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essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."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.
The US is a democracy and a republic.
democratically elected by free male property owners.
wouldn't bother me if we brought back the property owner bit.
the founders knew complete enfranchisement was perilous.
basically, those who pay the bills should have the most voice.
Works to the end of, and is effective at it's contiued existence, is what I meant.
The union couldn't exist as a loose coilition of independent states for the exact reason you stated for SC's withdrawal.
"I think America's best hope for liberty in the future is the dissolution of the Union,...
Do you really think think this? Every state it's own country?
Some things don't work regardless of whether it would be good if they did. Sometimes it's a design problem.
Our people prospered through many generations remote and by necessity, participatory in their own local institutions.
Where the Continental idea of franchise expanded by metaphysical theory to universal franchise, on our shores freedom expanded the idea of Participation.
Many landholders here were yeomen and the franchise was broad from the start compared to Continental Standards. The very broad tradition instilled respect and care to its usages.
Even early conservatives such a James Fenimore Cooper could be Jacksonian and use book title choices like The American Democrat.
Democracy was then properly seen, and understood, as a modifier or a method of variety or dilution of selection methods. It could co-exist with appointment, (judges) and selection, (Senators). When Continental influence, largely embraced by the theorizer Jefferson, allowed the entry of metaphysical liberalism to begin the perversion of Classical Whiggish Liberalism the slide began. While some suggest FDR, others Wilson and his fostering of collective Human Rights to trump Property Rights, and still others look to Lincoln's extreme measures in defense of the Republic as harming the Republic, I believe the seeds of the weed were cast in the furrows right along with the intended crop by Jefferson and others.
We should not have lasted as long as we have if he had been at the Constitutional Convention instead of just being represented by his young protege, Madison.
BTTT!
Ochlocracy is another word meaning the same thing.
We do not have a government for the sake of having a government. Further, I cannot see how one could measure the efficacy of a government merely by it's ability to exist.
The union couldn't exist as a loose coilition of independent states for the exact reason you stated for SC's withdrawal.
Allow me to amend. The Union could not exist as a consolidated government overreaching it's limited powers and taxing the citizens of some States for the benefit of others because South Carolina, and any other aggreived State could exercise the principle of secession as spelled out in the Declaration of Indepedence.
Do you really think think this? Every state it's own country?
I believe it's the only hope for killing the Leviathan state we have now in Washington D.C. The actions of the Congress and Presidents in the last century have nullified the 10th amendment. They recognize no limit to their power. The only recourse to their usurpation is secession. I've no problem with entering mutual defence and free trade treaties between Florida and California (and everywhere in between), but I'll be damned if I want the California politicians continuing to meddle in my State's affairs. Better to have 50 functioning Republics operating under the umbrella of free trade, mutual defense, and free travel. The eco-whackos in California can mandate all the silliness they want - for themselves. I suspect such an arrangement would also engage in a lot fewer wars, and thereby waste a lot fewer American lives and dollars.
Yes, I'm aware of this. Calling themselves democratic doesn't change the fact that they are communists. We are nothing like North Korea.
I had to think about that for a bit. It's an interesting thought, but I don't think it's true. While I agree with your sentiment regarding the inherent abuses of power associated with federalism, I'm not sure they wouldn't be reproduced on a smaller scale by each of the 50 states.
We have to have some form of government, and it's ability to exist is fundamental to it's selection. Take communism for example. Assume for the sake of argument that we thought it a desirable form of government. (I personally think it's the worst idea of the 20th century, but I can see how people might be seduced by it's utopian idealism. What amazes me is people still cling to it, despite it's track record of death, misery and corruption. But that's another subject.) The human race spent a century, and about 100 million lives to demonstrate that it is an absolutly unworkable form of government. It doesn't matter how much we would want it, we simply can't have it becasue it's unworkable.
That's the only thing I was suggesting about loose fed, strong state; the civil war may have demonstrated that strong state is unworkable.
Here's the difference. In Washington D.C. passes a tax increase, we're all screwed under the same umbrella. If Georgia decides to have an income tax they have to contend with people and business fleeing to more hospitable shores like Florida. You have a competition between 50 governments, instead of a monopoly. The Federal government was given monopoly power over very few things, which were considered essential to the whole of the Union. When it exceeded this mandate States could always exercise the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. Several States made clear their conditional joining of the Union. The violent usurpation of the this check on the federal government by the federal government has led to our current Leviathon.
That's the only thing I was suggesting about loose fed, strong state; the civil war may have demonstrated that strong state is unworkable.
I really don't follow your reasoning here. The North conquered the South because it didn't want to let it escape the control of Washington D.C. (control of which the North had). They wanted the South under their protectionist umbrella for their own advantage. They felt threatened by the idea of the South freely trading with Britain and the world. It put in a shambles the Republican agenda (in the 1860's) of higher tarriffs and public works spending (and associated graft).
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.