As he left the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Ben Franklin is said to have been asked: “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Today, we are torn between two conflicting visions of citizens’ relationship to the government. The anti-constitutional agenda of the Democrats, devotees of Woodrow Wilson and the progressives’ views on government, has been rapidly eroding Americans’ freedom to express religious beliefs in the public square, as well as their ability to promote morality, limit representatives’ governing powers over us and hold them accountable for their actions. Religious expression is thwarted by the extra-constitutional phrase “separation of church and state.” The Founding Fathers’ intent was only to ensure that no national religion was established, not prevent citizens from expressing their religious views publicly.

Their vision, which many still stand strong for, originated in the decade leading up to the American Revolution when British rule was intolerable, depriving colonists of the freedoms they felt were theirs by natural rights and moral order. This resulted in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, which enshrines our unalienable rights, lists the grievances which identified rights colonists believed they had lost and justifies and declares the new union and its purpose. The Constitution in 1788 followed, establishing the form of the new government. Importantly, the drafters — our Founders — were not creating a secular government, but one under God, which George Washington affirmed in his inaugural address on April 30, 1789. This vision, which encourages small government, belief in God, and natural rights, has been disavowed by public figures such as Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Woodrow Wilson was influenced by a wave of German and English historical, evolutionary and secular thinking that was sweeping through American higher education in 1883. It shaped Wilson’s progressive views of the form and purpose of government — a passionate belief that an unrestrained government operated by highly educated, apolitical experts with enough resources can manage the social and economic order better than the seeming disorder inherent in freedom, limited government and democracy. Wilson’s view would become the core doctrine of the progressive era and the remedy to the founding principles in the Declaration — unalienable natural rights endowed by their Creator.

Wilson ultimately influenced generations of adherents, including the leaders of the Democratic Party today. Progressives insisted these rights are not eternal but relative to the times in which people live. They criticized the Constitution and government, which adhered to these rights, as major obstacles to implementing their agenda. Wilson rejected the separation of powers, fighting to expand the size and scope of government beyond the Founders’ intent. The real work of government, the progressives believe, is administration, a path that’s led to the administrative state today where Americans are regulated by unelected bureaucrats. Wilson and his progressive disciples further claimed the state’s needs outweigh the individual’s, a premise that always tramples individual rights. Wilson and philosopher John Dewey declared the state’s job is to ensure that individuals’ academic development conforms to the progressives’ will, in other words, indoctrination, to bring improvements to society. Dewey argued against an emphasis on reading, writing and arithmetic in education — skills that produce highly literate, independent-minded individualists with faith in God and freedom.

The repercussions of Wilson’s ideas have led to rejecting separation of powers, resulting in DACA, open borders, student loan “forgiveness” and an activist judiciary that has weakened the Declaration and Constitution by using the “living” Constitution to legislate from the bench. The Take Care Clause in the U.S. Constitution requires the president to ensure “the laws be faithfully executed”; thus, he does not have legal authority to enforce immigration laws contrary to the aims of the law or change immigration policy on his own. The justice system is being corrupted by district attorneys and prosecutors, many bankrolled by George Soros, who are not upholding the laws, including property rights. The Bill of Rights is under attack. New definitions of freedom of speech, religion and gun rights are being demanded.

The Biden-Harris administration has bullied skeptics who oppose draconian and arguably unconstitutional governmental mandates during the pandemic and governmental censorship crackdowns. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s agenda would doom the republic — eliminating the filibuster, destroying the independence of the Supreme Court, federalizing mass mail-in voting, codifying abortion rights in federal law, eliminating the Electoral College and adding two new Democratic states — Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

Why are Americans below illegal immigrants on the progressives’ list of priorities? And why are they not complaining? What happened to the Constitution’s opening words — “We the People”? The road this country is on may not be reversible. Can America still be a republic — as the Founders envisioned it — if Schumer passes his intolerable agenda, or will a tyrannical form of government follow? A basketful of issues close to your heart may be preventing you from seeing the much bigger issue: “A republic, if you can keep it.” Your vote in November may determine whether we can.

Michael J. Onisick is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel who lives in Howard County.