Postcard: An American Experiment
The US Capitol. Land of the free, home of the brave. Used with permission.
In 1787, the state of the nation was uncertain. Benjamin Franklin was approached on the street by a woman following extensive debates of the Founding Fathers at what is now referred to as Independence Hall. Her question of what their federal constitution had established received a famous warning, “A republic, if you can keep it”. [1]
The founders’ concurrent optimism and pessimism regarding their experimental application of principles lay with their knowledge of the fragility of historic republics. The political turmoil of the era presented reasonable grounds to be tentative. In George Washington’s first inaugural address he described their republican governance as “an experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” [2] Later, addressing Congress in 1861, Abraham Lincoln observed, “our popular Government has often been called an experiment”. [3] Amidst civil war Lincoln recognised that the government was to be further tested, “two points in it our people have already settled — the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains — its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it.” [4] It seems the sources of American strength in culture and government, and its fragility, are two sides of the same coin.
During the mid-semester break, I took a summer ‘vacation’ to the land of the free and home of the brave — The United States of America. What could not escape observation was the vastly different image of the legal industry in the country. Perhaps this is already evident when comparing the media output: the United States presents a classy image of the profession in ‘Suits’ while in Australia the ABC offers the satirical comedy ‘Fisk’. However, with billboards lining the highways of Los Angeles or posters throughout the subway in New York, you are immediately aware of the commercialisation of the legal industry in the country. These signs advertising a firm to be ‘No. 1’ or most often about ‘America’s largest injury law firm’ (Morgan & Morgan) are targeted towards the average person, trying to prompt legal action regardless of whether it is really necessary. [5] Perhaps people are more likely to feel that they can take action and are more likely to achieve justice? Perhaps these advertisements are in part responsible for people knowing their rights?
This trip was during a time which amplified the nation’s political polarisation, the lead-up to the election. While I was in New York, there was an assassination attempt against Donald Trump and the Republican National Convention (RNC). Furthermore, the current President, Joe Biden, stepped down for Vice-President Kamala Harris to run as the first female and woman of colour to hold the office of President. These headlining events made very little difference to life on the street, besides the increased security during my Fifth Avenue walks past Trump Tower in New York City.
I also had the opportunity to attend a live recording of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert at the Ed Sullivan Theatre, where he interviewed Democratic Senator for Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Senator Warren is a progressive and former law professor worthy of an article dedicated solely to her contributions, yet here her relevance is a key issue of her interview — unity. Preceding Biden’s announcement, she focused intently on how important it was for the Democratic Party to stand united against the greater threat of the Republican Party and the policy of Project 2025, rather than lose through internal debates.
The differences within the country seem to be bringing tensions to an almost irresolvable point, with leading personalities and factionalism driving divisions between ordinary people. There is an absurdity to a country where affiliation to a political party is such an element of identity for many, where you vote for an individual rather than a party and in fact have no obligation to vote at all. Australia generally avoids the intensity of American politics, but the concern is that this emerges from a place of apathy. Some people cast illegitimate ballots, and many pay very little attention to politics to avoid conflict rather than recognise the power of opinions. [6]
Broadly, however, America’s strength is unity. As Senator Warren alluded, Americans can stand united against a greater enemy and historically this seems to be a repeated pattern. Famously, the nation forgets about their differences in favour of their shared principles to rally against someone who they perceive as a common enemy. The basis of this can be traced back to the founding of the nation after defeating the British Army in the American Revolutionary War. A source of pride and their history, I see this event as an explanation for much of their cultural attitudes such as assertiveness, individualism, and self-reliance, which have ramifications on the relationship with the aforementioned legal industry.
Leaving my ‘homebase’ of Manhattan, I ventured North and South to the cities that birthed the nation prompting my thoughts on the American Experiment. First, I visited Washington DC where I toured the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and attended a lecture in the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, my greatest interest in the Supreme Court turned out to be the architecture. The building was designed in 1932 and is forged by symbolism. Everything was very intentionally made to hold up the ideas of the democracy and legal system. The two figures on the outside steps — the ‘Contemplation of Justice’ and the ‘Authority of the Law’ — were intended to ‘have a meaning, and not be perfunctory and purely decorative’ and to ‘be a prelude to the spirit of the building’ (James Earle Fraser). [7] Furthermore, the neo-classical Greco-Roman architecture harkens back to the notions of the original republic. This extends to the courtroom itself located inside the heart of the building built with warmer Spanish, Italian and Algerian marble contrasting the domestic marble of the exterior, the site is drenched in meaning. [8] Within the courtroom I was shown that each Justice has a chair made specifically for them with the height adjusted. This is so that all nine of the justices (one chief and eight associates) are at eye level to bring a physical sense to their meeting as equals. The whole building physicalises the generations of persistent belief in the principles the Founding Fathers used to craft their ‘experiment’.
