61 Comments

1. vivo:

Good article. I’d assume that the majority would say we are a Democracy. Now we know they’d be wrong.

Sep 3, 2009 - 3:25 am 2. John "birther" Samford:

Very accurate. The problem is that the USSC doesn’t think so. We went wrong a couple of hundred years ago when Congress allowed the USSC to start re-writing the Constitution.
For example, there is nothing in the 1st amendment about “freedom of expression”. That isn’t because “freedom of Expression” (hereafter FoE) wasn’t a known topic at that time, but because the framers didn’t think FoE should be covered by the 1st amendment.
IIRC, the USSC stuck FoE in the Constitution early in the 19th century. I think they were trying to keep up with the Joneses or the French in this case. FoE was trotted forth in England about a generation BEFORE the framers wrote the Constitution. So if they had wanted FoE covered by the 1st amendment, it would have been there along with the press, assembly, speech and religion.
Congress should have impeached the Justices that voted to add FoE to the Constitution. That is the way the system is designed to work.
I’m not saying FoE is bad, wrong or shouldn’t be in the Constitution, just that there is a way to get it there, and that way isn’t through judicial fiat. Once you allow judges to start tinkering with hte Constitution, they will never stop.
If the left wants to outlaw gun ownership, let them pass a constitutional amendment doing so. Let them try.
Roe vs. Wade was the USSC making and exception to the 14th amendment for unborn children, the most vulnerable of the defenseless.
If the left wants to allow infanticide, let them try and pass a Constitutional amendment doing so.
Most of the problems in America today are caused by special interests using the legal system to circumvent the Constitution.

Sep 3, 2009 - 3:49 am 3. Correct:

Everyone should read your article and be reacquainted with the fundamental American founding principles. Democratic elections were intended not to alter the truth of inalienable rights, but to allow a nation of people to elect the best defenders of the principles of a republic. Drawing on the analogy that mathematical laws verfied to describe numeric reality and relationships correctly, once established, are themselves beyond “vote”. They are absolutes, and the only matter people can debate is who has best mastered them.

Thank you for your article.

Sep 3, 2009 - 4:31 am 4. Brian:

A fine article, and a good response John. I am still trying to figure out where Congress got the Constitutional authority to pass all the social programs they already have, and the ones they are looking to pass in the future. The Constitution seems to have been tossed out.
While the founders did not trust the masses to run the country and make the right decisions, they did place strict controls on the powers of the leaders… one problem that I am noticing however is that both political parties have simply decided to ignore it. Checks and balances have gone out the window as a result.
The federal governement has become too obtrusive and large, powers need to be returned to the states where it is more managable and as envisioned by the founders.

Sep 3, 2009 - 4:40 am 5. bibio44:

“In a democracy, rights ultimately flow from the majority, and every right — from keeping and bearing arms to possessing private property — is recallable if the party in the majority so decides.”

Really? I didn’t know it was so easy to amend the Constitution.

“Our Founders saw the dangers that democracy posed for our great experiment in freedom…”

So why are we trying to shove democracy down the throats of other nations around the world?

Sep 3, 2009 - 6:06 am 6. William:

Of course Obama has to present America as a democracy – it’s the only way get away with passing legislation that against the Constitution (the “rule of law”)

Sep 3, 2009 - 6:18 am 7. Bonner:

This is a great article Hawkins. It just so happens that I’ve been doing a little reading on our second President, John Adams, and his focus on the importance of the rule of law sounds almost like a foreign concept when compare it to the things our current leaders say. Everything in this country is to be submitted to the rule of law, not the rule of the majority: the long we submit to the latter the closer we’ll get to despotism.

Sep 3, 2009 - 6:24 am 8. Bonner:

To “bibio44″ – While I sense some sarcasm in your post, you are 100% correct that we contradict our Founder’s intents by seeking to set up democracy’s around the world. We should be seeking to set up republics. All democracy’s are on a “it’s only a matter of time” basis. As soon as the tyrannically-minded get the majority to support them the democracy is over.

