Democracy Is Not the Answer

Frontpage Magazine ^ | March 15, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

[Dysart]

Sorry, but I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Do you mean by ‘dominion’ control by the majority that goes so far as to oppress the individual?

Dominion in the sense of rule, control; I was alluding to an undesdirable politcal structure where majorites impose their will directly without protections in place for the indivdual. When that occurs the indvidual gets negated and any such system always becomes oppressive as he is swallowed up in the collective.

The majority of the voters, though, indirectly determine the law (and if that majority is large enough, they can legally change even the Constitution itself).

Again- process vs rule.

The amendment process is provided for under the rule of law; and a large enough majority can indeed effect some changes but if they do so, they are acting consistent with the Constitution. That is a political process under the rule law which still guarantees personal liberty. It is not surrendered pursuant to the majority- that's the crux of our misunderstaning, I think. The only thing standing between mob rule and liberty is the Constitution and our will to preserve it. Notice has much liberty has eroded consequent of not adhering and protecting it.

[GJones2]

[Sorry for the length of this multi-post response]

I think we are 90% in agreement about this, maybe completely about what you just said. I just want to emphasize, though, that neither the law nor the Constitution can be much better than the people themselves. There’s no foolproof form of government. If enough people want it here (as apparently the Muslim Brotherhood do in Egypt), every amendment of the Bill of Rights can be legally revoked by subsequent amendments.

[GJones2]

[We may disagree about part of what I’m about to say.]

If most of the people want tyranny, then it’s going to be hard to prevent. On the whole, though, I think that representative democracies are what we should promote, with realistic guarantees for the rights of the individual — that is, in situations in which they stand a good chance of surviving (perhaps not in some Muslim countries, though I wouldn’t write them all off indefinitely. The West too was once about as intolerant as they are, and was mostly ruled by authoritarian regimes.)

Both the Germans and the Japanese seem to have changed very quickly after World War II, even though some persons suggested at the time that the peoples themselves were innately authoritarian, and that free institutions couldn’t survive among them for very long. (Of course, one major difference is that after the devastation of the war, their previous regimes were to a great degree discredited, in contrast with the Muslim world in which authoritarianism is still strongly connected to their religion, and still continues to receive widespread support.)

Almost all our enemies in the past couple of hundred years have been dictatorships of one kind of another. Though the Communist regimes claimed to be democracies, they were really dictatorships. Hitler too came to power with minority support, having actually lost seats in the previous election (by an irregular action of Hindenburg, of doubtful constitutional validity). At the height of his success Hitler probably did have the support of the majority of the German people, but by that time he was ruling as a dictator and not allowing dissent. When things started to go wrong, there was no easy way to remove him.

[GJones2]

I haven’t given up on the ideal of promoting free elections, but I think it has to be pursued prudently, and with an emphasis on guarantees for the rights of the individual.

The people, however much we may glorify them, aren’t very smart (after all about 50% are below average :-), but they do know when they’re suffering. A single person or a governing elite can be wiser, but power corrupts, and I don’t think we can trust any kind of authoritarian ruler to look out for our interests, not for very long anyway. Representative democracies (the United States, the ones in Europe, and scattered around the world) are admittedly pretty bad at times, but on the average they’re better than dictatorships.

[Dysart]

I think that representative democracies are what we should promote,

I tried but I can't let that go. We have a Representative Republic, not Representative Democracy. There is no such thing as the latter, because true Democracies serve and protect and advance the interests of the prevailing majority only, through mob action. If it wills it it is done. Thus not representative of all.

Our Representative Republic safeguards the rights and interests of all its citizens, not just the majority, and is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, with elections providing the opportunity for change via the political process.

I can't respond to all your points but would point out that, interestingly, archaic political and societal structures allowed for more personal liberty than any collective forms since.

[GJones2]

> We have a Representative Republic...

But representative of what? Of the people. That’s what I mean when I say ‘representative democracy’ (as opposed to a ‘pure democracy’ in which the people directly decide things, and which can only exist on a very small scale).

It’s a matter of how we define the words, and apparently you wish to use ‘democracy’ for something necessarily bad. I previously agreed that if the people decide everything (including what should be decided by individuals) then, yes, it’s bad. But when the people exercise their power with restraint (and respecting the rights of the individual), I don’t consider democracy — that is, limited, representative democracy — necessarily bad.

