In a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column, You say
Democracy, I say Republic, Bloomberg columnist
Jonathan Bernstein tried to settle the question, is America a Democracy or a
Republic? His conclusion is that America is both, and to say otherwise is an
“assault on knowledge”:
The truth is actually simple: For all practical purposes, and in
most contexts, "republic" and "democracy" are synonyms. The
big difference is that the first comes from Latin and the latter from Greek. To
say that the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, is like claiming to eat beef
and pork but not cows and pigs.
Bernstein goes on to condemn conservatives who
claim that America is a “republic, not a democracy.” In a sense, he’s right
that America is both. But the distinction is still critically important. Which
predominates? I left these comments, slightly edited:
The fundamental question is
not Democracy vs. Republic. The fundamental question is the proper role of
government. Government’s purpose must be established before a discussion of
democracy’s role in a republic can even begin. That is where the Founders
started, recognizing that rights are individual, equal for all, and precede
government, which is then “instituted to secure these rights.” “The People”, as
an association of individuals, creates a government to protect their freedom
and property under objective laws and just procedures. They create a
constitution to prevent their elected officials from becoming the criminals.
American democracy proceeds from that.
Democracy as the standard of governance is unlimited rule
by electoral majority (or its elected representatives). The basic premise of
democracy is that the elected government can do whatever it chooses to do to
whomever it chooses based solely on “the will of the people” as expressed in
election outcomes. This does not conform to the American vision. That vision is
that elected officials are not above the law that private citizens must
observe, simply because they are elected. EG: Just as the private citizen is
not free to rob or force another, so a legislator cannot rob or force, even if
labeled “Social Security” or “Economic Justice.”
Do not confuse democracy fundamentalism with the democratic process in a constitutional republic.
Under American republicanism, democracy’s role is secondary to individual
rights. The standard of governance in America was the protection of individual
rights, not the vote. Any deviation from this hierarchy is unAmerican. Freedom
is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to live your life regardless of
anyone else’s vote, congruent with the same rights of others.
I was encouraged to read the following passage:
What Americans in the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries all have
in common is that at no time has anything other than some form of
democracy/republic gained even a small amount of adherents. Not only has there
never been a serious effort to install a monarchy, - there’s been no interest
in any kind of formal aristocracy, or any national established church that
would have political authority. Even supposedly “undemocratic” portions of
the Constitution, such as the original Senate (chosen by state legislatures),
or the courts, or the Electoral College, are just forms of popular rule, not an
alternative to it.
I emphasized that last sentence. The purpose of
these institutions is not to negate the popular vote, but precisely to restrain
democracy to protect individual rights.
Also, it may be true that “at no time has
anything other than some form of democracy/republic gained even a small amount
of adherents.” But the confusion over the issue is giving credence to the
democratic socialist movement, which springs from the idea that America is a
democracy, not a republic, and therefor voters have the “right” to vote the
country into totalitarian socialism. That would not be possible in a
constitutionally limited republic based on inalienable individual rights.
Bernstein is wrong to brush off the conservative
activists’ claim that “the
U.S. is a ‘republic’ and not a ‘democracy.’” They may not be technically
correct that it’s strictly either/or. Clearly, the Founders meant to integrate
some form of democracy into the republic. But the devil is in the details, and
the details are crucially important.
Related Reading:
The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur
1 comment:
I might go into depth, but this must be a short comment. The U.S. is a republic, of unalienable individual rights. That means unalienable individual rights come first and only, the sole starting point for the central control of human relations by physical power. As such that central control is law and government, not criminal plans and a criminal regime which is the only alternative. A republic of unalienable individual rights cannot and does not allow the slightest mixing of criminal plans and a criminal regime into law and government, or that republic's days are numbered. Within the framework of unalienable individual rights, what is thus government legislates, enforces and interprets rules which are, thus, laws. There is no criminal plan and criminal regime mixed with it. With the republic thus defined and established, we vote on how best to protect, develop and extend it. THAT is democracy, properly speaking, and nothing else is.
Without a republic of unalienable individual rights, all control, central or otherwise, including by 'democracy', of human relations is criminal plan and criminal regime, even if some who do it don't know or think it is criminal plan and criminal regime.
We must establish that republic. Today, we have, in fact, only am 'democracy' within criminal plan and criminal regime, not, in fact, a republic with real democracy. This 'democracy' will never establish that republic. This 'democracy' cannot be talked or nudged into it. Even if it is educated into wanting to do it, there's only one way.
But that republic must be established. Since 'we', meaning all of us, won't do it, some of us, sometime, will anyway. The some of us who do, will establish and ratify it with a unanimous vote, and will be the citizens of that republic and, within that republic, will begin carrying on democracy. All others will be aliens to be dealt with reasonably, which will include, up front, the offer of naturalization. All this can work. The way is in the details and the details show the way.
Post a Comment