E Pluribus Unum: Reflections on Unity and the Fragility of our Nation

An Essay

By Eric McQUiston

E Pluribus Unum: Reflections on Unity and the Fragility of our Nation

Some years ago, Bob Dylan wrote, “We always did feel the same, we just saw it from a different point of view.”That line from Tangled Up in Blue has always struck me. Dylan captured in a few words what I believe lies at the heart of our nation’s political divide today. Most Americans, I think, feel the same in spirit—we want what’s best for our country, our families, and our fellow citizens—but we see the path to those outcomes from very different perspectives.

Our founders understood this tension long before we did. The motto they chose for our young nation, E Pluribus Unum—“Out of many, one”—spoke directly to the challenge of creating unity from diversity. Proposed by Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams, the phrase was never meant to suggest uniformity of thought or belief. It was a recognition that strength lies not in sameness but in purpose—a collective striving toward liberty and justice for all, even amid disagreement.

These were wise men. They saw human nature clearly. They understood that our strength as a nation would come not from our leaders, but from our shared commitment to principle. They enshrined those principles in our founding documents, establishing a system of laws that would be deliberately slow to change—tempered by reason, debate, and the hard friction of opposing ideas. The Constitution, after all, was designed not for convenience but for endurance.

To guard against tyranny, the Founders divided power across three branches: the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The President was not a monarch, but a steward—chosen indirectly through the Electoral College to prevent the passions of the moment from overwhelming reason. Congress was divided between the House, representing the people, and the Senate, originally representing the states themselves until the Seventeenth Amendment shifted that balance. (And I’ll admit, I believe that amendment may have done more harm than good to the equilibrium the Founders intended.) Finally, the Supreme Court was established as the arbiter of law—our nation’s conscience, bound not by politics but by principle.

This system of checks and balances remains one of the most remarkable political inventions in human history. It prevents any one ideology or party from consolidating total control. For when all three branches fall under the sway of a single ideology, democracy gives way to something else—an authoritarian form of governance dressed in the language of freedom. Our republic depends upon disagreement; it survives in the collision of ideas.

Yet, over time, another form of power has emerged—a “fourth branch,” as some have called it—the bureaucracy. Created by Congress, managed by the Executive, and largely unaccountable to the public, the bureaucratic state has taken on a life of its own. Agencies such as the IRS, OSHA, and the Department of Labor, among many others, not only create regulatory laws but often interpret, and adjudicate them. They have become both legislator, judge and jury, wielding authority with little direct oversight.

That is no small concern. Bureaucracy, once meant to serve, can easily become self-preserving—an entity that exists and grows for its own sake. It rewards compliance, punishes dissent, and in doing so, edges dangerously close to oligarchy: rule by the few, for the few. When leaders decry oligarchy while seeking to control the machinery of bureaucracy, we should pay attention. Power, as history reminds us, has a way of corrupting even the well-intentioned.

If an authoritarian oligarchy wished to secure control over a nation as powerful as ours, how might it proceed? It would not do so through open conquest but through quiet influence, with a compassionate smile. It would infiltrate institutions, reward allies, punish dissenters, and tilt the levers of power toward permanence. It might seek to “pack” the courts, ensuring favorable rulings. It might determine what law to enforce and on whom and which laws to ignore out of convenience. It could manipulate representation through encouraging population shifts and the resulting policy. It could even expand citizenship or census counts to alter electoral outcomes. Each step, taken alone, might seem justified even compassionate; but taken together, they could erode the delicate balance that has protected our liberty for nearly 250 years.

We remain, thankfully, a republic—a nation of laws, not of rulers. But our future depends upon remembering what our Founders knew: that freedom requires vigilance, humility, and above all, unity of purpose. We must learn once again to see from “different points of view” without losing sight of what binds us together.

And here is the warning I would leave you with: we must be vigilant of those who wish to set us against each other. As Abraham Lincoln reminded us, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I fear that is precisely what those who seek control are attempting to do—turn neighbor against neighbor, family against family, citizen against citizen.

An usurper does not seize power by force alone; more often, they create chaos first—and then step forward to offer the solution; Their solution, so obvious and elegant that it would be hard to argue against it. And it's the solution that puts them in power and control; by design. When fear and confusion reign, people will too often trade freedom and liberty for the promise of order. Liberty is achieved through vigilance, slavery through compliance. History has shown us this again and again, and we would be wise to remember it. Sadly it usually ends in despair for those who supported and complied with the lie.

So I ask all of us to be calm and reflective. Resist ideology and hyperbole. Turn off the shouting heads who profit from our division. Don't buy the snake oil or the quick relief. Step outside instead. Step into the garden, share the beauty of life with one another, and remember what unites us.

Because, as Dylan wrote, “We always did feel the same.” We all love, we all hurt, we all experience the same emotions. It’s only through the filter of our point of view that we see these things differently. Maybe it’s time we go back to feeling the same again... We can build on that.

~ Eric