[GJones2]

I see (representative) democracy and individual rights as both fundamental parts of our system of government, and both are assumed in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I previously mentioned "consent of the governed" in the Declaration of Independence. Also that document claimed to speak "in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies".

Then there's the Preamble to the Constitution, "We the People of the United States..." It's as representatives of the people that the Constitutional Convention wrote the Constitution, and it had to be ratified by their representatives in the States. ("We the People" was written in very large letters.)

Also note Lincoln's words at Gettysburg in the most famous speech in American history, "...we here highly resolve that...government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Sounds like some kind of democracy to me :-) -- but with protection for individual rights (and we agree in emphasizing that).

[expat1000]

Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List (notification of new articles). FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off.

[DuncanWaring]

I look at Obama and Biden and Reid and Pelosi and I don’t see hearts beating for Democracy. I see hands itching for money.

Their hands aren't itching for money.

Their hands are itching for absolute power, the power to rule over every single aspect of your life, to tell you when to get up in the morning, to tell you where to go to work, to tell you how much you get paid, to tell you what to eat and drink, and, ultimately, to tell you that you've outlived your usefulness and it's time to attend to your session at the Center for Repose.

[Mike Darancette]

The argument that democracy had made the Muslim world dysfunctional was always chancy. The best counterargument to it was that second and third-generation Muslims in Europe were often more radical than their immigrant parents. If democracy were a cure for Islamism, it was working very poorly in London, Oslo and Paris.

Doesn't say much for diversity does it?

[Dysart]

I see (representative) democracy and individual rights as both fundamental parts of our system of government, and both are assumed in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

If we want to be precise we would call that what we have which is a Constitutional Republic formed specifically to temper democracy in favor of individual liberty. In the Constitution's preamble "We the people" begins and refers of course to a nation of people, but the Constitution goes on to enumerate individual rights and defines personal liberty within that context. The main disagreement we have here is one of nomenclature. However, it wouldn't be hard to verify my claim in this regard.

Also note Lincoln's words at Gettysburg in the most famous speech in American history, "...we here highly resolve that...government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Sounds like some kind of democracy to me :-) -- but with protection for individual rights...

As for Lincoln, he was no friend of either individual liberty or founding principle of Federalism. He was a champion of centralized, collective and authoritative government, obviously, and could only advance his vision by acting against the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands-- this is inline with a Democracy where might makes right so citing Lincoln is accurate in support of that political structure...

More on that

[Dysart]

Democracy Versus Liberty

[Dysart]

One point I will concede with qualification, is that we likely have strayed from our founding principles of a Constitutional Republic and slid toward a Democracy, and that won't end well. Perhaps in that way you are right, but it defies original intent and our foundational govt structure which was the focus of my argument.

... A Republic, if you can keep it

--Benjamin Franklin

[Dysart]

I don’t miss too many DG articles as it is, and I thought I was on your list, but apparently not. Please add me, and thanks.

[DuncanWaring]

The Balkans have got diversity.

Fat lot of good it does them.

[expat1000]

Hi,

You were not on the list - I’ve added you.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[Little Ray]

Democracies are bad things.
Democracy is the rule of the mob and the howling of envious and power-hungry demagogues. They are not peaceful or well governed.
Only the buffer of a Republic has allowed the United States as long as it has, and the deeper we sink into “Democracy” the closer we come to the end.

[GJones2]

One problem I have with the Williams account — besides his ignoring phrases such as “consent of the governed” and “We the People...” — is that he and nearly everybody at the site are reading all kinds of positive/negative concepts into ‘republic’/’democracy’ that aren’t present in the basic concepts themselves.

A ‘republic’ in its basic form merely implies that the public is somehow involved in the ‘res’ (Latin ‘thing’, in this case government), as opposed to a private fiefdom ruled by a single person or small group. It doesn’t say a thing about individual rights. Neither does ‘democracy’. It’s the modifiers that determine what kind of republic or democracy it is, and the specifics of how they are implemented.

Our Founders produced a Constitutional republic with provisions for representation of the people (in the House of “Representatives”) as well as protections for individual rights (and for the various regions, i.e., states — two Senators per state, whatever the population). If you substitute ‘democracy’ for ‘republic’ in the previous sentence, the result is the same. It’s not a pure, direct democracy, but in my opinion it doesn’t have to be to qualify as a kind of democracy.

[Graewoulf]

” - - - Democracy is rule of the mob. - - - “

Yup. That is why Ben Franklin and others gave us a Republic NOT a Democratic form of Governance.