A Republic, not a Democracy

Essential concepts--we are not a 'democracy' but a 'republic'

Reprinted from the Columbia Conservative Examiner, by Anthony G. Martin

An essential concept in understanding the American form of government is that we are not a 'democracy' but a 'republic.' Nothing could be any more vital to an accurate grasp of the nature of our government than this, and nothing could be more key to our survival as a nation.

To put it very simply, 'democracy' means 'majority rule.' On the surface this sounds great. But look deeper and it is frighteningly ominous. For example, if we were living in a democracy, a simple majority vote could result in your house being taken from you for no reason other than to give it to someone else. A simple majority could decide that you should be thrown out to live in the street, begging for food and shelter.

One of my favorite examples of a democracy in action is the scenario where a simple majority votes that females who have brown eyes and dark brown hair are to be banned from driving. 'That's ludicrous,' you say. Sure it is. But if we are living under a system governed by 'majority rule,' what is to prevent such a thing from happening, or indeed, what is to prevent the 'majority' from essentially doing anything they want to do, including taking away your rights, robbing you of your children, or any number of outrageous atrocities?

We need to drop the term 'democracy' from our vocabulary altogether when it comes to describing our government. Nowhere in our founding documents is the word 'democracy' used--not in the Declaration of Independence, not in the U.S. Constitution, and not in the state Constitutions of ANY of the 50 states. What you WILL find, however, is the term 'republic.' The reason is not far to find. The Founders were careful to set up a Republic, not a Democracy.

Thus, what, exactly, is a Republic? The terms denotes a form of government that is based upon the rule of law as delineated in a document called a 'constitution.' That constitution sets up the pillars of government and then proceeds to delineated clear limitations on that government in order to prevent it from encroaching on the rights of the people. This is why, then, that even if a majority of citizens vote to ban brown-eyed, brown-haired females from driving, such a thing would not stand. Why? Due to the fact that we are Republic governed by the rule of law set forth in a constitution, the majority does not have the right to limit the freedoms of others. The liberties of the minorities are protected from any encroachment by the majority.

In like manner, the majority cannot vote to take your house away and force you to live on the street as a beggar, neither can it rob you of your children. The rule of law prevents such atrocities from happening, no matter what they 'majority' of the people think. So where, then, did we get this notion that we are living in a 'democracy' where the 'majority rules'?

I have a theory about that. I maintain that such a notion got its impetus from the 'progressive movement' of the late 1800s and early 1900s, with individuals such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and others, who had a vested interested in undermining the clear rule of law as delineated in our Constitution. The 'progressives,' who have been called various terms throughout the decades, such as 'liberals,' 'leftists,' and the like, want no limitations on the power of a centralized government to make decisions that fly in the face of every known principle of liberty affirmed in the Constitution. In fact, this is precisely why they speak so often of 'democracy' and 'majority rule.' They believe that by convincing an unschooled populace that they live in a democracy, then they can simply influence them to vote themselves into slavery to the government and limit the rights of their fellow citizens. After all, a 'simple majority vote' is all it takes, right? WRONG! Mob rule is very dangerous.

A very simple way to understand this difference is that democracy = 'majority rule' = 'mob rule' which then necessitates government stepping in to seize more power in order to bring order into the chaos. On the other hand, a republic is the rule of law as delineated in a constitution that places limits on the powers of government, protects the rights of the people, and prevents the 'majority' from running roughshod over the rights and liberties of the minority. It is clear, then, that we live in a Republic and not a Democracy.

However, since the waning days of the 19th century and proceeding into the 20th century a dangerous force has been at work to undermine the concepts inherent in our Republic and replace them with the notion that we live in a 'democracy' where the 'majority rules.' This force is known as 'the Progressive Movement.' Progressives see government as a positive force for 'change' rather than an oppressive force that must be restrained. Immediately this places progressives at odds with the point of view of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. And history is certainly not on the side of the progressives with their Pollyannish optimism that government is a positive force in the lives of citizens.

