Posted on 07/10/2002 6:40:31 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
Charley Reese
For Wednesday, July 10, 2002
Republic vs. Democracy
ADVISORY: Charley Reese is on medical leave. Until he returns, King Features will be distributing "The Best of Charley Reese."
As much as I admire Charlton Heston, I wish he would stop misquoting Benjamin Franklin.
Heston often tells the story about the lady who asked Franklin after the Constitutional Convention ended, "Well, what kind of government have you given us?"
Heston then quotes Franklin as saying, "We have given you a democracy - if you can keep it."
Actually, the traditional version of the story has Franklin saying, "We have given you a republic - if you can keep it." That indeed is what the Constitution gives us: a republic. And a republic and a democracy are not the same thing.
The simplest way to explain it is that we do not vote for legislation. We elect representatives, and they vote on legislation. In theory, if we do not like the way they have voted, then we don't re-elect them.
It's true that people vote directly for items on referenda in some states, but, by and large, the business of American government is handled by our representatives, who are expected to exercise their own judgment on the public issues. We then exercise our judgment about their performance.
One rarely hears any talk about republican government these days, with most politicians, like Heston, preferring to call it democracy. Although I think Heston is innocent of any guile, the blurring of the distinction is deliberate on the part of the politicians. It is squid ink, designed to create the illusion in our minds that we actually govern ourselves.
In fact, today in America, the many are ruled by the few, who are careful enough to do it gently and behind clouds of rhetoric so that it isn't obvious. Members of the public, by and large, not only do not know what's going on, they don't care.
You and I, of course, are the exceptions. Unfortunately, the "Exceptions Party" is not on the ballot. I suspect that we could hold our national convention in a modestly sized facility.
I'm sorry, but I don't know the answer to public ignorance and public apathy. It's easy enough to say education, but if people don't care, they won't bother to learn. People keep forgetting that education involves hard work, and that doesn't seem so popular anymore. There is always more knowledge available than there are people who care to acquire it. I do know that most people with a college education these days appear to be about as ignorant and apathetic as people who don't have one.
At one time, a university education was designed to train leaders, but today most universities are simply white-collar, vocational-technical institutions. They crank out people who can perform vocational and technical tasks but don't seem to have the foggiest notion about the principles and philosophy of government. Their knowledge base is very narrow.
It might well be true that any people, at any time, who are reasonably well-fed, entertained and not visibly threatened will settle into ignorance and apathy like a man settling into a goose-down mattress for an afternoon nap. If all seems to be well with the world, then why worry?
I worry, because I see American freedoms being taken away ever so gradually - and always in the name of some allegedly greater good. It's true that it is still possible to live a good life. Will our children and grandchildren be able to say that? And what is a good life?
Even a Josef Stalin will allow you to eat, drink, sleep and copulate if that's the extent of your desire for a good life.
Being a Celtic man, I despise the idea of anybody but God and my conscience telling me what I must do or what I must think or what I must say. That's the good life I want - freedom. And that kind of good life is being threatened today.
Charley Reese can be contacted at briarl@earthlink.net.
© 2002 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
Charlie needs to make up his mind if he likes repuiblicanism or not. What does he want, a House with 50 million representatives? Can you imagine how many subcommittees we'd have?
"any people, at any time, who are reasonably well-fed, entertained and not visibly threatened will settle into ignorance and apathy"
Huck, You left a bit out of Charley's point that time. In a "healthy" republic, Representatives represent the people. NOT hide their doings. Peace and love, George.
I don't buy that for a second. Hell, Thomas Jefferson was secretly paying a libeler to spread propaganda about his enemies, including John Adams. Hamilton schemed behind the scenes. By this standard, we were never a healthy republic. I agree with his premise that Americans are basically ignorant of politics, but I don't see what being "governed by the few" has to with it. That's how it is supposed to be.
DEMOCRACY:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
H, In a true republic, this is true. But, OUR "philosopher kings" are supposed to obey the LAW also. In fact they take an oath to do so when obtaining office. As Charley writes, our "kings" have assumed the mantle of the "chosen", and "rule" at their own whims unstead of the rule of law. Peace and love, George.
There was a post on FR awhile back where a college professor did a research project and determined that this country was ruled by the philosophy of 7,000 government and corporate leaders. I have been desparately trying to find that post for months. If anyone knows where to find it, I would appreciate your posting the link.
Though we are a republic, there's a strong democratic component in our political system that can't be ignored. Charley's column itself shows how hard it it to get away from it.
At one time, a university education was designed to train leaders
In other words, universities used to train the few to govern the many. The more I look at this article, the less I understand what the heck Charlie is trying to say.
In a Republic, the will of the individual outweighs the will of the few, or of the majority.
That simply isn't true. If someone really wants to understand republicanism, I suggest a thorough reading of the Federalist Papers.
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.