Sep 3, 2009 - 6:27 am 9. BackwardsBoy:

When our Founding Fathers designed our government, they depended on the people in it to exercise self-restraint and recognize the limits placed upon them by the Constitution. Personal honor held the reigns of power. Politicians voluntarily adhered to the principles of limited government because they knew it was the right thing to do. The Constitution merely codified what the Founders knew was right in their hearts: that everyone had a God-given right to live their lives as they saw fit, free of the whims of men and the oppression that inevitably follows. They knew that principle depends on the honorable individual to apply it each and every time, not just when it’s advantageous or in order to look good.
In today’s political world, the unscrupulous politician serves not his constituents or any higher power or ideal, but himself and his own selfish ambition. His insane desire to control others leads him to twist the meaning of words and abandon the consistent application of principle. The simple act of inaccurately defining the type of government we have shows the egotistical nature of those in power. If politicians cannot express their thoughts accurately, how can they think accurately? If they can’t think accurately, how can they craft legislation that benefits anyone?
Small things matter. As we are seeing, it’s becoming increasingly important for our leaders to get every detail right. Is it too much to ask that they at least understand the form our government takes and use the proper term for it?

Sep 3, 2009 - 6:33 am 10. Dark Helmet:

Thank you for bringing this issue out at a time where so many are spoon fed mind mush by the MSM.

Any one who would like to getter a much clearer understanding of the implications that are being created ( the real death threat and danger is the next administration and what it will do with absolute power to destroy America, that is the fatal one. obammy mammy is just a simple black stooge ) should read
” A Republic, Not an Empire ” by Pat Buchanan.

Get prepared now to stand against tryanny tomorrow, perhaps even later today………

Sep 3, 2009 - 6:48 am 11. Dark Helmet:

“to getter ” should be “to get”

Sorry. I watched too much news in the 80’s……

dh

Sep 3, 2009 - 6:51 am 12. goy:

Any way to hack this text into BHO’s teleprompter when he does his Big Brother act for the schools next week?

I’m sure he won’t even notice the third person reference to himself once he’s in TOTUS-mode.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:16 am 13. ETAB:

I totally disagree with Dr. Hawkins. He is making a false comparison, because he is using only one definition of the term ‘democracy’ and it is the weakest definition; i.e., simply a ‘rule by the majority’.

But such a hand-raised rule is actually not found and has never been found, in any society in the world, and that includes the smallest collectives of hunters and gatherers.

Primary and privileged among all decision-making, is always the rule of law. Whether these rules are deemed to have been made by the gods or men, rules govern all daily hand-raising decisions.

Dr. Hawkins is merging the ‘process of coming to a decision’ with the ’structure in which decisions are taken’. A republic establishes its structure or Rule of Law by its citizens. A monarchy has its monarch set up such laws. An oligarchy has the wealthy,and so on. I recommend Aristotle’s Politics for a thorough discussion of these types. He actually describes five types of democracy – including the US style where ‘the law is supreme’, and the weakest form as described by Dr. Hawkins “in which, not the law, but the multitude have the supreme power and supercede the law by their decrees” (Politics Bk IV, Ch 4). Aristotle refers to this corruption as ‘demagoguery’.

As Aristotle said, ‘the basis of a democratic state is liberty’ and is based in that great first sentence of the Declaration that ‘all men are created equal” and officers of the state are elected both by and within, this free citizenry.

The US is both a republic, in that its rules are made by its citizens,and a democracy, in that the process of decision-making within these rules are decided by the free vote of the citizens. That is why we have a Congress – to vote, with the majority rule – on decisions.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:23 am 14. HLH:

I really like this article. It’s frightening how far we’ve come from the rule of law, and each step toward democracy is just that – a departure from the rule of law.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:05 am 15. Old Soldier:

Good article. Of course we are a Republic. Our Founding Fathers wanted freedom, not mob rule.

ETAB – We can argue nuances here, but – the Athenian experiment with Democracy was fairly pure in form, and therefore a complete and utter disaster.

The authors of the Constitution, unlike most people today, were well educated men and aware of the shortcomings of real Democracy. That is why representation was limited to only the lower half of one of the 3 branches of government and its powers severely limited.

