There’s something a little depressing in the promise 2024 will be dominated with 24/7 coverage of the presidential race. Assuming former President Donald Trump’s near certain lock on the Republican nomination, round-the-clock reporting could start as soon as next month should the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary results blow his remaining challengers off the map. The New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently speculated, “Red States and Blue States Are Becoming Separate Countries.” He suggests we may predict what next year’s election will deliver if either party wins total control in Washington by considering states where Democrats or Republicans have captured both the governor’s office and the legislature.

“Where Republicans have gained this kind of control… they have used that authority in pursuit of policies meant to curtail the ability of people in their states to live as they please,” Bouie observes. Democratic trifectas, think Colorado, he points out are usually in “…pursuit of policies to benefit the broad swath of residents under their charge.” While the particulars of legislation can surely be debated, there is more than a little truth in this analysis. The most recent issue of The Nation magazine contains an intriguing recounting of the rapid brain drain underway as professionals abandon red states for blue states, demonstrating current patterns produce economic consequences. Our blue states are getting bluer and red states redder. I also suspect there is a similar division of opinion on just what the role of president should be in the 21st century.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

It’s apparent that nearly half of Americans view the presidential election as something akin to snatching the brass ring at the carousel – an opportunity to launch a raid on government aimed at enriching oneself and one’s family and friends. Rather than the republican ideal of enhancing the commonwealth on behalf of all citizens, the power and perquisites of office are available to persecute critics of the executive while rewarding its allies. Donald Trump is salivating at a second chance to install an industrial strength version of strong-man politics – complete with an in-country retribution tour that ignores the rest of the world. In the spirit of the Supreme Court’s originalist interpretation of gun rights, I thought it might be worthwhile to review what the Federalist Papers had to say about the presidency.

Just 11 of the 85 essays address the executive branch and are focused far more on clarifying appointive authorities and elaborating on the contrasts between a presidency and a monarchy. Yet, in No. 70 it’s explained, “There is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government.” He then proceeds to identify why this assumption is in error, “It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction (political parties) and of anarchy.” That covered a lot of 18th century anxieties.

Hamilton also warns, “Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that Republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government.”

In light of historian Robert Kagan’s thesis appearing in the Washington Post that, “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable,” such concern appears as alive today as it was in 1788. John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton produced 600 pages of commentary in defense of the Constitution which were reprinted in papers throughout the colonies. Presumably these papers were studied, discussed and debated by an informed citizenry. Now that the nature of American democracy is once again up for debate, it’s doubtful the issues facing Americans can be adequately addressed on TikTok. For the first time since the Civil War, serious concern for the survival of American democracy is troubling voters on both sides of our current divide.

What do Americans want from their presidents? Vigorous execution of the laws, to be sure, as Hamilton recommended. Presumably, a president of all the people should also bring a wider perspective to his or her duties than is witnessed within the halls of Congress, where competing priorities must contend in competition against each other. Traditionally, our political parties have spelled out their proposed agendas in platform statements adopted by their national conventions.

In 2020 Republicans chose to dispense with this courtesy, declaring their candidate’s priorities would serve as those of the party. Republicans are expected to declare the same equivalency next year. Nominating a candidate whose temperament is mercurial at best, this constitutes an embrace of government by whim. I hope this silence troubles you as much as it troubles me. Faith-based allegiance is no substitute for the hard work of democratic citizenship. Pay attention. Stay informed. There can be little rest for the weary.

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.