Senator Mike Lee is Right: America ‘is not a Democracy’

Senator Mike Lee tweeted a fundamental fact about America that should be uncontroversial to all Americans. 

But in an Oct 9, 2020 opinion piece for Business Insider (of all places), John Haltiwanger attacked Lee in classic statist fashion--obfuscation, strawman tactics, and irrelevancies:

Republican Sen. Mike Lee courted controversy this week when he tweeted that "rank democracy" is a threat to American prosperity.

"We're not a democracy," Lee said. "Democracy isn't the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that."

"The word 'democracy' appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic," Lee added. "To me it matters. It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few."

Now how does Haltiwanger respond?

The Utah Republican's tweets on the matter are linked to a long history of Republicans rejecting the notion that the US political system is a democracy. The GOP's objection to calling the US a democracy is tied to the fact Republicans have reason to fear a system in which a majority of Americans have more say. The Republican party's platform is increasingly at odds with the perspectives of most voters on an array of issues. 

The first sentence is true. But it is misleading. It implies that America was Founded as a Democracy,* and that Republicans are the reactionaries. But this is reversed. In its original ideals, America was Founded to protect “Certain Unalienable Rights . . . to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” “Unalienable” means inherent to each individual, not to be taken away by anyone under any circumstances--including by majority vote. The primacy of liberty, not democracy, defines Americanism.

This does not sit well with aspiring authoritarians, including criminal socialists. The Democratic Party has a long history of radically reinterpreting America as a nation that puts democracy over individual rights. First to defend slavery, then to defend Jim Crow segregation laws, then to defend welfare state programs and now to pave the road to democratic socialism. All of this agenda involves precisely what the Founders, and what constitutional republicanism, is designed to thwart--the violation of individual rights by elected government officials. 

Here is a sampling of what Democracy unconstrained by constitutional protections for individual rights looks like:

• Slavery was protected by laws enacted by elected representatives--Democracy.

• Jim Crow laws were enacted by elected representatives--Democracy

• The 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson that institutionalized the legally forced segregation of blacks was decided bySupreme Court judges who were nominated and confirmed by elected representatives--Democracy.

• Welfare state forced “redistribution” of wealth by law, something that if done privately would land an individual in jail for armed robbery, is carried out by elected representatives--Democracy.

• The end of the Democratic Party’s long-sought reinterpretation of America’s Founding is now in sight; the forced subjugation of an entire society under democratic socialism by elected, self-described socialist politicians--Democracy. The Democrats’ increasing turn toward democratic socialism brings them full circle to their original designs, slavery, which was defended by Confederate intellectuals like George Fitzhugh on socialist grounds.

• The Nazis in Germany, fascists in Italy, and socialists in Venezuela all came to power democratically. The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics was designed for rule by democratically elected “workers councils''. All devolved into totalitarian states.

This is what the primacy of democracy over liberty looks like. 

These are some of the most egregious rights-violating laws that must be accepted if one truly believes that America is a Democracy. The Founders recognized that an elected legislature can trample an individual’s freedom as surely as can a King or any other tyrant can. A constitutional republic has a healthy dose of democracy, but a democratic process limited by constitutional protection of unalienable individual rights. Democracy unconstrained by individual rights is a totalitarian state. This is what Haltiwanger evades. This is what Haltiwanger (unwittingly?) aims for.

Haltiwanger claims that “The GOP's objection to calling the US a democracy is tied to the fact Republicans have reason to fear a system in which a majority of Americans have more say.” “More say” over what? Is the majority’s “say” unlimited? In a Democracy, it is. I don’t know about the GOP. But we all “have reason to fear” a system in which a majority has say without limits. Only a constitutional republic can define the limits of power in the hands of the elected few . . . or a voting many.

Haltiwanger then states a total irrelevancy: “The Republican party's platform is increasingly at odds with the perspectives of most voters on an array of issues.” Again, we see a switch. The GOP platform is not the issue, much as Haltiwanger would like it to be. The issue is the proper structure of government. Once again, Haltiwanger evades—and then falls back on the grand weapon of all evaders—public opinion, as if a majority can’t be wrong or in need of education and facts.

Haltiwanger’s final evasion was this:

But Lee's portrayal of democracy as something that can hinder progress in the US could also be viewed in a more chilling light given the Republican senator is an ally of a president who has rapidly eroded democratic norms during his tenure and is actively working to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

President Donald Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, for example, and has essentially called for his political rivals to be jailed. The president has baselessly claimed that the election is "rigged" against him as he trails former Vice President Joe Biden in the polls. Trump's behavior has mirrored that of authoritarians, and alarmed historians and scholars of democracy.