The ignoramuses in the media cannot distinguish the difference between liberty and voting. There is virtually no connection between the two. In the USSR everyone got to vote and there was no freedom. In British Hong Kong, no voting – just freedom.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:08 am 16. William:

To “ETAB” – Your comment is well put, but I believe it is incorrect for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that democracy at any level has a tendency to slide toward that democracy that is no more than “the rule of the majority” which Hawkins described. Rather than emphasizing the various degrees of democracy it seems we would be wise to reach back for the republic our founders intended.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:19 am 17. Jason:

We need this focus on the “republican” nature of our government now more than ever. This piece is a great reminder of the fact that the government of this nation was supposed to be such as submitted to the rule of law, not the rule of the entitlement-driven mob.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:23 am 18. ETAB:

#15, Old Soldier – I disagree,this is not a matter of nuances. It is a matter of confusing the terminology.

The term ‘republic’ is not on the same level as the term ‘democracy’. A ‘republic’ refers to the STRUCTURE of goverment; i.e., where does the authority to make decisions rest? In one person (monarchy or its perversion, tyranny); in a group of people(aristocracy or oligarchy) or in the citizens (a contitutional government, aka, a republic).

The term ‘democracy’ refers to the PROCESS of coming to decisions within types two or three. Democracy refers to a process of voting, and a majority vote among that group.

To compare a republic with a democracy is invalid. Again, the first is the STRUCTURE of the government; the second is the PROCESS of coming to decisions within that structure. The US is both a republic and a democracy.

Structurally, authority to govern rests in the ctizens via the Constitution that they wrote and approved. Procedurally, decision-making moves by majority vote of the citizens and/or their representatives (eg, elections and referendums).

Athenian democracy was not Representative Democracy -where the citizens elect someone to do the voting in Congress but Full or Direct Democracy; any and all could vote -as in a referendum. This becomes impossible in large population. However, the rule of law still existed (eg, defining who was a citizen, what a vote meant etc).

Your example of the USSR and other totalitarian states and their ‘voting’ is misleading. The power did not rest with the people but with a SET of oligarchs (the Communist Party). The USSR was not a Republic (with its constitution made by its citizes) but it certainly had a rule of law/constitution- made by the Oligarchic Party!

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:30 am 19. Kipling:

To ETAB: You have some well thought out points but I think the main point is that the average person does not make the distinctions that you make in your argument. To the average student, democracy equal a vote, and Plato is the name of Mickey Mouse’s dog. As a professor, I have taught American government, political science, American history, and western civilization. Rarely did I find a student who truly understood the true nature of a republic or the distinctions in the democracies you mentioned. Either our educational system is severely wanting or their is an intentional blurring of these distinctions as the author suggestions. Maybe a little of both.

To ETAB: The Founders gave the people the right to only make certain laws. They could not make laws that violated the Constituion or the rights bestowed upon man by God. The Bill of Rights would be just as valid if the people removed them from the Constitution as these are rights given by God. We must all remember that the Declaration of Independence and the declaration that man has the right to “live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” predates the Constitution by 13 years.

The Progressive Movement moved us closer to a direct democracy and further from an actual republic han most people realize. Moving to the direct election of Senators rather than having a state legislature appoint the Senators from that state not only undermined state rights but undercut the idea of a representative republic. The left’s desire to get rid of the Electoral College will do the same thing. If that happens then we are well on the road to the tyranny of the majority.

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:12 am 20. Michael:

A republic is a form of democracy. It is set in place to combat the evils of pure democracy.

Nothing is more dictatorial than the unrestrained rule of the majority. After all, the majority could vote to take the minority’s wealth, or enslave them or generally enrich themselves at their countries expense.

Pure democracy is vulnerable to demagogues, those who are eloquent and charismatic. Republics place a group of elected people in charge who have the time and hopefully the inclination to study issues and not be swayed by the demagogue or the latest “fashion”.

Now we have the problem of incumbent legislators that are so difficult to unseat that they have become an oligarchy. A group of aristocrats that legislate for their own benefit and the benefit of those who support them, buying support to maintain their position until they die

This Republic needs term limits.

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:33 am 21. toker53:

2:
john is correct. All of the laws that have been imposed on the citizenry are essentially un-constitutional as will be the Health Care Reform if it passes. There are less than 20 enumerated powers under Article 1 Section 8 that deals with the legislature. Nowhere does it mention they have the power to enact anything resembling health care. If they want to enact health Care for all as a right then they clearly must amend the constitution to do so. The same for Gun Control, the Internet bill currently in Congress, The President has only one reason to close down communication between the people and it has everything to do with controlling the flow of information, ie. inhibit the ability of the people to organize and nothing to do with national security.