History is replete with examples of the fact that as the power and role of government expands, the liberties of the people are diminished and ultimately removed. There is not a single case in all of human history that shows a society keeping its freedoms once the power of government begins to grow. In fact, government is the single largest source of mass murder in the history of the world. No other entity or person has killed off more human beings than government. The 20th century alone is itself a case in point. When Lenin and Stalin came to power in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution (the Russian Revolution) early in the 20th century, the Communist ruling elite systematically murdered over 25 million Russians over a period of years. When Chairman Mao Tse Tung came to power in China, ushering in an era dominated by the Communist Party--which, by the way, continues to this day--70 million Chinese were murdered.

And this doesn't even begin to touch the bloodbath left in the wake of monsters such as Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and of course, Adolf Hitler.

Yet the Progressives seem to be perpetually intoxicated by imbibing from the strong brew that continually flows down the rocks of the 'Big Rock Candy Mountains.' They insist, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that big government is a good thing, and they want citizens to vote for it by convincing them that we are a 'democracy' and that the 'majority rules. And thus, the populace should not worry that a minority of citizens may lose their rights and liberties. The problem is that the majority loses their rights and liberties as well, even as they vote for larger government programs and candidates that promise the moon with 'hope and change.

Exactly what, then, are the basic precepts of 'the Progressive Movement'? Study Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Prohibition, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, and you will get a flavor. Here are some of the highlights:

*An expansion of the size, scope, and power of the federal government.

*An emphasis on 'environmentalism' as opposed to the private property rights of citizens.

*Intrusive, expensive, and time-consuming government regulation of private enterprise.

*A belief that the government knows what is best for citizens rather than allowing them to make their own personal choices--reference 'Prohibition' which banned the sale of alcohol during Woodrow Wilson's administration.

*Rather than teaching the poor how to rise out of their dire straits, the Progressives pushed comprehensive welfare programs to 'take care of the poor,' including the concept of nationalized healthcare under the control of government (the Progressives were the first to advance this concept as far back as the late 1800s and early 1900s).

*A view of public education that affirmed John Dewey's notion that the purpose of public schools is not to emphasize learning, grasping, and applying a body of knowledge but to remove competitive merit-based achievement, replacing it with an emphasis on the student's artistic, emotional, and creative capacities within a non-competitive environment.

*The notion that government should own and operate certain enterprises that could be run by private entities.

Thus, the concept that 'rights' are actually nothing more than 'opportunities' was gradually replaced by the concept of 'entitlement'--that is, citizens are entitled to certain things government can provide. The only problem is government can't provide a thing to some citizens unless it confiscates wealth from other citizens. It is highly interesting that the Income Tax, which was never a part of the founding documents and never mentioned in the Constitution, became a part of that Constitution just as the Progressive Movement began to take hold.

As you can see, much of what passes for 'democratic ideals' today is nothing more than the agenda first envisioned by the Progressive Movement back in the late 1800s. And it is antithetical to every principle of liberty as delineated in our Constitution. Many if not most of the citizens, interestingly enough, have bought into these dangerous concepts and are quite willing to negate the liberties of their fellow citizens as long as government keeps doling out the entitlements.

But how, exactly, did we allow ourselves to get to this point?

In our consideration of 'essential concepts' we must examine how the Framers of the U.S. Constitution guarded against mob rule democracy. And make no mistake about it, democracy is mob rule. A simple majority vote under a democracy can result in all sorts of havoc wreaked upon civil rights, liberties, and protections of freedom explicit in the Constitution. This is precisely why the Framers warned against democracy and did all they could to guard against it in formulating the American government. For example, there is Benjamin Franklin's famous response to a woman who asked him on the street, 'Mr. Franklin, exactly what kind of government have you given us?' His response was direct and to the point--'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

The Framers made it abundantly clear that we are a Republic and not a democracy. Democracies can easily be manipulated by demagogues who rally the masses to use the concept of 'a simple majority vote' to undo every single protection against the encroachments upon the liberties guarded by the Constitution. Thus, the Framers instituted a myriad of safeguards that made it necessary for politicians and others to jump through several hoops before any big changes could be made to the stipulations they insisted be part of the founding documents regarding liberty.

One of these safeguards is the Electoral College. Interestingly, progressives in the nation today attack the Electoral College as being 'out of date,' 'oppressive,' 'unnecessary,' and 'a relic of colonial-era elitism.' Nothing could be further from the truth. The Electoral College was implemented by the Framers to guard against simple majority mob rule. By using the system of the Electoral College, the Framers insured that citizens who live in less populated areas of the country would not be disenfranchised by the masses who live in densely populated regions.