Here, Haltiwanger makes the issue of Democracy vs. constitutional republicanismism about Donald Trump. Yes, Trump has authoritarian tendencies. But he is the product of the increasing authoritarianism and related erosion of individual rights over the past Century that is the consequence of the increasingly dangerous acceptance by Americans that their nation is a Democracy. 

The question that Haltiwanger evades is this: Is America about the primacy of democracy, or the primacy of liberty? (He’ll answer that later.)

One problem with Lee’s tweets is his use of the term "rank" to describe Democracy, and Haltiwanger relies on that formulation to accuse Mike Lee of opposing voting rights. I had never heard the adjective “rank” applied to Democracy, and I couldn’t find any definition of it that fits with political philososphy (which is what this discussion is about). Apparently, I’m not the only one that is confused. Another writer, Lee Davidson for The Salt Lake Tribune, reported:

One tweet that especially created a firestorm on social media was: “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.”

So, “rank democracy” can thwart liberty, peace and prosperity?

When Lee’s spokesperson, Conn Carroll, was asked if Lee could explain his thinking, Carroll simply pointed to a quote from James Madison in Federalist Papers No. 10, one in a collection of essays written to promote ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

“Democracies,” it says, "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.”

But no mention of “rank.” Lee’s confusing terminology is unfortunate. At least Davidson gave Senator Lee a chance to clarify his position. No so Haltiwanger, who preferred to assume the worst for purposes of framing Lee’s remarks for his own agenda.

Rather than interview Lee for elaboration, Haltiwanger goes on the attack against Lee, by proxy:

People on social media quickly took aim at Lee’s comments, especially the tweet saying that “rank democracy” threatens liberty, peace and prosperity. They turned #rankdemocracy into a popular hashtag.

Among them was Steve Schmidt, a Republican political strategist public who worked with President George W. Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

He tweeted, “The attainment of liberty, peace and prosperity can only be achieved through democracy. This isn’t an abstract, academic argument that @SenMikeLee is making. It is the authoritarian argument in a nutshell. Astonishing statement from a United States Senator. It would be fun to run against this guy. Someone should think about it.” [sic]

Authoritarian? You want authoritarian? If your liberty, peace, or prosperity is in the crosshairs of the next election, your single lonely vote will not save you. Democracy will not save your private health insurance if the democratic socialists, with their Medicare-for all scheme, gain power. Democracy will have done you in. Only a proper democracy-limiting, individual rights-protecting constitution, and a court system willing to hold the legislature’s feet to the constitutional fire, will save you. Haltiwanger himself quoted Lee’s unequivocal refutation of authoritarianism a couple of paragraphs prior:

Lee . . . also tweeted, “Government is the official use of coercive force — nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution protects us by limiting the use of government force.”

Limiting the use of government force is the very tool that constitutional republics use to prevent authoritarianism. But Haltiwanger ignores that elephant in the room, plowing ahead with his proxy misrepresentations:

Suzanne Attix tweeted, “Senator, who do you define as ‘rank’? People who don’t support corruption? People who want a POTUS who’s every utterance is not a lie engineered to preserve his own power? People who care about human decency & the welfare of all people?”

So Lee is for corruption, for a lying POTUS, and against human decency and the welfare of all. I guess Lord Action was wrong: Absolute power doesn’t corrupt after all. I suppose unlimited government will guarantee the welfare of all--by removing our constitutional protections of our liberty rights! 

“Mmmkay” added, “This is what we’re up against now, Utah. Lee actively attacking Democracy. Mike Lee would rather have ‘prospefity’ than democracy. I’d love to see @SpencerJCox get some courage on this and call it out.” [sic]

This is what passes for intelligent rebuttal in Haltiwanger’s mind. Lee attacked Democracy, not the democratic process, which is integral to a constitutional republic. This is what happens when context is ignored, as Haltiwanger and his social media mob are doing.

The quotes from social media, Haltiwanger’s go-to source for expertise, go on, concluding with “Wheelman” saying “Rank democracy can thwart elitism, cronyism, and selective freedoms that exalt the few over the people.” Does he not know that democracy unconstrained by constitutional protections for individual rights, Lee's "rank democracy," leads straight to the exalting of the many over the few -- and the one -- and that that is exactly what is wrong with Democracy? 

A constitutional republic does not allow any exalted—that is, authoritarianism. Let's examine the phrase "selective freedoms that exalt the few over the people.” Constitutional republicanism is not about "selected freedoms," or about the "few." It is about the individual—the equal rights ; "selected", or unalienable, rights -- of all individuals. Constitutional republicanism is about, not the few, but, yes, the one over "the people” -- the one over the collective might of the mob or majority, even if the majority is everyone other than you. Your lone vote doesn't amount for anything in a Democracy. But your lone rights are paramount in a constitutional republic.