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:39 am 22. ETAB:

Kipling #19 – yes, I know that most people aren’t aware of the varied definitions of democracy and also, the real definition of a republic. But, Dr. Hawkins certainly ought to know.

Plato’s ‘democracy’ was operating within an oligarchy – see Popper’s analysis in The Open Society.

Yes, I agree that the Constitution sets up the basic rule of law; however, citizens can change the Constitution by amendments – although, denying the basics in the Constitution would be, I think, extremely difficult.

Yes,I’m aware of the time gap between the Declaration and the Constitution (I’m rereading David McCullough’s John Adams for he 3rd time).

Dealing with the majority and deciding whether the majority is adhering to reason and facts; and to the rule of law and constitution; or to the whim of emotion – is extremely difficult.

My own view is that the ‘whim of emotion’ led to the Obama and Democratic victory. What is emerging now, among the majority, is a critique of the Democratic agenda by a focus on reason and facts..and the Constitution.

There must always be this buffer (the rule of law, which requires debate and analysis)to constrain the process of democracy. Otherwise, as you say, we end up with that tyranny of the majority – whose decisions reject rules and function only by emotion.

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:45 am 23. liveaboard:

Excellent commentary!

For greater detail on this subject, please read and re-read:
“The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World” by W. Cleon Skousen

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:49 am 24. Sonja:

I’d like to add that “We The People” are the United States. And “We The People” are in charge of the Republic, the Republic is not in charge of us. People in government need to be reminded of this regularly.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:03 am 25. Political Observer:

The author is correct in stating that the founders made the determination to form a republican form of government over a democracy because of their concerns that the tryanny of the majority was just as dangerous as that of the monarch. But we need to fully understand that the constitution was designed as a limit on the powers of the centralized, federal government. The framers wanted to cure the defects of the Articles of Confederation but at the same time firmly believed that the best government was that which was closest to the people. That is why the expressly stated that in amendment 10 “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. In that regard, the finding of Freedom of Expression (an individual right) is in my mind consistent with the language and intent of the framers. They regarded individual liberty and freedom a God given right that no law or government could overturn. They also believed that the best way to maintain morality and virtue was through our religions and interpersonal interactions – that which we voluntary choose to participate and maintain.

It has been in the past 100 years where we have systematically chosen through our elected representatives to discard the vary foundation of our government and our way of life. We have regularily chosen to do so because some politician convinced us that surrendering just this one small part of our liberty and freedom would allow us to live a much better, secure life by having government control that aspect of our life for us. We accepted that false sense of security under the mistaken belief that it was only that one small aspect of our freedom that we were giving up. And of course we assumed that was all we would surrender to government until the next politician came along and once again dangled that next piece of “security” for our liberty and feedom.

We are now at the point where the pieces are no longer small and the security is more ambiguous. With Cap and Trade we will once more surrender many more choices, freedoms and liberties all for the sake of somehow “saving the planet.” With health care reform we will again be asked to surrender our health and ultimately our life to the control of government and the interest who will exert their powers to acquire the favored status for their view of a “fair” government health program.

We have yet to jump off the cliff but the edge we are now standing on is beginning to break way beneath our feet.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:26 am 26. William II:

There are some great posts on this fine article. We need this reminder about our founder’s intents again and again. I am one of those people whom Hawkins’ indicated as using the word democracy “out of ignorance.” I’ve noticed that I do it (without cruel intentions of course). I am going to try to start speaking of our republic.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:33 am 27. Mike Sheard:

Excellent article and the comments that followed. Thanks All.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:35 am 28. Robert:

Good work here Dr. Hawkins. I noticed long ago that the left had caused me to unknowingly adopt two beliefs: That humans were animals and that the U.S. Is a democracy. They caused me to do the former through their emphasis on evolution in education and the latter through their emphasis on egalitarianism in education. I have now thoroughly overcome both those errors, and in reading this article am convinced again that the left pushes democracy for subversive reasons.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:48 am 29. progressoverpeace:

Democracy is the most vile form of government… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
– James Madison

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
– John Adams

Our Founders understood that, just as government itself must be limited in its scope and power, and that power must be sliced up and placed in contention with each other, so too must the same apply to the whims of the population.

