Princeton SPIA Faculty Reflect on America’s Past As 250th Anniversary Approaches

On July 4, 1776, delegates from the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to ratify the Declaration of Independence. The moment marked the beginning of the United States of America as a country independent from the British monarchy. Now, 250 years and many additions, amendments, and awakenings later, the U.S. is set to celebrate its semiquincentennial.

To commemorate the moment, scholars and practitioners from the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs came together for a panel discussion examining how the nation has repeatedly reinvented itself over its 250 years — and what those moments of transformation can teach us today.

Panelists included Nolan McCarty, the Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs and vice dean for academic assessment in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty; Khalil G. Muhammad, a professor of African American studies and public affairs; Deborah Pearlstein, director of the Program in Law and Public Policy and Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor in Law and Public Affairs; Julian Zelizer, the Malcolm Stevenson Forbes, Class of 1941 Professor of History and Public Affairs; and Retired U.S. General Mark Milley, Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor and visiting lecturer. The conversation was co-moderated by Princeton SPIA Dean Amaney Jamal and Anastasia Mann, the founding director of SPIA in NJ.

Quotes have been edited for length and clarity.

On what would make the founders proud of America today…

Mark Milley: I think they would be most proud of resilience, of the fact that [the Declaration of Independence] was built to be an evolutionary document, built to change. That's why there's 27 amendments to the Constitution. It was built to change and grow with the times.

Nolan McCarty: I think they'd be proud that they created a nation based on a set of principles that, as General Milley said, have been quite enduring. We haven't always lived up to them perfectly, but I think the principles they set forth created a pretty good scorecard so that we can evaluate from time to time where we are…and how we might make progress.

Deborah Pearlstein: They would be enormously proud that it has become this country…that people from all over the world wanted to flock to. America was this fledgling, tiny, unlikely project at the beginning. To see that it had become what it had become, which is this leading beacon in the world, I think would be extraordinary and should be a source of pride.

Julian Zelizer: In terms of accomplishment, certainly setting up a system that revolves around rules, institutions, and processes, which are all in some way part of a constitution that has endured over the threat of an individual who supersedes them, is what the [Declaration of Independence] is about.

Khalil Muhammad: Ultimately, they would be proud that we're still here having a conversation about democracy, no matter how tattered it appears in 2026.

On what would concern the founders about today’s version of America…

KM: The inability for us to actually take seriously our responsibility to evolve, to change the rules, to catch up with the norms of our society continues to be a deeply problematic flaw of which I think they would be ashamed of us for not changing.

DP: The framers would be completely floored by the prospect, which is brand new circa 2024, that the executive is immune from criminal prosecution. That is a decision of such revolutionary scope. It is in part centrally based on this notion of a unitary executive theory, but it's a unitary executive theory on steroids, one that was categorically alien to the framers, who were so explicit about the likelihood that the President could be subject to criminal process, that they said — Hamilton writes in the Federalist — he's subject to impeachment and, of course, criminal prosecution. 

NM: Hypocrisy is a compliment vice pays to virtue. People are no longer hypocritical about their rejection of certain values. We see this throughout the political spectrum, that no longer are things like freedom of speech, rule of law…seen as fundamental. We run the risk of moving away from those values in a way in which our political decisions, political authority, will be based on raw political power rather than the set of principles in which they created.

JZ: The uncertainty that now exists about the transfer of power and the election process is a threat to the representative ideals that were part of the Constitution. And I think that's a very serious threat, and it's one that would be a disappointment.

On reconstructive moments throughout the country’s history… 

DP: I've been thinking a lot about the Progressive Era, which was an enormous moment of a kind of reconstruction. We saw during that era that the Constitution was amended three consequential times. In the 16th Amendment, we invent the income tax for the first time. In the 17th Amendment, for the first time, senators become directly elected by the people rather than going through state legislatures. The 19th Amendment, of course, women finally get the right to vote. These amendments were enormously consequential.

JZ: The 1970s wasn't perfect and a lot of the changes that happened didn't work, but there was this decade-long effort to deal with these institutional questions of presidential power, campaign finance, how the system worked, and not just who was in charge. I find that very pertinent today. That decade, with the War Powers Resolution and budget reform and campaign finance reform, I find very instructive in thinking about the kinds of conversations the country has to have.

