Is it better to have a government nominally led by a senile President but ostensibly operated by a group of unseen and unidentified supporters and bureaucrats – or one with highly visible elected officials assisted by credible outside advisers? Do the inevitable political dissidents present a clear message of proposed remedies accompanied by a slate of recognized candidates committed to a prospective course of remedial action? Americans are now invited to adjust to a new paradigm of proactive governance, one directed to societal advancement rather than political party dominance. Election-day losers appear unable to recognize that their policies and practices had become uncomfortable and incompatible with those of the former minority. We must question whether the United States remain worthy of the name as urban-rural political subsets and demographic changes alter the national complexion. The principle of a democratic republic is popular governance that recognizes constructive minority legislative and administrative guidance. It is not designed as a determinative periodic sporting event, but an ongoing union subject to audience revision driven by circumstantial realities and consequent popular sentiment. Democracies are founded on the principle of compromise but are not necessarily passive. We are in a period of meaningful course correction triggered by authoritative excess involving information censorship, financial malfeasance, and public detachment that prompted an election upset unexpected by overreaching and overconfident leadership. The pendulum of democracy had simply swung too far, and it remains subject to further correction if carried to opposite excess. Phil Osifer