Of course, this just illustrates the basic difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want a super-state Democracy, while Republicans want our Constitutional Republic. The party names say everything anyone needs to know about them. I wish more people understood this.

Sep 3, 2009 - 11:31 am 30. JED:

One of the holes in the bulwarks leaks through the underused 10th amendment. Once the states became dependent on federal monies, roads, schools, infrastructure and pork, then the growth of big government flooded over the state’s vestiges of community rights. Co-dependency seems contrary to “inalienable rights.” Personal freedom is sacrificed to the collective. The question that evolves/devolves is one of balance and extremes.

Sep 3, 2009 - 11:33 am 31. whyyeseyec:

Congress has always passed laws that are unconstitutional. They get away with it because nobody does anything about it. For instance, the Depts of Energy and Education are not constitutional but if not challenged in the Supreme Court then they exist in perpetuity. Even if challenged I doubt the SC has the nerve to declare these laws unconstitutional.

I see three solutions. Either we force our elected reps to do the right thing, we live with their decisions or we take up arms against our gov`n. What else can we do? I would hate to get to the point of taking up arms and having another civil war but if DC and our state houses won`t listen to `We the People` we will decend into tyranny with no hope of reversing our misfortunes.

Our apathy as a nation has degraded US to the point of electing a BHO. People from 1 to 40 know nothing of our Constitution or past history and therefore cannot make an intelligent choice at the ballot box. How many people on the street can tell you how many articles or amendments are in the Constitution or who is the congressperson or seantor? Sad sad sad. I don`t know what is to become of US….

Sep 3, 2009 - 11:40 am 32. ETAB:

#29 progress over peace – might I suggest that you are incorrect in comparing a republic with a democacy and seeing them as incomptible.

The republic is the structure of authority in government, and means that authority rests in the rule of law – as created by the citizens.

Democracy is not a structure of authority but the process of coming to a decision. Democracy simply means the majority vote wins the decision. This majority may be made up of only those who are the aristocrats or military! It has nothing to do with the structure of govt.

The US is both a republic and a democracy. It’s a republic because its rule of laws are made by its citizens – not by a monarch or an aristocracy; and within that governance and that rule of law, decisions are made by democratic vote. That’s why Obama has to go to Congress; he has to get them to vote ‘his way’.

Sep 3, 2009 - 12:24 pm 33. joe buzz:

Below is a great little vid on the very subject:

Link to Republic Vid

Sep 3, 2009 - 12:52 pm 34. Dave Surls:

“Our Founding Fathers wanted freedom, not mob rule.”

Same here. You can take “democracy” and stick it where the sun don’t shine. I couldn’t care less what form of government we employ as long as the government guarantees those god-given rights (including liberty) the Declaration of Independence talks about.

Sep 3, 2009 - 12:53 pm 35. progressoverpeace:

@32 ETAB:

Democracy holds the whim of the populace as the ultimate determing factor. There are no restrictions on the power of popular referenda and action by elected representatives. We are seeing the US move towards a Democracy in that the Executive and Congress are both willfully ignoring Constitutional restrictions on their powers and they are defending their actions with the idea that “the people want it”. That is Democracy and that is what our Founders set about to guard against. Euro-style, collectivist, party-oriented parliamentary systems are much closer to Democracies (with no real separation of powers, no certain restrictions on government action, and the people’s whims able to totally reconfigure the nation on a moment’s notice). It is clear that Democrats in America wish they could turn our nation into something more along those lines, as was made abundantly clear when they took over Congress and held a coupel of idiotic “no-confidence” votes – which have no meaning in our system, whatsoever.

In our original COnsitution, democratic processes at the federal level were applied to only 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government (the House of Representatives), which showed how our Founders put viewed the use of democratic processes for filling positions in the federal government.

Democracy and Constitutional Republics are, indeed, incompatible in that the whims of the people, and of their representatives, must be constrained – by the Constitution. You are confusing limited and restricted uses of democratic processes with Democracies. Listen to the Democrats speak and you will see the difference. To them, if “the people want it” then it is legal. That is a recipe for disaster, as Adams and Madison warned.

