Did the Founders Want Us to be a Democracy?

The American system is usually called a democracy. While this may be accurate, I think there is a better term for describing our nation's political structure. I call the United States a republic or a constitutional republic because it is more specific.


Let's define these terms and see what the difference is.

According to The Oxford English Dictionary, the word democracy comes from two Greek words that mean, "popular government," or the rule of the people. It may be further defined as ". . . that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them . . . or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege." (Murray and Philological Society 3:183) According to an About.com article, there are two types of democracies. In a direct democracy, laws are voted on by the general population. In a representative democracy, an elected body, such as a congress or parliament, makes the laws. (Cline).

Republic means, "A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers." (Murray and Philological Society 8:491)

At first glance, there seems to be little difference between these two definitions. In both, the people are sovereign and both may have legislative bodies. The key difference, by these definitions, is that a democracy does not have to have an elected governing body. Republics and representative democracies are basically the same thing, but a direct democracy stands in contrast to a republic.

The direct democracies of the Greeks were very unstable. When James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote The Federalist Papers, they called those early governments "petty republics" and said that "they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy." (71). The forward thinking political philosophies of the Greeks were marvelous experiments that that made great strides in the progression of liberty, but were flawed.

A direct democracy, or what The Federalist Papers call a "pure democracy" carries an unfortunate tendency to mob rule. Of these it is said, "such democracies have ever been spectacle 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." (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay 81).

Instability is inherent in this type of democracy. In practice, the people are not sovereign but rather the majority is sovereign. The minority is subject to the majority whim. If the majority decides to take away life, liberty or property from the minority, nothing stands in its way. As the saying goes, "majority rules."

According to The Federalist Papers, a republic can dodge this bullet because the representative body is like a sieve that refines the sentiments of the various factions of the populace into the laws that are beneficial for all (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay 82).

As a people who value liberty and equality, we do not want our type of government confused with one that tramples on the concerns of the minority. All men have equal rights. In a direct democracy there is a great danger that the will of the majority will overlook the universal good.

It is important to understand our governmental structure. If the government is to be of the people, they cannot govern themselves, either directly or through representatives, if they are not aware of different types of government, their benefits and detriments, and how those types of governments have worked (or not worked) in societies of the past.

By our definitions, America certainly can be called a democracy. However, while both terms have been used interchangeably, democracy is a broader term than republic. A republic may be thought of as a specific type of democracy that does not include the dangerous frailties of tyrannical majority rule. Saying "republic" gets right to the point. Republics are governments of free people who have given the power of legislation to their congress.

That sounds like the United States of America to me.




Works Cited

Cline, Austin. "democracy." About.com. About.com, 2009. Web. 5 Nov. 2009.

Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. New

     Rochelle: Arlington House, n.d. Print.

"Democracy" The Oxford English Dictionary. 1961 ed. Print.

"Republic" The Oxford English Dictionary. 1961 ed. Print.

Terrible Capitalism?

    In justification of the stimulus packages, we hear people say that capitalism has failed. In response to the assertion that capitalism involves a natural cycle, progressives are quick to respond with, "Tell that to the family that lost their house due to the cycles of capitalism!" Because of our financial system, people are hurting. In this modern society we know better than to allow pain!
     So, because capitalism has caused trouble for folks it must be a sub-standard system and we should dabble with a little socialism. Government taking over businesses like the automotive industry and the banks is socialism, as is socialised medicine. We are told that we need this to clean up the mess that capitalism has made of our economy.
     So, if we are turning to socialism because capitalism has cycles, socialism must be a recession-free system, right? At the very least, it must be more stable.
     Let's do a check into the history books. I happened to be thumbing through a 2008 National Geographic Magazine recently. The cover story was on India's new highway system. In the article, it mentioned that India had modeled its economic system on the socialistic ideas of Gandhi and others. India had to switch to another system after a time, though, because socialism just wasn't working out for them. I wanted to do a little more research.
     A BBC News article, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/55427.stm, tells about the government interference in the Indian economy and the mess that it created for the country. To start a new business, an entrepreneur had to deal with 80 different government bureaucracies! The economy did not keep pace with the rest of the region and by the early nineties, the global market had lost faith in India's credit. In response, they had to make their economy more capitalistic. Socialism has problems.
Looking at the communist countries of the world(and socialism is just a halfway house to communism), I don't see an enviable economic track record there, either.
     Turning to our south, we see the island of Cuba. As everyone can tell you, Cuba is a communist nation. How are they fairing in this economy? According to a miamiherald.com article, the recession has been bad for them as well. So bad, in fact, that they have had to "scale back" the on the socialism. The article says that the government is allowing farmers to own land, reconsidering ration cards, and closing government funded workplace cafeterias. Communist Cuba has "a failed economy that buckled long ago", according to some experts. That doesn't sound like any kind of economy that I want to be apart of. As a side note, capitalism is pelted with the charge that it is the system of greed. Those who level that charge would do well to consider how Cuba's state run newspaper characterized the fruit of Cuba's communistic ration card system: a "gimme mentality." Sounds like communism has problems.
     How about us? Our nation has faced a credit crisis, major industries and financial institutions have been on the verge of collapse, and the stock market took a deep plunge. People have lost their jobs and their homes. We have problems, too.
     I certainly don't mean to say that capitalism, socialism, and communism are all equal. My point is that the next time someone tells you that capitalism hurts people, ask them to find a better system.
     Sure capitalism has problems. That is because it involves people. As full of potential as they are, people seem to mess up anything that they have anything to do with. It is just that excessive government messes things up even more and I believe that in the final tally, the current recession will probably find much of its cause in government meddling in the system.
     So, to all would be socialists who say they want to bring power to the people-I have a great deal more faith in populace-powered capitalism, than in government run socialism.
    