The Supreme Court of the US.
Used with permission.
Next, I travelled to the previous capital, Philadelphia, to see the Liberty Bell, Old Supreme Court and Independence Hall where the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution were signed. These documents are labelled the ‘Great Essentials’, the tools for nation building which are requirements for society and government. This experience, even as an Australian, felt somewhat profound and brought me to reflect on the American relationship with their rights. Here, the Founding Fathers envisioned independence and a nation by way of the constitution, forging their national identity.
The author and the Liberty Bell.
Used with permission.
Every American can recite that ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ are the three unalienable rights given to all humans by their creator. [9] The three words ‘We the People’, from the preamble of the American Constitution were explained on site tours to be three of the most fundamental words in the country. [10] They put simply the principle that America was founded by the people, for the people. Trump serves as an example that even non-politicians, the every-day person, can be empowered into a position of power such as holding the office of President. A rather pertinent question is whether this theory of such individual power is a good thing in practice. Should regular people be so involved in running a country or should this mantel be taken by specialists as a professional position? What should be the extent or limit of our cultural involvement with politics and law?
As someone who studies law in Australia, I only encountered our Constitution this year. On the contrary, I observed that Americans are more familiar with these documents and know their rights. They frequently quote elements and legal principles so often that even many Australians know of the constitutional amendments that form their Bill of Rights. As Australians who must vote, we should have a firmer understanding of who we are as a nation by engaging with our own constitution and feeling more empowered by the law. Our political and legal disengagement reduces internal conflict to a degree, certainly leaving us with less tension than that within the United States, but should we feel that we have more of a stake in our nation and should we take on more responsibility?
Maybe there are many things we should not try to adopt from the Americans but I think there is one thing they do well — care. So, ask the people you know to spend a few minutes reading our constitution and discover who, in writing, we are.
[1] Thomas Coens, ‘Why Franklin, Washington and Lincoln considered American democracy an ‘experiment’ – and were unsure if it would survive’, The Conversation (Blog Post, 6 December 2023) <https://theconversation.com/why-franklin-washington-and-lincoln-considered-american-democracy-an-experiment-and-were-unsure-if-it-would-survive-213852 > .
[2] Ibid.
[3] George Washington, ‘First Inaugural Address’ (Speech, United States Senate, 30 April 1789). <https://www.loc.gov/resource/mgw2.025/?sp=28&st=text> archived at Library of Congress.
[4] Second Printed Draft Message to Congress from Abraham Lincoln, July 1861. <https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.1057200/?sp=1&st=pdf&r=-0.233,0.01,0.466,0.466,0> archived at Library of Congress.
[5] ‘Commercials’, Morgan & Morgan (webpage, 14 August 2020) <https://www.forthepeople.com/commercials/>.
[6] Intifar Chowdhury, ‘Young Australians are supposedly ‘turning their backs’ on democracy, but are they any different from older voters?’, The Conversation (Blog Post, 3 August 2021) <https://theconversation.com/young-australians-are-supposedly-turning-their-backs-on-democracy-but-are-they-any-different-from-older-voters-163891?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwodC2BhAHEiwAE67hJBsBjEwtT15_GW-_Zk0l5bLPorSTE31kgeYHdS0JOl81-iQGQLiLNRoCiYEQAvD_BwE> .
[7] Supreme Court of the United States, Self-Guide to the Building’s Exterior Architecture, (online at 1 August 2024) 9 [2]. <https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/Exterior_Brochure_Web_FINAL_January_2024.pdf>.
[8] Supreme Court of the United States, Self-Guide to the Building’s Interior Architecture, (online at 1 August 2024) 12 [1]. <https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/Interior_Brochure_Nov_2023_web.pdf >.
[9] Congress of the United States, The Declaration of Independence (July 1776).
[10] United States Constitution preamble.