Sep 3, 2009 - 1:31 pm 36. Geofizz:

Republic?? What republic?? We’re an oligarchy. And the vid joe buzz links is a MUST SEE — pass that one around to EVERYBODY.

Read these links to see how we are an oligarchy:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/common-sense-2009_b_264706.html

I know, I know, HuffPo is a leftie partisan thing. They’ve posted some good financial articles, though, this one being one of them.

Sep 3, 2009 - 1:39 pm 37. Jeff:

We are in trouble if we don’t get back to focusing on America the republic. I loved George W. Bush but was very troubled by his “democratic” ways. We must live by the rule of law at all levels. Only then will be the great country our Founders intended.

Sep 3, 2009 - 2:11 pm 38. Professor Guvinoff:

Thanks for the clarification, Dr. Hawkins.

Sep 3, 2009 - 2:17 pm 39. Dave Hansen:

To Joe Buzz at #33. Unfortunately I am unable to watch this video because the “nanny” program they’ve set up on our system won’t allow me access to it. Is it on YouTube perchance?

Sep 3, 2009 - 2:34 pm 40. David W. Lincoln:

Sizing up how a group of people are governed, or ruled, by another way of governing (or ruling) makes as little sense as debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

C.S. Lewis in, “The Abolition of Man” referred to timeless universal custom. He made it clear that this is the best way to gauge how governing, or anything else, does.

So, how do the various ways of governing fair when gauged by this? Is there freedom to speak in the town square to say what is controversial, without having that freedom questioned?

Natan Sharansky in “The case for Democracy” and “Defending Identity” goes a long way in identifying what needs to be done, and frankly the likes of Chavez, Ahmadinezhad, the Secretary
General of the Beijing Politburo, are on the wrong side of the ledger.

Sep 3, 2009 - 3:50 pm 41. McBride:

It’s threads like this that keep me coming back to PJM.Etab and PoP,you guys are rockin’ the house and if score was being kept,I would have to declare a draw.

Sep 3, 2009 - 3:56 pm 42. ETAB:

progress over peace – I’ll disagree again. As Aristotle notes, and I don’t mean to suggest that he is immune to criticism, but, I think he had a valid point when he wrote that “it must not be assumed, as some are fond of saying, that democracy is simply that form of government in which the greater number are sovereign” (Politics IV,4)…”rather, we should rather say tha democracy is the form of government in which the free are rulers” (ibid). Add only ‘within the constraints of a rule of law’, as developed by these free people…and you have a republic, i.e., the USA.

The type of democracy to which you refer, is what Aristotle referred to, quite accurately as a demagoguery, where indeed, the mob or majority whim rule, where “not the law but the multitude have the supreme power and supercede the law by their decrees”. I have to admit that I find your reduction of the definition of democracy to only its degenerate form, very puzzling.

That is not the democracy to which I refer, and it is incorrect of you,I suggest, to conclude that there is only one type of democracy, its degenerate form (demagoguery) and to ignore the robust and empowering forms.

You haven’t made an argument for rejecting the robust democratic process within the constraints of a constitution or rule of law.

The robust form is where decisions are made by the majority vote of an elected legislature, within the confinement of the rule of law.

I again disagree with your confinement of democracy to the House. It operates within the Senate, where a vote win is by majority, and yes, in the Supreme Court, where a vote win is also by majority.

I also of course, strongly disagree with your attempt to define the meaning of the term ‘democracy’ as synonymous with the creed and behaviour of the Democratic Party, and to define the meaning of ‘republic’ with the creed and behaviour of the Republican Party. I don’t think that such an iconic match-up is accurate.

Sep 3, 2009 - 4:24 pm 43. dynomitejim:

This may be my favorite article written on pjm. Bravo!

Sep 3, 2009 - 6:10 pm 44. vivo:

36. Geofizz:

“Republic?? What republic?? We’re an oligarchy.’

From the Huffingtonpost link, Larry Flint wrote:

“The real war is not between the left and the right. It is between the average American and the ruling class. If we come together on this single issue, everything else will resolve itself. It’s time we took back our government from those who would make us their slaves.”

