Is It 2026 or 1776?—The Irony of the Semiquincentennial in the United States
As we prepared the January 2026 issue of The Ethics Report, we turned our attention to two closely related themes: the significance of our nation’s 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the urgent need to promote civil discourse among today’s elected leaders.
The Declaration of Independence, often described as the ultimate “breakup letter”, offers a striking lens through which to view our current political climate. When revisiting its list of grievances against King George III, it is difficult not to notice echoes of concerns voiced by Americans today. The language, written nearly 250 years ago, can feel surprisingly familiar.
Some of the grievances listed in 1776 parallel concerns raised today, including those cited by critics of the Trump Administration (for example, “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us”). Others reflect broader, long-standing concerns about the size and reach of government itself (for example, “imposing taxes on us without our consent”). Is it 2026 or 1776? We encourage readers to check the full list of grievances as they appear in the Declaration of Independence, to make your own judgements.
It is not that our nation has failed to change over the last 250 years. Rather, these parallels suggest that certain challenges recur across generations. The grievances articulated in 1776 were viewed as serious threats to liberty then—and their modern echoes deserve serious attention now.
In our deeply divided political environment, the resonance between the grievances of 1776 and those expressed today is both ironic and instructive. This moment in our history calls not for another “ultimate breakup,” but for renewed commitment to the principles that have allowed our nation to endure—chief among them, thoughtful dialogue, mutual respect, and responsible leadership.
The January issue of The Ethics Report represents our effort to thoughtfully engage the forces driving today’s grievances, while encouraging a recommitment to civil discourse rather than deeper division. We welcome your feedback as we explore this challenging and important conversation.
Lee Rasch
