Posted on 10/22/2020 9:37:25 AM PDT by Heartlander
During the recent vice presidential debate, I pointed out on Twitter that our form of government in the United States is not a democracy, but a republic. The confused and vehement media criticism that ensued persuaded me that this point might be better served in an essay rather than a 140-character Tweet.
Insofar as “democracy” means “a political system in which government derives its powers from the consent of the governed,” then of course that accurately describes our system. But the word conjures far more than that. It is often used to describe rule by majority, the view that it is the prerogative of government to reflexively carry out the will of the majority of its citizens.
Our system of government is best described as a constitutional republic. Power is not found in mere majorities, but in carefully balanced power. Under our Constitution, passing a bill in the House of Representatives—the body most reflective of current majority views—isn’t enough for it to become law. Legislation must also be passed by the Senate—where each state is represented equally (regardless of population), where members have longer terms, and where (under current rules) a super-majority vote is typically required to bring debate to a close. Thomas Jefferson described the Senate as the “saucer” that cools hot passions more prevalent in the House. It’s where consensus is forged, as senators reach compromise across regional, cultural, and partisan lines.
Once passed by both houses of Congress, a bill still doesn’t become a law until it’s signed (or acquiesced to) by the president—who of course is elected not by popular national vote, but by the electoral college of the states.
And then, at last, the Supreme Court—a body consisting not of elected officials, but rather individuals appointed to lifetime terms—has the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. What could be more undemocratic?
As I said in a follow-up Tweet, democracy itself is not the goal. The goal is freedom, prosperity, and human flourishing. Democratic principles have proven essential to those goals, but only as part of a system of checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, as well as between the federal government and the states.
Rest assured, every single critic who attacked me for correctly crediting America’s political success as a republic, not a democracy, supports counter-democratic checks and balances on majorities he disagrees with. My critics support Supreme Court decisions that overturned democratically enacted laws. They support Democratic filibusters of conservative legislation to, for instance, repeal Obamacare or allow for school choice or build a border wall to stop illegal immigration.
Advocates of “democracy” have convinced themselves the obstacle to progress in Washington is all these counter-democratic parts of our system. In truth, Congress’s failure to pass sweeping progressive—or conservative—legislation in recent decades is a signal that neither party has won the necessary support from the American people to pass it. That does not indicate a flaw in the system, but flaws in the two parties’ agendas. This is a feature, not a bug.
In the absence of national consensus, there isn’t supposed to be federal law. That’s what the states are for—to provide smaller, more homogeneous polities to reflect our broad national diversity. There is no reason New Yorkers and South Carolinians and Hawaiians have to have the exact same health care or education or welfare or tax policies. If diversity is a strength—and nearly all Americans agree that it is—our diversity has to be allowed to flex its muscles.
Right now, one political party is threatening to undermine one of the republican checks included in the Constitution—the Supreme Court—with a plan to pack the Court with progressive judges. But you can’t pack the Court without inevitably threatening things like religious freedom and freedom of speech—things that are unpopular but are protected by the Constitution precisely because they are unpopular. In that sense, our Constitution is fundamentally undemocratic.
Only in a constitutional republic are Americans’ individual rights and cultural diversity given their proper position atop our political order, over and above even majority will. Even above the tweets of social media outrage mobs. Thank goodness.
Mike Lee is the senior United States senator from Utah.
“And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
I am of the opinion that the education system, esp High School and College, no longer teach the differences between a democracy and a republic. Perhaps by design to enable the implementation of the socialist / marxist agenda.
Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”
To which Franklin supposedly responded, with a rejoinder at once witty and ominous: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
> the United States is not a democracy <
The meaning of words evolve over time. The word “democracy” is now also taken to mean the type government of the United States has. Yes, it would be nice for folks to know the original meaning of the word.
But to insist that the United States is not a democracy, well that’s a bit too Karen-like for me.
Pure democracy is like two foxes and one chicken voting on what’s for lunch. ...also like the House of Representatives voting on impeachment for no wrongdoing. Our founders wrote an amazing Constitution.
Pure democracy is like two foxes and one chicken voting on what’s for lunch.
In a Republic, the chicken is well-armed.
I taught my sons and their friends about the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.
I used the two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat story.
I also ask my Congressman Jody Hice to send me copies of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution so that I can hand them out to individuals who do not comprehend the concept of our government.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061005083707AAwNSf8
Methinks you may want to look for a different website, one more befitting your perspective.
I am not sure who to attribute it to, Franklin I think, that stated democracy is defined as 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. Democracies are majority rule and do nothing to protect the minority, while republics are designed to protect individual liberties and minority opinions. It is sad you cannot distinguish that fact and instead want to belittle people who understand the difference.
Methinks you misunderstood my post.
I’m not denying that the United States is a republic (and thank goodness it is). But there are many accepted meanings of the word “democracy”. And one of them refers to the type of representative government the United States has.
Maybe that’s unfortunate. But it is what it is.
The real difference between the two is that in a Republic the founding social contract sets limits on the government’s powers in order to protect minorities; in a Democracy it is the people, not the social contract, that sets those limits, which in practice means that there aren’t any. In a republic a citizen may enjoy the right to speak freely, in a democracy that citizen enjoys that right only if the mob allows it. Which sounds sort of familiar, doesn’t it?
In a true democracy, if the voters decide youshould be hanged by the neck...well, buh-bye. Democracy is mob rule, the democrats like that.
Oh please Lee, shut up. And send all those donations back to Big Tech.
Anybody who understands what The Great Compromise was meant to be - and much later the passing of the 17th Amendment knows that senators are elected my mob rule these days (the whole state, I.E. democracy, not a representative republic) would also know that today a senator represents his/her party rather than the state they supposedly represent.
Smell a wee bit of hypocrisy here.
Since December 2000! ;)
Because the TEACHERS never learned it from their socialist/Marxist teachers.
The Founders were far too intelligent to create a democracy that could lead to a tyranny of the majority.
Words most definitely evolve. The word “democracy” would mean one thing to an ancient Athenian, and something else to a modern American.
Check any dictionary. The Athenian definition will be there (aka direct democracy). But so will be the modern definition (aka representative democracy).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.