A Remedial Lesson on a Republic Versus Democracy in This Era of Revisionist History – Opinion

Faced with so many people using the term, it is important to remember that this country does not constitute a democracy.

Over the past few years, it has become more than fashionable for Democrats and those in the media to cling tightly to the concept of preserving our “democracy.” It has become an almost knee-jerk invocation when any party-based issue is presented; something either needs to be done, or needs to be blocked, due to “Our democracy is under threat” 

This style of argumentation was reenergized after the Capitol Riots, although it had existed for some time. The Washington Post adopted the catch-phrase, “Democracy is in darknessBack in 2017), in response to Donald Trump’s swearing into office. (And it continues this week, Margaret Sullivan). Resting on this old concept is a mistake.) Trump’s ascendancy was the flashpoint for many on the left to begin not only using the protection of democracy as a mantra but to begin calling for needed changes in our government due to the inability to preserve our way of governing.

Consider the numerous calls to rescind Electoral College. The fact that any person could be elected to the White House while technically being outvoted is unfair. This is where the irony begins. The response to Trump’s rise to the presidency in a populist fashion leads to a demand that we depend on the popular vote. According to the argument, the EC is outdated and no longer relevant today. The argument goes that while the Founders may have been fine-mannered back then, they didn’t really know what they were doing.

The same thinking applies to the Senate’s call for the repeal of the filibuster. It is, again, called “unfair” that the Democrats’ agenda items can be stalled out because they cannot achieve a majority on policies, but this argument has to ignore realities. The Senate has an “even” split, and there are no minor parties. Additionally, this centuries-old practice has never been deemed such a problem before Joe Biden’s arrival. 

AP Photo/Frank Franklin I

Consider the arguments that are being presented Against the filibuster – it is antiquated, unfair, unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and racist (somehow). Remember that the Democrats loved the filibuster right up until 2020. In that same year, the senatorial tool was used by their party Record number of times. In a matter of months it became an unsustainable practice and had to be stopped.

This way of thinking can also be applied to The Senate in all its glory. More voices are being heard because of the frustration inherent in a divided chamber Call to have the limb restructuredOur government. It’s not fair Smaller, less populous states are equal in voting rights. It is difficult to visualize which is greater in these talks: the ignorance or the short-sightedness. Because those who form these ignorant arguments do not realize that their newly restructured governments will one day be in the control of the other party, it is impossible to envision what the outcome would look like.

It’s obvious why they are desperate in calling for these measures. Democrats believe they’re on the verge of winning a large mandate that will allow them to implement their agenda while still having an expiration date. They are aware in the coming months that change is arriving, given the upcoming mid-terms represent the historical opposition party pendulum swing — although polls indicate it may be more like “The Pit and the Pendulum” swing. This has led to a reliance upon a claimed need for democracy preservation.

We can now take a step back and examine this image. These same voices, which claim to be concerned for the integrity and security of the nation as well as maintaining the sanctity our government’s authority, also call for an overhaul of the structure of the government. It is difficult to argue intellectually that it is necessary for institutions to be preserved by revoking a centuries-old tradition, erasing a key concept from the Constitution and degrading one of our arms. This is an emotional response that is undiluted and is grounded in ignorance of the fact that we claim to be a democracy.

White House
Tia Dufour, Official White House Photograph

Many people have heard the argument that social media is a republic, not a democracy. This may sound absurd, but it’s true. Those pushing for change face this with some form of a “Yeah, but…” rebuttal, trying to suggest that the federalist construct is simply a modification of democracy, and that quaint arrangement is outmoded today. It is time to return to democratic principles. This is where their ignorance is on full display because the Founders did not accidentally drift from democracy, nor did they attempt to reform it with a new version of governance – they intentionally sought to avoid a democratic-run nation.

The first evidence I’ll use to get their attention comes from the Broadway star, Alexander Hamilton. He spoke at the Constitutional Convention and stated that many of the Founders intended for it to be a republic to prevent falling prey the pitfalls that a real democracy would bring.

Right now, we’re forming the Republican form of government. Moderate governments and not the extremes are where real liberty can be found. To be too pro-democracy we will quickly end up in a monarchy and/or another type of dictatorship.

This is a possible scenario for popular voting. Californians have a daft policy on environmental issues that must be adopted at a national level. Many people living in Democratic cities aren’t well versed in agrarian reality and they agree with this party idea. The party idea is rejected by those states that have too many farms and less people who see the impact this policy has on agriculture. However, they are outvoted in a democratic alliance. In this way, people can begin to have an impact on the country’s food supply. This is why a equally weighted Senate helps to prevent such scenarios.

In his 1801 inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson emphasized this issue. 

In all instances, the will of majority prevails. That will must be reasonable. Minorities have equal rights that equal law must enforce..”

Thomas Jefferson
AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey

Federalist Papers No. This thought was also held by James Madison, before the ratification.

These democracies are, therefore, spectacles of turmoil and contention. They have never been found to be compatible with the rights or personal security of individuals. And their lives have often been just as violent as their demise. 

Madison proved right in no time. For a direct comparison, France experienced its revolution at the exact same time that ours. The country’s commitment to democracy was able to undergo at least 12 changes in its governance system, with three monarchies. The United States maintained its same government throughout all of this.

This order has been maintained by the modulation of a representative government. They did not discover an archaic level of order. It was an intentionally designed framework that prevented imbalanced governance and provided equal voice. The Senate serves as an oversight body to ensure that the majority is not in control. While the House is where the will of the people is heard, the Senate is where the republic’s voice is heard. If the majority wants to exercise control, the Senate acts as the brake system. 

The real complaint is that those who are complaining are mad at their inability to push the country’s will. Instead of trying to influence the minds of the nation, they want to force an issue. Today, we hear many voices calling for the preservation of democracy. Their solution is to remove all frames which have been there for hundreds of years. 

Notable is the fact that they call their adversaries extremists because of this sudden and massive call to reform our core principles.

About Post Author

Follow Us