I’ve known that for many years.

Sep 4, 2009 - 3:28 am 45. Brian:

America is a republic.Too bad our politicians,and the masses forgot that.Now we will have re-educate them with a slap over the head,Constitution in hand.It is time to take control away from the corporations and lobbyists and put the power back in the hands of a REPUBLICAN form of govt.Each state in the union has this right entrenched in the Constitution.

Sep 4, 2009 - 7:09 am 46. Paul of Alexandria:

bibio44 (5):

“In a democracy, rights ultimately flow from the majority, and every right — from keeping and bearing arms to possessing private property — is recallable if the party in the majority so decides.”

Really? I didn’t know it was so easy to amend the Constitution.

Go back and actually read the article this time. In a democracy the Constitution doesn’t matter, since the will of the majority is all. Kind of like what we’re moving towards.

“Our Founders saw the dangers that democracy posed for our great experiment in freedom…”

So why are we trying to shove democracy down the throats of other nations around the world?

We’re not. We’re imposing elected government, usually of the parlimentary persuasion. Would you rather that we imposed kings on them?

Sep 4, 2009 - 9:37 am 47. Paul of Alexandria:

ETAB (13)

The US is both a republic, in that its rules are made by its citizens,and a democracy, in that the process of decision-making within these rules are decided by the free vote of the citizens. That is why we have a Congress – to vote, with the majority rule – on decisions.

Incorrect. In a Republic, the laws are made by leaders chosen by the people. It is perfectly right and proper for a leader to go against the majority opinion if he/she decides that it is in the best interest of the voters that he/she do so. For instance, it is possible that information is available to the leader that is secret or otherwise not widely disceminated. It is also feasible that the majority is simply wrong, having been badly informed previously or swayed by a demagogue.

However, it is then incumbent on the leader to explain the reasons for this decision to the populace and attempt to pursuade them to accept it. If a leader is not willing to fight and possibly lose their position in order to do what is right, then he/she doesn’t deserve the position in the first place. Of course it is also incumbent on the population to ensure that their leaders reflect their values and possess wisdom and knowledge sufficient for their positions.

BTW, The ancient Greeks did try a pure democracy, and it didn’t work. It inevitably descended into mob rule.

Sep 4, 2009 - 9:46 am 48. John "birther" Samford:

“In a Republic, the laws are made by leaders chosen by the people.”
Not as directly as you imply. In a Republic, there is another layer between lawmaker and voter. That is the State that is a part of the Republic.
Remember, under the original Constitution, Senators were chosen by the State Legislature, NOT voters. While that was changed thru the correct legal process, it still might have been a mistake. It started the trend of Federalizing the Republic. IIRC, the rational was that the movers and shakers in a State would use their normal levers of bribery and corruption to populate the Senate. The goal of having Senators elected was to cut down on corruption.
What actually happened was the corruption spread from the Senate to Congress.
My Mencken solution that will remove corruption from the Legislative branch is a yearly lottery. Winners of that lottery are taken out on the front steps of the Capitol and shot behind the ear. 4 Representatives and 1 Senator every year.
That would cut down on the number of scalliwags running for office.
My non-Mencken solution is a Law that provides for an automatic prison term for ANY politician that leaves office with more wealth then he had when first elected. Close relatives should be included. Rumor has it Murtha worked in a car wash before getting elected. Now him and his brothers are mega millionaires, all on 86K per year. What’s up with that? The shortest road to wealth in America lies through elected office.
Was it Will Rodgers who said ‘America has the finest Congress that money can buy!’?

Sep 4, 2009 - 12:01 pm 49. Roderick Reilly:

How refreshingly subversive this article is! I want more of the same.

Sep 4, 2009 - 2:04 pm 50. Melissa:

Inspiring, awesome article. We can debate semantics until the cows come home (or the chickens roost!)—definitions may vary. The point is that the key to America’s greatness has always been the origin and author of our rights–The Author of our rights–given by God.–http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/eaglesnest/

Sep 5, 2009 - 10:26 am 51. Poor Citizen:

Ok, agreed, we are a republic that people often mistake as a democracy. Good article. I noticed you pointed out that some left wing organizations from the sixties that wanted to use the system in hopes of subverting the system, which was correct. However, a couple of the organizations you mentioned that exist now (like the dfa) do not follow that doctrine so you need to correct that part. Also, the lunatic fringe on the right wing (i.e. 1930.s germany) uses the same ploy, which you fail to mention. Subversion is an equal opportunity political employer.