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. "

both quotes from Winston Churchill

Puerto Rican Statehood? Hold on one second...

  It appears that the Democrats are trying to pull a fast one. If you saw Wednesday, April 28th's Glen Beck on Fox News, then you know about this. The House of Reps is today, April 29th, voting on a bill that would attempt to make Puerto Rico the 51st state. From my understanding, this bill, once passed by both houses, would require Puerto Rico to have a vote on whether or not Puerto Ricans are happy with the political status quo. If a majority of them say no, a second vote will require them to vote one of three ways, the historically most popular among them being statehood. Why are they doing this? It is assumed that if Puerto Rico becomes a state that it will vote democrat. As a state, it will get two senators and six or seven representatives in the House out in D.C. It would appear that dems are trying to strengthen their numbers.

These links explain further:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-luis-gutierrez/why-the-rush-on-the-puert_b_556328.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591683,00.html

As I hope you can see, this is an urgent matter. Please call our good friend Representative Rick Larsen and tell him that it is a lousy bill(although a more professional word would probably be better).
I called the offices at the three numbers below and said the following:

Congressman Larsen,
I urge you to vote no on H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rican Democracy bill. For such an important matter, has not been considered sufficiently and does not appear to give the people of Puerto Rico the flexibility they deserve in determining their future. Talk to your Democrat colleague Representative Luis Gutierrez- he is of Puerto Rican ancestry and does not feel that this is in the best interests of Puerto Ricans.
Thank you and have a great day!

Phone numbers:
Bellingham: (360) 733-4500
Everett: (425) 252-3188
D.C. (202) 225-2605
I also sent the same message to him in an email via this link: http://www.house.gov/larsen/contact/

I hope you choose to voice you opinion on this. The earlier the better!

Sentinels of Liberty: A Message to Conservatives

     The American Armed Forces are the guardians of American liberty. They bought it with their blood during the Revolution and have kept it ever since, continuing to offer their bodies as roadblocks to tyranny. Their sacrifice has given us the most free nation on the face of the earth. However, their efforts, their toil, and their blood are undermined if we fail to understand our role as sentinels of liberty.

     The preamble to the Constitution starts with, "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States." That would be you and me. The Constitution was set forth by the people. While it was drawn up by brilliant political thinkers, part of its ratification was through conventions of delegates elected by the people. It is the people's government. Americans pride themselves that they live under such an enlightened form of government.

     Today, we seem to think that life in the United States is all privilege and little responsibility, particularly with regard to politics. When we gather around the dinner tables of our homes, we lament about the direction of the nation. The actions of our representatives exasperate us. Loud are our cries against waste, corruption and disregard for the principles of government that we know will steer our nation on a favorable course. We listen to pundits on the radio and on TV, making ourselves aware of the latest antics of our misguided politicians. Our frustration grows and we wish government would just get it right.

     Ultimately, the blame rests on us. Remember "WE THE PEOPLE"? We are a part of the government of this country. We elected those folks whose votes are the source of our annoyance. "But," you say, "I did not vote for them! And there is never anyone good to vote for, anyway." I have felt that way myself. Recently, I realized the solution. We have to shoulder our share of the responsibility of government. It is not enough to listen to talk radio, enlightening though it may be. It is not enough to hold rock-solid conservative views.

     The responsibility of the populace is not only to vote, but to select good candidates to run, to support those candidates, to rally when government errs, and to stand up to good principles of government in the media, our communities and our families. In short, we must be politically active.

     This requires a sacrifice in time and energy, which is the reason many of us have let these responsibilities slide. I certainly understand this. There are never enough hours in the day to accomplish my regular tasks, let alone be politically active. Another reason people don't get involved is a lack of concern. Not everyone finds politics interesting. Both of these objections fall when we consider our responsibility as a part of the government of this nation and the consequences of allowing the nation to continue on its current path.

     As a teenager, I started to drive late. While my friends all rushed out and got their licenses as soon as they turned 16, I just kept calling for rides. I did not care. Eventually, I did care, but could never seem to focus on educating myself for the drive and written tests. At last the day came when the man from the DOL told me that my driving skills were competent and that I could become a licensed driver. I then entered into the responsibilities of being a good driver and later, vehicle owner. I would be considered strange if I remained apathetic towards driving and at 40 still could not drive.

     An adult in this country who does not drive is considered weird or ever irresponsible, but when it comes to taking part in guiding our nation, no one thinks it unusual to leave the politics to the politicians. Something of far greater significance than driving a car is at stake: the fate of our nation. Are you going to leave that to politicians? We need to take the time to educate ourselves about current issues and candidates and than apply that knowledge so that we can take back our portion of this nation's steering wheel.

     We are the sentinels of liberty. Liberty is a gift given to us through more than two centuries of bloodshed. Lincoln expressed our duty, as the people, in the Gettysburg Address when he so poignantly said, "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."