In a simple majority direct election of a President, the votes of citizens who live in Wyoming or Montana, for example, are totally decimated, overwhelmed, and negated by the votes of citizens who live in New York City, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. In fact, when one takes a look at a map of voter demographics, one can see clearly that in the controversial election of 2000 it was the citizens who live around the rim of the country--the coastal regions and Great Lakes (and a few other areas)--who voted for Al Gore. The rest of the country went for George W. Bush, and, using the Electoral College system, this meant that Bush won due to the fact that he came out on top in most of the areas of the country. Al Gore, on the other hand, won the majority of the popular vote (the simple majority) by garnering the support of the densely populated centers around the nation's rim alone. Had he been elected, that would have meant that the votes of citizens who live in large metropolitan areas would have counted more than those who live in the rest of the country. This gives an unfair advantage to citizens living in coastal regions and around the Great Lakes.

Thus, the Electoral College system gives citizens who live in less populated regions a bit of a boost, making our Presidential elections fairer and more even. And what, exactly, is the concept undergirding this mandate? It is the desire of the Framers to protect the minority from the mob rule inherent in a democratic 'simple majority' vote. To be sure, most of the time the majority decides the election. But in very close races an edge is given to those citizens who live in less populated regions in order to prevent their votes from being totally negated and overwhelmed by large, mega-cities.

Another safeguard the Framers included in the original Constitution was the stipulation that U.S. Senators be chosen by their state legislatures rather than by a vote of the citizens. The Framers believed that one of the two Houses of Congress be removed from a direct, popular vote of the people. That house was to be the Senate while the U.S. House of Representatives would be the body that was chosen by a direct election of the people. To the Framers this accomplished 2 important objectives--to achieve a balance between direct, popular elections and a need for the stability inherent in one body of Congress being removed from the whims of the electorate. By having the Senate chosen by the state legislatures, which were elected by the people in those states, the Framers believed that it would be more difficult for activist politicians to tamper with essential precepts of liberty that did not need to be changed.

Unfortunately, as the years progressed the people demanded direct election of Senators in addition to the House of Representatives. That change was implemented to the detriment of liberty. We are now in a most unfortunate scenario where both houses of Congress are under the control of activists whose only gauge of 'effectiveness' is how much legislation they passed and how much 'change' they accomplished. This is clearly not the mark of a good representative in Washington. The appropriate gauge of how effective is a Senator or Congressman is how thoroughly did they protect the citizens from attempted encroachments upon their liberties. This could well mean that they pass NO new legislation! It could also mean much less time spent in Washington, which would save the taxpayers billions. I would do cartwheels in my front yard if we could get through a session of Congress where not a single measure of new legislation was passed.

Yet, due to the creeping crawl of 'the Progressive Movement,' resulting in bigger and bigger government, much of the populace today neither values nor clings to the safeguards to liberty that our Founders gave us.

Conservatives, libertarians, and other Patriots in the right-of-center of American politics are ever-so aware of the trouble our Republic is in. The question is, how did we get here and what will change it? What brought us to this critical and dangerous juncture in our history as a nation? The Framers included various safeguards from a bull-headed mob that is intent on forcing the issue of 'simple majority rule' that is inherent in a democracy. It was as if the Founders were telling the majority-rule mob that wishes to override the liberties of the people with a simple majority vote, 'NO YOU CAN'T.' But of course, just like Barack Obama, the 'progressives' respond with 'YES WE CAN!'

'Yes,' they say, 'We can do whatever we want. We can vote to negate your rights if we think they are a stumbling block to our ultimate goals and objectives.' And this is precisely how we got to this point. Progressive politicians and operatives use demagoguery to persuade the unschooled electorate that it is for their own good that they give up some of their rights 'for the broader good.' And make no mistake about it, our liberties have taken a hit. Note the number of laws and regulations the government has placed on firearms, for example. Since when did an 'unalienable right' that 'shall not be infringed' be subjected to such draconian infringements?

In addition, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our speech, and even our thoughts, are monitored, regulated, and restricted by government. So called 'hate crime' laws are a perfect case in point. In a free society we do not punish motivation. We punish the act. But now certain groups are given special protections not only from heinous acts but from the thoughts that led to the acts. This nothing less than sheer mind-control.

