President Biden’s Inaugural Address was an auspicious call to unify the country. While I happen to disagree with the President on a multitude of ideas and matters of policy, a call to unify this bruised nation is most certainly one that I can stand behind; and I encourage everyone to do the same, regardless of political affiliation. I will say, however, that this call may land on deaf ears in this political climate of partisan sectarians and ideologues unless we clearly state how this shall be done. In order to do this, I wish to analyze another auspicious Inaugural Address, that of our third president Thomas Jefferson.

Being a partisan man himself, Jefferson realized the need for unity in America, and thus delivered what is regarded as one of the best Inaugural Addresses in the history of our nation. In it, Jefferson states we must recognize that “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle,” and that we have “been called by different names brethren of the same principle.” If this nation is going to heal, it must cleanse itself of the vitriol that fills the current social discourse, annul itself of radical ideology (on both sides), abandon demagoguery, and revisit the principles that make it so remarkable. I hope to soon write about what these principles are.

Thomas Jefferson also states that his fellow citizens must “unite with one heart and one mind,” and “restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things.” In my opinion, this is the most paramount point of his entire Address because it has to do with the culture. Jefferson is calling for restoring the social discourse, and returning to a culture of harmony and affection among his fellow citizens. If we want unity in America, we must practice it. If we truly want unity, we must renounce our desire to label those we disagree with as impure strangers that must be removed from the social discourse. To revisit Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, he gives a prophetic vision of the possible end of America’s democratic republic. He states that tyranny in a democratic republic doesn’t proceed like those of monarchies or dictatorships. Instead, “It ignores the body and goes straight for the soul. The master no longer says: you will think as I do or die. He says: you are free not to think as I do. You may keep your life, your property and everything else. But from this day forth you shall be as a stranger among us. You will retain your civic privileges, but they will be of no use to you. For if you seek the votes of your fellow citizens, they will withhold them, and if you seek only their esteem, they will feign to refuse even that. You will remain among men, but you will forfeit your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellow creatures, they will shun you as one who is impure. And even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they, too, be shunned in turn. Go in peace, I will not take your life, but the life I leave you with is worse than death.”

If we truly want unity, we absolutely must fight for it. Peace is not the natural state of man, and our nature to associate with tribes can be quite dangerous.

In The History of Rome, Livy states that if one wishes to follow the fall of the Roman Republic, “let him follow the decay of the national character, observing how at first it slowly sinks, then slips downwards more and more rapidly, and finally begins to plunge into headlong ruin.” I pray our fate is not the same.

I stand behind President Biden’s call for unity, but as America is on the brink of its own political Peloponnesian War, this unity must be practiced, and above all else, we must restore the national character.

Ensuing the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, President Trump has been suspended or banned from a total of 15 media platforms.

I do not wish to explore whether or not Trump directly incited the riots in this piece, for I find something far more troubling in all of this madness: the removal of Parler from online stores.

I find it’s removal from these platforms deeply unsettling.

Big Tech is playing with fire by means of tampering with the culture. Whether it’s direct or indirect, it’s remarkably dangerous.

I would like to begin with exploring the power of the people in democratic republics, hopefully developing a clear understanding of the influence and weight of culture in democracy.

In a letter written to his wife, Abigail, John Adams states “The new government … will require purification of our vices, and an augmentation of our virtues or there will be no blessings.

The People will have unbounded power.

And the People are extremely addicted to corruption and venality … ”

The People will have unbounded power.

The majority opinion in the U.S has a direct effect on legislation, for the legislatures are elected by means of pure democracy.

Such unbounded power is incredibly frightening, as explored by Tocqueville in his magnum opus Democracy in America.

The majority opinion, states Tocqueville, should be feared as any tyrant would be.

For, if by definition, a majority is that which opposes the passions and interests of a minority, it possesses the power to tyrannize the minority.

As he states, “Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration … ”

Thus, if an individual can be tyrannical, so can a group.

If it poses such a threat, why should such unbounded power simply be entrusted to a number of individuals?

This question is answered by James Madison, although, might I add, not directly.

In Federalist No. 10, Madison is trying to find a remedy for the fatal disease of republics: factions.

He states that the problem lies in the fact that you can’t simply rid the world of factions because factions reflect the passions and desires of free men.

He states that Liberty is to faction as air is to fire, and one wouldn’t suggest dispensing with air in order to rid the damage of the fire.

Thus, Madison arrives at a brilliant conclusion: faction must check faction.

Diverse systems of factions can keep each other’s passions in check.

This is how you keep the majority opinion at bay without absolving its liberties.

These reasons point to why culture is crucial to democracy.

In Democracy In America, Tocqueville posits that American democracy works because of its culture, laws and fortunate situations (mirroring what Polybius thought made Ancient Rome great).

Our democratic republic is not likely to collapse by the hands of a fascist tyrant, but rather a fascist culture.

A culture where one majority faction dominates society. Tocqueville claims that a tyrannical majority will not state to the minority “You will think as I do or die,” but rather, “You are free not to think as I do.

You may keep your life, your property and everything else. But from this day forth you shall be as a stranger among us.”

With the removal of a platform for conservative views, like Parler, Big Tech is disturbing the cultural checks and balances crucial to democracy through removing a faction from social discourse, making it an impure stranger.

In order for us to withstand the malicious passions of a tyrannical majority, we must have a culture of tolerance and free speech.

Dissolving this could mean losing to the dark side of our human nature our founders sought to conquer.

Madison found the remedy, but will our fate attest that even this is not enough to tame the passions of men?