Sep 5, 2009 - 12:59 pm 52. Roark:

Thank you for saying what SHOULD be said, especially by the empty suits in DC. The USA has for too long been duped into thinking that we are a democracy and that democracy is the superior form of government. BS!!! We are a limited Constitutional Republic…now if we can get the younger generation to know the difference and how important it is to understand the two.

Sep 5, 2009 - 9:02 pm 53. Emery Calame:

To Kipling:

As an “average person” I’d just like to say that I feel it is a terrible shame that Plato is no longer considered a planet. I thought she was pretty good in that “Different Strokes” TV show.

See you later. Off to a late soup and sandwich dinner.

Sep 5, 2009 - 9:04 pm 54. Emery Calame:

As an “average person” I’d just like to say that I feel it is a terrible shame that Plato is no longer considered a planet. I thought she was pretty good in that “Different Strokes” TV show.

See you later. Off to a late soup and sandwich dinner.

Sep 5, 2009 - 9:05 pm 55. The Big Picture:

“In the Declaration of Independence these unassailable rights were described as “unalienable” and were clearly presented as rights over which the government has no say.”

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” Lord Acton

There seems to be a contradiction between ‘rights’ and ‘government’. If the idea is to protect rights, the only legitimate purpose of government according to the founders, how does one accomplish this protection by taking those rights away? If I have the right to property but must surrender it to the ‘government’ in the form of ‘taxes’, how is this ‘unalienable’?

If some people (after all, just like you and me) call themselves ‘public servants’ but then claim to have the ‘authority’ to order us about by force are they servants or masters?

The fact that we get to periodically ‘choose’ a bunch of self-serving opportunists to be our rulers every few years does nothing to preserve our ‘unalienable rights’.

The power of government is nothing less that Tolkein’s ring of power that regardless of whether you call it a ‘democracy’ or a ‘republic’ works its will on others without their consent. “The consent of the governed?” It is to laugh! If it’s consensual, than what are the guns for that they will show you if you refuse to pay for their ’services’?

The problem with our civilization is that it does not see any contradiction between the generally accepted rule against stealing, and taxation. The mark of a truly civilized society should be the “triumph of persuasion over force.”

Sep 5, 2009 - 10:10 pm 56. DoctorT:

Hear Hear. Nicely written and to the point.

Sep 6, 2009 - 7:48 am 57. Roark:

To demonstrate the evil of democracy, just listen to what Michael Moore had to say about his new propaganda film ‘Capitalism; A Love Story’….,” “You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy.”

Sep 6, 2009 - 3:07 pm 58. Lynn B:

I’m late to the party but had to leave a comment. Finally a very positive article on the greatest country on earth. I love it.

Sep 6, 2009 - 5:07 pm 59. Bill:

Good article. I would bet this distinction is not emphasized in public schools– at all. I doubt O will emphasize it either when speaking to “the children”. He probably doesn’t know the difference himself-besides the Constitution to him is a set of negative rights but doesn’t cover what the government can do -which in his mind -should be everything! Democracy or mob rule leads to tyranny which leads to an oligarchy. Where a Republic is made up of immutable God given unalienable rights as set forth in the DI and the Constitution-that no man can either grant nor take away- a rather important distinction!

Sep 8, 2009 - 3:15 pm 60. Paul:

Perhaps we should ask Madison his opinion. Writing in Federalist 10, he says:

“From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”
And:

“A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.”

He describes the difference between republic and democracy as being the same as the difference between pure democracy and representative democracy. “Elected by the rest” sounds pretty conclusive.

I hear he had something to do with writing the Constitution.

Sep 11, 2009 - 8:50 pm 61. Little guy:

I’m only 14 years of age, never understood what the United States democracy was. When i read this article, for information about my essay. It did not just give me information, it kinda inspired me in a way. I really want to let you know that, I appreciate your article.

Thanks, little guy. =D_=)_=P_:D_:)_:P

Sep 17, 2009 - 5:34 pm