I think one of the first steps on my path to becoming a conservative started in school. I’ll never forget hearing my teachers tell me that we were a democracy while sharing the definitions of various types of governments. Among these types of governments included a description of a republic. To me, it just sounded like a better explanation of our government. I would say this to my teachers but the usual response was something along the lines of “But we call ourselves a democracy.” That’s actually not the right way to look at our government.
To get everyone up to speed, I thought I’d share the definition of a republic and the definition of a democracy. Wikipedia says that “Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.” So a real world example of true “Democracy in Action” would be when a local government has a vote on a millage and every registered voter in the community gets to vote.
The definition of a republic from Wikipedia is different. It says “A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people.” Dictionary.com goes on to add “A state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.”
This is much more like our federal government. I didn’t personally have a say in ObamaCare. However, my representative and senators did.
Some may look at this and see both elements in our government. Sure, it was my representative and senators who had a vote in ObamaCare (republic), but it’s the people of my district and state that voted those people in office (democracy). However, one of these two is more important to the structure and operation of government.
Let’s remove all democratic elements of our government. Let’s imagine that instead of voting for our representatives in DC, they were chosen in a different fashion. Perhaps they’re chosen in a manner similar to jury duty. We can do this and the structure of our government is still the same. We still have a Congress representing us. We still have someone serving as the executive. We would still have a Supreme Court. Our three branches are sill around.
Now let’s remove all republican aspects of our government. The structure of our government goes away completely. We no longer would have anyone representing us. We would be the ones who vote on every single issue. Our government would be completely restructured. Because of this fact, we clearly have a republic.
Our Founding Fathers intended for our country to be a republic. The evidence can be seen in history. Consider our Pledge of Allegiance. It says “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.”
In his inaugural address, George Washington said “And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” The words “Democracy” and “Democratic” never show up.
In the Federalist Papers, the United States is called a republic and compared to other republics. In Federalist #1, Alexander Hamilton listed what he planned to discuss in his writings. In this he wrote “…to the attainment of this object the conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government…”
So why does this debate matter? It defines our government and, therefore, how we view our government. When one looks at our government as a democracy, they’re going to view it differently. An example of this can be seen in a debate common in introductory political science classes. Should we keep the electoral college or move to a popular vote? With a democratic view of our government, the electoral college doesn’t make much sense. With a republican view of our government, that’s not so clean and clear.
Probably the most important thing to consider when it comes to a republican view of government compared to a democratic view is how one views the debate of “Rule of Law” or “Rule of Man.” Under a rule of man, an individual or a group of individuals (such as a mob majority) have the final say on all matters. Under a rule of law, the law has the final say. An example of this is the Constitution being the supreme law of the land.
When one says the democratic elements trump the republican parts of our government, they are essentially negating the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified by a group of representatives. After all, I never voted on the Constitution. So if the popular vote is most important, that means a majority are more important than the Constitution. Therefore, every protection and freedom provided by the Constitution can be wiped out by a simple majority vote of the population. The whole idea of being a republic is looking pretty good, isn’t it?
I created this picture to illustrate my point (and to have a chuckle at the expense of OWS). The Constitution was written and ratified by a small percentage of the country. 1% is actually generous. But the point is still clear. The document created by these people doesn’t necessarily represent the will of a majority on any given subject at any given time. But if we emphasize democracy over the republic, then we essentially erase this document and replace it with the mob.
And the mob can be controlled. This can largely be done by emotion. Look at a number of political ads that have appeared. Take this ad by the people at We Are Ohio:
Issue 2 was about limiting collective bargaining by public sector employees (Senate Bill 5). This ad features an old lady talking about how firefighters saved her great-granddaughter. It provides no evidence that the bill would indeed lead to fewer firefighters, but it does make a heck of an emotional play. This old lady isn’t an expert in public finance, political science, or anything of that sort. The ad features no substance and silly rhetoric ("The politicians don’t care about the middle class. They’ve turned their backs on all of us”). But that shot of her and her great-granddaughter? Well in the court of public opinion that’s worth more than hard facts.
The power of emotions is just one part of the problem. President Obama’s “Attack Watch” website is another good example. The site is an attempt to tackle false information that’s working its way around the internet and news. On top of that, not every person is fully educated on every issue and topic. Is it easier to educate a few hundred people who showed the initiative to run for office or a few million that showed up because Diddy told them to or die?
That’s the danger we face when we look at our country as a democracy instead of a republic. We work so hard to obtain the characteristics of a democracy because we think we’re a democracy that we run the risk of ignoring the problems that come with that structure.
It’s not to say it’s going to all happen overnight. But it’s the direction we’re headed. Consider the 17th Amendment. It moved us from our state governments selecting our senators to a popular vote. Look at the polls on the nightly news. By and large, they look at what the general population thinks about a bill. Politicians look at what’s popular instead of what’s right. What else will change for our country all in the name of democracy?
So while some of my professors and colleagues believe I’m splitting hairs when it comes to this debate, I believe that it’s a very important distinction to make. How we define anything has a big role in how we view it. We must keep this in mind when it comes to our government.
No comments:
Post a Comment