Posted on 01/04/2005 9:37:45 PM PST by kattracks
We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution -- two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?
So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.
In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.
How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.
The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.
Here's my question. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.
Civics btt
hehehe... so... why'd you leave your home planet, really? What color is the sky there?
Democracy = Mob rule.
Republic = Representative form of government.
The first Republican president is responsible for destroying the bulwark of our Republic - State sovereignty and the 10th amendment. We were left with a consolidated democracy.
At least their motives are transparent; their sole purpose is to make money. When financial gain is the motive, you at least have a negotiating position, modest as it may be.
But when judicail fiat and political ideology rule your life by people that are 'doing it for your own good', you are totally screwed. Those peoples motivation is power, and that's not negotiable.
I've spent a fair amount of time over the years, thinking about this and believe your statement is accurate.
It's posible though, that the lesson of the civil war is that strong state's rights and a weak federal government just didn't work. It's also possible that a corallary is that a republic is less effective than the democracy they were protecting against in the first place.
I'm not saying that I'm conviced of either of those ideas, but it something to think about.
I noticed the other day when I did a self search to find a thread that I've made over 2000 posts to FR. I was surprised when I saw that, because I though it was a lot. My second thought was if I've done that many, I wonder how many Kattracks has made. I'll bet you have close to the record, whatever it is.
Armies of government parasites in government towns (even government states - like Maryland and Connecticut) wasn't exactly what the Founders envisioned.
You know, the push to violate this principle comes from both sides though. Some try to say that the constitution grants rights it does not grant (and they assume rights are from gov't, not God). Others try to say that a majority can do anything it wants. The Constitution was never meant to grant license to the individual. But there are rights granted to mankind from God that no government should ever take away. Majorities can make decisions that affect their lives and values, especially at the local level. They cannot take basic rights like speech, worship, voting, property, etc.
The joke is that most of the rights actually mentioned in the Bill of Rights have been violated. These days, the only Constitutional rights worth the paper they are written on are the ones not actually written on paper, but rather found in the shadows (judicial imaginations) of the Constitution.
Works to what end? You have to keep in mind the original Republican party's platform of higher taxes and government directed expenditure and enterprise (Lincoln's policies in this respect are more akin to FDR than anyone else). As they threatened in the '30's, the South Carolina bolted the Union to avoid Washington DC's thirst for taxes.
It's also possible that a corallary is that a republic is less effective than the democracy they were protecting against in the first place.
Again, less effective at what? Madison's point in Federalist #10 is that factions can easily coalesce to form majorities and impose their will.
I think America's best hope for liberty in the future is the dissolution of the Union, and the maintenance of our free trade. The original charter has been usurped beyond recognition. Washington D.C. was never intended to have the monopoly on political power it garnered itself on the battlefields it made of the South.
I am not. All I am saying is that calling yourself a democratic republic doesn't guarantee either, like DPR Korea and East Germany as you have pointed out.
What the founders created was a constitutionally limited democratically elected representative republic. IF we can keep it, said Ben Franklin.
If we can keep it.
/jasper
what kind of idiot would consier us a democracy?
I know it's optional, but it sure would be interesting if you mad posters put at least a little something biographical about yourselves on your profile pages.
Newbies on FR.
Nope. Constitutional Republic with limited elements of democracy.
Sure the founding fathers created a republic, but we now have, for the most part, a democracy. We might as well not even have a consititution, it is routinely ignored by Republicans and especially the Baathists, er Democrats.
FDR and the 17th Amendment really got us on the path to democracy. Because of FDR, people have figured out that they can vote themselves goodies from the public treasury. When the majority of the people start doing this, we are doomed.
We are in a precarious position when something like 40% of all Americans (and illegals) receive some kind of a check from the government.
Sure-- it didn't work if you're a power hungry politician. It didn't work if your goal is to exercise your will over a nation of free people. It didn't work if you would rather consolidate power among your buddies in Washington than let the free market and the conscience of free citizens take their course...
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.