The 'politically-correct' movement arising out of Progressivism has made it all but a crime to merely speak certain words. And if they had their way, they would make them crimes. Notice how the European Union and Canada, for example, treats liberty-promoting politicians such as Geert Wilders and columnists such as Mark Steyn for merely pointing out that radical Islam is dangerous to the liberties of free societies. Both have been treated as criminals for saying such things.

However, the key point to remember is how we got here. It was a gradual, incremental scheme implemented by the Progressive Movement that believes in ultimate government authority over human beings. First, they implemented the Income Tax. Then, they nationalized services that could be provided by the private sector. Next came environmentalism that places the needs of endangered microscopic fish over that of private property owners (and yes, this concept had its beginnings all the way back in the last part of the 19th century). Then there was Prohibition that forbade the sale of alcohol. By the way, did you know it was the Progressives that clung to the continuation of Prohibition throughout the 1920s, even as the citizens demonstrated with their actions that they had no intention of obeying it?

After that, of course, there was the New Deal that prolonged the economic depression with excessive government regulation, tax hikes, and bailouts. Only World War II was able to get us out of the Great Depression.

Then we had Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' which implemented the most sweeping government programs we've ever had, leading to a permanent underclass we call 'the welfare state.'

Government has done nothing in the midst of this but grow bigger and more intrusive...and oppressive.

And we must not forget that ultimate, monolithic symbol of global progressivism and paternalistic oppression, the UNITED NATIONS. Only the administration of Ronald Reagan gave us a brief respite from the relentless march of the Progressive Movement to seize control of society from top to bottom. And today, we see the ultimate consequences of a 100-year progression toward government oppression.

Communists, Maoists, domestic terrorists, and admirers of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez occupy the top positions in the Obama White House. Attempts are made to squelch any speech that the White House deems as unacceptable. The FCC has declared war on conservative talk radio. A 'pay czar' has admitted he wants to see the demise of American capitalism. A panel of social engineers and wacko doctors want to implement healthcare rationing, the rules of which are to be determined by government. And a President has declared war on a news network (Fox) for no other reason than it dares to ask him the tough questions that need to be asked.

After 100 years of the relentless assault by the forces of anti-freedom, we stand at this hour on the brink of complete collapse as a free society. What can we do about it?

Here are some thoughts, some possibilities. They are not to be viewed as a plan for implementation being endorsed by this writer but only as concepts to be considered by concerned citizens:

First, we need not just a million protesters in Washington for a 912-Project, Tea Party, and Oath Keepers march. We need 100 million citizens to become activists to take this country back from charlatans who masquerade as 'democratic representatives of the people.' Actually they represent nothing but their own ideology and subversive agenda to dismantle the Constitutional Republic our forefathers gave us. They need to be booted out of Washington. In fact, we need a complete house-cleaning from top to bottom--in the White House, the Senate, the House, and the Courts. Unless those who swore an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States actually begin to adhere to that oath, then they need to be shown the door, ousted from office.

Second, citizens need to get serious about considering civil disobedience by refusing to pay taxes to fund this entirely illegitimate government.

Third, citizens could well consider a massive, non-violent invasion of Congress. The objective? To shut it down. Unless these boneheaded numbskulls stop with their continual attacks on free speech, capitalism, and measures that will ruin our good healthcare and rob us of our money through oppressive taxation, then perhaps the citizens should simply move into the chambers of Congress, en mass, taking the floor with one purpose in mind--shutting the thing down until a new election can be held.

Fourth, if the previous measures are too strong for you to stomach, then do all you can to protest. Ring the phones of Congress and the White House off the hooks. Bombard them with emails of protest. Faxes too. Take to the streets with placards that show your utter contempt for the enemies of liberty we somehow allowed to take control of the halls of government. And then, VOTE OUT THE BUMS! 2010 could be a watershed year in the history of our Republic. In fact, it could be the election that SAVES the Republic. Don't let Party allegiance or some sort of sentimental attachment to your own Senator or Representative dissuade you. Vote them out! And be sure to support only those candidates who have a sincere conviction about the restoration of Constitutional law in the land.

Perhaps this is the year that we oust both the Democrats and the GOP. Independent conservatives should be given a chance to clean up the mess left by Progressives in both Parties.