Most Americans think we live in a “democracy.”  They’re wrong. We live in a constitutional republic, and the people don’t usually get to vote on big issues. Instead, we elect individuals to state and federal executive and legislative branches, and those individuals are the primary decision-makers. Today, unfortunately, our elected representatives too often don’t care what U.S. citizens want and are openly rejecting legislative compromise in favor of violence. Consequently, stress fractures in our republic are beginning to show.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison observed that democracies devolve into “spectacles of turbulence and contention” among warring factions, rendering them “incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property . . . .” In a constitutional republic such as the United States, by contrast, majoritarian prejudices and passions are reduced by two principal mechanisms.

First, the Constitution enumerates and limits government power and enshrines certain rights. Some rights emanate from the nature of government itself (e.g., the right to jury trial), while others inhere in humanity—i.e., they are human or natural rights—that governments can’t legitimately infringe (e.g., the right to free speech and exercise of religion). Government does not “give” us these natural rights, and so it can’t take them away. Enumerating rights reduces the threat that majoritarian passions pose to individual liberty and property.

Second, Madison argued that a republic dampens majoritarian excesses because elected representatives “discern the true interest of their country” and their “patriotism and love of justice” ensure that decisions are made for the good of the citizenry. He acknowledged, however, that “[m]en of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs” might betray the interests of the citizenry “by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means . . . .” 

Enumerating rights has been essential for keeping our republic intact. As Anti-Federalist “Agrippa” put it, enumerating rights is necessary so that “the sober and industrious part of the community should be defended from the rapacity and violence of the vicious and idle.” The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, for example, protects private property from being confiscated by elected officials who might want to “redistribute” property. The First Amendment prevents elected officials from censoring unpopular or political opponents’ speech or legislating away religious freedom. Although elected representatives sometimes want to trample these rights, courts thankfully still protect them.

Madison’s second proposition—that elected representatives will be wise, sober statesmen motivated to protect the country and its citizens—hasn’t fared as well. The two major political parties have stopped having meaningful dialogue about the most controversial issues. Prominent party leaders routinely accuse political opponents of being “dangerous,” “fascist,” or an “existential threat to democracy.” This rhetoric is, unsurprisingly, having its foreseeable effect: growing political violence.

Two assassination attempts have been made on President Trump. A prominent young conservative, Charlie Kirk, was just murdered. Tesla vehicles and dealerships were vandalized and firebombed because of Elon Musk’s DOGE effort. In January, a woman wielding a knife and Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol, admitting she wanted to kill Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (whom she called a “Nazi”) and House Speaker Mike Johnson. In April, during Passover, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s residence was attacked with Molotov cocktails by someone enraged by Shapiro’s pro-Israel stance on the war in Gaza.

Elected representatives now routinely call ICE agents “Gestapo,” “secret police,” “terrorists,” “Nazis,” “kidnappers,” and “human traffickers,” simply because they are enforcing federal immigration law. Individuals whipped up into a frenzy by this rhetoric are turning violent. In March, the New Mexico GOP office was spraypainted with “ICE-KKK” and firebombed. In July, an individual spraypainted “ICE=Nazis” and opened fire on the Alvarado, Texas, ICE facility, shooting a police officer in the neck. A few days ago, the ICE field office in Dallas was attacked by a gunman who killed one person and critically injured two more. His bullet casings said “ANTI-ICE.” It’s only a matter of time before an ICE agent gets killed, and we all know it.

An entire political party is now choosing inflammatory rhetoric over reasoned debate about whether federal law should be amended to give illegal immigrants amnesty from deportation. This is likely due to political desperation: As a January 2025 New York Times poll revealed, 55 percent of Americans support “deporting all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally” and 63 percent support deporting those who entered illegally during the past four years. Amnesty isn’t popular among U.S. citizens.

“Resistance” to federal authority and victory by “any means necessary”—i.e., violence, not debate—is now the message. Far from being wise and patriotic statesmen as Madison presupposed, these elected representatives exhibit the ‘factious tempers’ and ‘sinister designs’ he warned about. Unless this changes soon, more violence is likely coming, and perhaps a national divorce.