitution, stating publicly that a premier selected by voters deserves the certainty of leading the party. Former B.C. premier Gordon Campbell also voiced support at the election-night event, describing Doerkson as an honest and straightforward figure.
However, political analysts point out potential friction within the party’s membership. Hamish Telford, an associate professor of political science at the University of the Fraser Valley, noted that a significant segment of the base had sought to distance the party from B.C. Liberal ties. Telford raised questions about how grassroots members will respond as the Conservatives shift toward a mainstream, business-oriented direction.
OPINIONS
Doerkson to British Columbia: The Waiting Is Over
Doerkson to British Columbia: The Waiting Is Over
Lorne Doerkson’s promise to make British Columbia a place where investment and opportunity can grow is compelling. The test will be whether his government can turn the speech into visible results.
Lorne Doerkson says British Columbia must replace uncertainty with action. His first message as premier-elect sets an ambitious direction on investment, energy, health care and affordability. Now the work is to make those promises real.
British Columbia has heard plenty of promises about its potential. What it has not always seen is the follow-through that turns potential into projects, jobs and opportunity.
That is why Lorne Doerkson’s first speech as premier-elect landed on a simple, memorable point: “You can plan around a no, but you can’t plan around a maybe.”
It is a sharp description of what can happen when businesses, workers and communities cannot tell whether a project will move forward, what it will cost or how long approval will take. Uncertainty does not sit still. Investment can go elsewhere. Young people can build their lives somewhere else. Communities can wait years for decisions that shape their future.
Doerkson’s answer is to say yes to investment and to cut red tape “like it’s never been cut before.” He promised a business summit in Vancouver next year and set out clear ambitions for natural gas production: doubling it by 2032 and tripling it by 2035. He argued that growth could mean tens of thousands of jobs and at least $6 billion a year for hospitals and schools.
Those are big commitments. They give British Columbians something concrete to measure. They also create a responsibility for the incoming government: explain how the province will reach those targets, what infrastructure and approvals will be required, and how communities will see the benefits.
The same test applies to the rest of the speech. Doerkson spoke about more fibre moving by truck, permits issued in months rather than years, support for mineral exploration, ports and rail that can get products to market, and reliable power for new industrial projects. Each promise speaks to a practical problem. Together, they describe a province that wants to build again.
But a change in tone will matter only if people can see a change in the process. If permits still take years, if grid connections remain out of reach or if communities cannot get clear answers, the language of “yes” will become another political slogan.
Doerkson also tied growth to the daily concerns of families. He promised a $1,000 tax cut as a start and no new taxes. He spoke of a publicly funded health-care system, rural emergency rooms and maternity wards that are open, family doctors for people who need them, and safer hospitals for staff.
These are not side issues to an economic plan. A province cannot persuade families to stay if they cannot find a doctor, rely on local emergency care or see a path to owning a home. The promise that a hard day’s work should lead to a family home and a future in British Columbia will be judged against the cost of living and the services people depend on.
On public safety, Doerkson said criminals should remain behind bars while people who need treatment should receive it. On property rights and parks, he offered assurances to landowners and the public. These commitments will require careful decisions in government. Protecting property, expanding access and responding to public safety concerns can involve competing interests. Voters will expect clear rules and consistent results.
The most personal part of the speech was its appeal to people considering leaving. To business owners, Doerkson urged them to stay and grow here. To young people, he said this is their home and their best days should happen close to family and friends, in a place they can afford.
That appeal is understandable. It also raises the standard for the government. People do not stay because a premier asks them to. They stay when opportunity is real, housing is within reach, public services work and their effort has a future here.
A province cannot eliminate every delay, disagreement or difficult trade-off. But it can make decisions on time, state its rules plainly and give people confidence that the answer will not remain “maybe” forever.
Doerkson has set an ambitious direction: a British Columbia where investment comes first, projects move, public services are strong and young people can build their lives at home. The speech made the case. Now the government must show, one decision at a time, that the waiting really is over.
—Chad Dashly
-
SPORTS5 days agoWhy B.C. Lions Starters Are Resting as the Regular Season Concludes Against Winnipeg
-
BC STORIES5 days agoBC Conservatives Promise Forestry Overhaul to Revive Jobs as NDP Points to Millions in Existing Investment
-
OPINIONS5 days agoHow Minor Parties and Strategic Balloting Could Shift the Upcoming B.C. Election
-
BC STORIES6 days agoPolice Seek Witnesses After Fatal Wrong-Way Collision Near Merritt
-
5 days ago
Your Current 3 Day Forecast — October 22, 2026
-
6 days ago
Your Current 3 Day Forecast — October 21, 2026
-
NATIONAL STORIES6 days ago
Highland Valley Copper Workers Could Strike Saturday as Union Issues Notice
-
HEALTH6 days agoCoquihalla Highway Reopens Near Merritt Following Morning Crash That Injured Four