KM: The redemption after Reconstruction is a very telling history for this country. It speaks, again, back to the unresolved dilemmas of race at the founding of the nation. And it's not a stretch to say that whatever we might call the pro-slavery founders and the Confederates of the Civil War era, that belief system is still with us. It is very front and center in our politics. It is hard as a historian to accept the logic of a unitary nation that we are, in fact, united when, in fact, we're debatably never been fully united. And so the denouement of Reconstruction was swift. It was a reflection of a commitment to white supremacy, 14th Amendment be damned. The civil rights movement itself was on life support soon after the legislative ink dried on the 1964, 1965 acts. And so whatever we could say of the post-civil rights movement era, we didn't reconstruct ourselves. And we could disagree on what I mean by that, but more particularly, we left a lot of unfinished business when it came to reconciling what we put on paper yet again and how we behaved as a nation.

On patriotism and the significance of 250 years as a nation…

NM: We as a society need people to be willing to sacrifice for things that are sort of bigger than themselves, and patriotism is one of those things. And so the right type of patriotism, one that's sort of a commitment to political quality, freedom, rule of law, et cetera, I believe is indispensable. What concerns me, and perhaps many others, is a patriotism of another sort. A patriotism of “I'm the true American and you're not.” Patriotism should be inclusive. It should be around a set of values and not around identities. And the extent to which we can build patriotism around that, it's going to be very useful in providing guidance and support for the society to go forward.

KM: I do remember as a small child, having been a child of the Nation of Islam, that I was essentially forbidden from saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school my entire childhood. So I've never had the kind of reflexive patriotism. I think this 250th may be the most ambivalent of any commemorative moment in the nation's history. It isn't clear that America will survive this moment. It strikes me that if this is the twilight of American democracy, it will precisely be on the terms of a notion of exclusion, of a notion of protecting a white Christian community from people who have no right to make claims on the American state, but for those that are granted to them.

MM: This country is an idea. It's not about land. It's not about geography. It's not about religion. It's not about race. It's not about people. It's not about government. It's about this country, this idea. And we hold these truths to be self-evident. Don't lose faith in the current milieu that's going on in the American political scene. Don't lose faith in the institutions, in yourself, in the idea that is America. And continue to aspire to the ideals that make this country what we really should be.

On democratic backsliding and safeguarding institutions… 

JZ: in terms of safeguarding democracy, [first] is the ability of this country to generate ideas, to debate ideas, to have a free flow of ideas. [This] is how a country at some levels founded on an idea improves. And I do feel if it's the First Amendment, if it's the universities under assault, by curtailing the ability to think, to put forth new arguments, that is critical to the success of democratic backsliding. I think those are inexorably linked. Because once you cut off parallel paths of thinking, that is when autocratic power really can cement itself. Second is citizen action. It's getting involved in local politics. Third, we need a Congress that has a spine. Right now, for example, you have a Republican Congress that is protecting a President, meaning it has budgetary power, oversight power. It's all right there. It's a matter of using it. And we've had moments, including the second half of Vietnam, where congressional power and pressure made a difference. When you hold those budget strings to an administration, it can play a big role in changing the course of the country. And finally, electing people with the right character matters. I think we're in an era where it's become clear that character, norms, the informal guideposts that leaders use to decide what's acceptable and what's beyond the pale really is central. We have to have a representative government. We have to be able to peacefully remove officials through elections. And if that is not working, we have a huge problem for the democracy. And we shouldn't take that lightly.

DP: At the moment, we're sort of living in a trifecta of illegality in which the President and the administration are variously violating some laws, declining to enforce other laws, and issuing pardons to past offenders in a way that seems to license some lawbreaking going forward. I don't want to sugarcoat it. Things are grim. Is some form of constitutional democracy recoverable? The answer to that question, I think, is yes. There are two things we can do that I would say are most important. Elections, obviously, incredibly important.  So vote, and work to protect the vote at the same time. And work through collective action. We've seen remarkable examples of that so far in places like Minneapolis, in people unsubscribing from Disney when Jimmy Kimmel was under assault. These are tried and true methods of civil resistance. They are peaceful and they are, in my view, essential in this moment.

Moderators and panelists take questions from the audience during the America at 250: Reconstructions event (from left): Dean Amaney Jamal, General (Ret.) Mark A. Milley ’80, Nolan McCarty, Deborah Pearlstein, Julian Zelizer, Khalil G. Muhammad, and Anastasia Mann.

Photo by Sameer A. Khan/Fotobuddy