If Lee were asked by Haltiwanger, he would likely explain that voting rights count, but that individual rights are hierarchical. The rights to life, liberty and property are crucial to individual human life, flourishing, and happiness--prosperity. That’s why the Declaration of Independence cites these rights as unalienable, and prior to government. Constitutional republicanism limits, but does not preclude, democracy. Yes, voting is vital to the democratic process. But to protect liberty, the right to vote is and necessarily must be subordinate to and derivative from the certain unalienable rights of all individuals. . The difference between a Democracy and a constitutional republic is that in a Democracy, the vote is primary. In a constitutional republic, American style, liberty is primary. That’s why in a Democracy, the government’s power is unlimited, and anything the elected elites choose to do goes. In a Democracy, the majority, through its representatives, can vote away the rights of any minority, right up to and including looting, enslaving, silencing dissenters, or even killing.

Haltiwanger and his democratic ilk know this, and seek to protect the authoritarian power of the state. In conclusion, Haltiwanger let’s the cat out of the bag:

Jonathan Chait wrote in the Intelligencer magazine online, “Lee is articulating a view that has long been in vogue on the American right but which Republican politicians were generally hesitant to express openly. The premise is that liberty is a higher value than democracy, and they define liberty to mean a right to property that precludes redistribution.”

He added, “That is to say, the far right does not merely view progressive taxation, regulation and the welfare state as impediments to growth, but as fundamentally oppressive. A political system that truly secured freedom would not allow the majority to gang up on the minority and redistribute their income for themselves.”

Precisely. And this view was in vogue at the founding. And unlike today’s Republican politicians, the Founders were not hesitant to express it openly. The Founding Fathers did not constitutionally authorize the government to redistribute wealth because they understood it as criminal, and sought to subordinate the majority and the government to the same moral law that individuals must live by. A constitutional republic is designed to protect minorities—starting with the smallest minority, the individual—from an exalted few and from a majority mob.

Contra Steve Schmidt, The attainment of liberty, peace and prosperity can not be achieved through Democracy. Democracy is a grave threat to liberty, peace, and prosperity. You can have none of those if your rights to life, liberty, and property are subject to removal or infringment at every election. Before you can have fair and just democracy, individual rights must be secured. 

It is the democracy crusaders who are the reactionaries. They are socialists. They value democracy over liberty because the opposing view stops socialism--criminal socialism--dead in its tracks. Of course they don’t want to protect property and prosperity from democracy: They want to control it, and/or steal it. Of course they don’t want to protect liberty: They want to control your economic affairs. And like all authoritarian socialists, they want the “legitimacy” of elections to justify their power. To anyone who respects the rights of others, Senator Mike Lee is right and should be heeded. To literally save America, we need to recapture the meanings and differences between a Democracy and a constitutional republic, and choose the latter. As I said in my published letter to the New Jersey Star-Ledger on July 19, 2019:

America was founded on the principles of inalienable individual rights, the purpose of which was, in large part, to shield our freedom from democracy.

 

The democratic process in our constitutionally limited republic should not be confused with democracy. The founding generation did not fight a risky, bloody Revolutionary War for Independence to secure the mere right to vote. Voting had been around for millennia, including in the colonies. They revolted to protect our individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from all tyranny, not to switch subordination of our liberties from the mercy of a King to the whims of the vote. 

 

The “principles of Democracy” and the principles of a free society are not the same thing. As the Founders well understood, freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to live one’s life and pursue one’s chosen values regardless of the outcome of any election.

*[To distinguish between unlimited Democracy from constitutional republicanism, I use an upper case "D" when referring to the former.]

Related Reading: 

America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters

The 'New American Socialists' Dilemma: The Declaration is as much anti-Socialist as anti-Slavery 

Slavery was defended by Confederate intellectuals like George Fitzhugh on socialist grounds.

The Founders Were Flawed. The Nation Is Imperfect. The Constitution Is Still a 'Glorious Liberty Document.' -- Timothy Sandefur

A Socialist Confirms that the Basics of ‘True’ Socialism is Totalitarianism

Democracy is Democracy

Democracy in Action in Egypt

Rights and Democracy

Constitutional Republicanism: A Counter-Argument to Barbara Rank’s Ode to Democracy

Mesmerized by Elections, the NJ Star-Ledger Forgot that Tyranny is Tyranny

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur

QUORA: ‘Can democracy survive capitalism?’

Don’t Be Suckered by Pete Buttigieg’s ‘Democratic Capitalism’

Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism'

America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It by C. Bradley Thompson