A Republic, If Our Media Let Us Keep It

Townhall 

During a break in the Constitutional Convention,  prominent Philadelphian Elizabeth Powell asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.?” Franklin famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” 

Many had feared that America would return to a monarchial form of government, much like that only recently overthrown. But few today understand  the mechanism  which the Founding Fathers feared might eventually turn America into a monarchy.  This dreaded form would most certainly not come from a strong-willed President like Donald Trump, as suggested by the insipid “No Kings” rallies of recent days.  

Rather, the wise Founders, understanding the difficulties of any populist system of government, were most worried about  “mob rule”  and its irrational “mischief of factions.”  They were presciently alluding to such emotionalism and ignorance as displayed in these jejune demonstrations.

The founding Fathers feared that “mobs” would lead to corrupt government, so much out of control that tyranny and despotism would inevitably overtake sober republican virtue.  Students of Montesquieu and Locke, they were most concerned that citizens might not remain  civically educated and virtuous.  Democracy, they understood, might devolve into tyranny, as a mob  is formed of citizens who become focused on petty pleasures, rather than disciplined rule-following conducive to order, safety and security.

Our present society is lurching dangerously close to this state, as best emblemized by the reaction of our major media to the present hostilities in Iran, in turn fueling the irrationality of the “No Kings” rallies, where blame is cast on existential necessity.  No one likes war, since citizens are thereby deprived of the comforts of peaceful existence. Witness the deprivations in Europe during World War II, or in America during its Revolution. 

But the media has lost all sense of the teachings of recent history, likening Trump to Hitler, while, ironically, validating the true Hitler of modern times, Iran.  Giving vent to group derangement, the mob validates Iranian suppression of women, the murder of gays and, most ominously, likely nuclear war. In Iran, the “No Kings” group would, it is safe to say, be massacred.

In contrast to most wars, America’s deprivations today are indeed petty.  We are paying a bit more for gas.  Inflation has strained citizens’ pocketbooks, but recently only marginally as a result of the Iran hostilities, far less so than from Biden-era inflation.  But clearly, because of our actions in Iran, the price of gas is rising, and our stock markets are jittery, inducing slight declines.

If, as the present portends, America brokers an extended Abraham Accords and bring lasting peace to the Middle East, all our grandchildren will gain increased assurance of a thriving future. The relative costs will have been insignificant.

How do our vaunted media portray this realistically optimistic view of the future world? With constant, handwringing negativity.  A moment does not go by without a negative slant on the promising Iran hostilities.  The Straight of Hormuz is closed! Iran has launched missiles! The price of gas is up! Airline fares are increasing! The public is upset! 

At the same time as these petty costs are decried, we search in vain for a legacy media discussion of the Iranian threat from a broader world-historical perspective.  The present costs are emotionally assailed, but there is little talk of resulting broader, long-lasting societal benefits.  

From Benjamin Franklin's perspective, today’s vaunted media constitute a force destructive of our democratic republic.  Do we see any reporting or analysis by major outlets assessing present costs against future benefits?  Of course not. 

In this vein, the New York Times’ reporting is a defining measure in assessing the media’s civic education of society.  Its Sunday Edition is carefully prepared and has access to extensive journalistic resources.  So, its reporting is emblematic of our broader established media.

The Times’  lengthy March 22, 2026,  editorial on Iran is viciously critical of the bombing, but on what basis? After  the initial three paragraphs – screamingly negative – the fourth paragraph begins, “There is a reasonable debate to have about the wisdom of this war.  Iran’s murderous government does indeed present a threat – to its own people, to its region, and to global stability.”  

So, the paper admits that Iran’s murderous government does indeed present a threat, but where does the paper go from there to have that “reasonable debate”, balancing the costs against the benefits of ridding the world of this regime?  

Between the three earlier paragraphs and the thirteen following, this lengthy editorial refrains from doing its job of framing the actual debate.  Rather, it spends this wordy diatribe, read by millions, criticizing Trump's language and rhetoric, rather than discussing the substance of his actions.  Of course, the above quoted paragraph serves as a hedge against future criticism that the paper was against the war, which language it can cite if it leads to peace in our time.  No, the Times can argue in the future, we weren’t against the war, just against Trump’s articulation of it.  But in fact, the true criticism of the paper is precisely that, to wit, rhetoric, not reality.

What of the other articles in this prestigious Opinion section of the Sunday Edition?  Nicholas Kristof talks of how the war’s funding should be alternatively spent in his piece, “Better Ways to Spend the War’s Billions”. This money, he argues, could go to pre-screening for cervical cancer; pre-K education for three- and four-year-olds; glasses for schoolchildren; and so on.  Butter, not guns: how novel and enlightening! Of course, the war’s expenditures will soon cease. Entitlements, in contrast, are forever, a small factoid the professedly brilliant Kristof overlooked.

Someone named Phil Klay, whose credentials are mainly that he fought in Iraq, gives a full-page screed against the war, and almost every other previous war. But Phil does not tell us why avoiding a nuclear holocaust is not a valid justification.

There is a feature on Joe Kent, the Tulsi Gabbert counterintelligence aide who recently resigned over the war.  Before he resigned the Times would have criticized Kent as an isolationist MAGA kook, but here it portrays Kent as a modern-day Demosthenes. 

In the past, the Times was distinctly pro-war against the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as aggressive regarding the Iraq War in 2003, and was strongly  invested in prosecuting and sanctioning undemocratic Arab  governments.  But now, with the Iran war, the Times is distraught that Dubai is not safe.  

But not to be outdone, the Times Business Section also jumps into the anti-war act. The headline of an article of March 22, 2026, says it all: “Strait of Hormuz Bottleneck Exposes Strategic Crack.”  What is not discussed is the permanent wall, not a temporary crack, that would be maintained, complete with an extortionate tollbooth, should Iran get a nuke.  Did the Times’ Business folks think of that material business consideration?  There is no evidence of it.  

Oddly and unfortunately for the Times, the putatively isolationist MAGA wing of the Republican party, with only some contrary solitary Joe Kent voices, actively supports this war. Why? Because it makes common sense.  And as kooky as the Times would depict MAGA folk, they are, in this moment of truth, shown to be wise and prudent citizens, seeking to preserve our liberal republic, with 90% approval.  Ben Franklin would applaud this civic virtue of at least a portion of our republic.

In the future, if our democratic republic ultimately shatters from the surfeit of petty passion and impulse, there is no better historical marker than the partisan mob journalism of our legacy media, which will have helped to encourage such a failure.

Passion, prejudice, petty impulse, lack of educated discussion?  Yes, Dr. Franklin, it is all here in our legacy media.  So, we ask, despite our media, can we keep our republic?