In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.” Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” Why We Are a Republic, Not a Democracy - Intellectual Takeout The question the article opens with is an interesting one. Do people champion democracy because they hate the constitution or is it because they are ignorant of it?
As they say, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. But I'm curious about two things: What previous failed democracies was Adams referring to? Had there been many attempts at pure democracy? And, Plank, is there a reason for starting that thread today? Anything new going on there?
I found an article, and I thought it was interesting given the buzzword that democracy has become along with the push to abolish the EC we’ve seen in recent years. Nothing more or less than that.
I think you should be able to understand why there's some opposition to the Electoral College. Why should Wyoming voters have four or five times more power than, for example, a California voter? And if you did away with the EC, that wouldn't eliminate the republic and make us a pure democracy, would it?
I would lean more towards ignorance of the constitution. Many are aware of the constitution and can relate part and partial bits and pieces of it when their ox is being gored. They may even understand the history and why the constitution was drafted and agreed upon. In the end everyone understands it is the end all be all document of the nation which is meant to limit the powers of government over their personal lives. In short it keeps the government in check over tyrannical / majority rule. Other than that I would venture to say a majority have not read or even care to read the constitution. By and large they are more than content to let others do that for them.
Interesting question and the answer in my opinion is what may seem right and proper for larger states would not be right and proper for others. Concerning republic versus democracy why is it the mantra is our democracy is at stake instead of our republic is at stake?
The timing on these threads is always fascinating. When they are winning, they champion democracy, when they are losing, they shift to the republic side of our democratic republic.
‘We're a republic, not a democracy’: The origin of a weird talking point According to Columbia University research scholar Nicole Hemmer, the “republic, not a democracy” argument originated with conservatives in the 1930s who wanted to prevent the country from joining the Second World War. Roosevelt’s call for America to defend democracy drew a conservative response that “we’re not a democracy, we are a republic.” Conservatives revived the argument in the mid-1960s after the codification of civil and voting rights legislation and following federal government efforts to desegregate schools. “It goes back to the ‘republic, not a democracy’ chants from the 1964 Republican convention,” said Hemmer. “Conservatives rejected the one-person-one-vote standard of the Warren Court, a set of arguments deeply entangled with their opposition to the Black civil rights movement.” So the argument that the United States is not a democracy originated with conservative thinkers who wanted to shrink the pool of decision-makers in the country and preserve the influence of two rapidly-shrinking majorities that just happen to form the conservative base. It has always been an argument against majority rule, against the voice of the people having an influence in political choices. As White Christians, the core of the Republican Party, continue to shrink as a percentage of the national headcount, these arguments become even more desperately attractive. “We’re a republic, not a democracy” is nonsensical along the lines of, “A collie is a dog, not an animal.” The United States is both a republic and a democracy. American political power ultimately rests with the people, who elect representatives to carry out their will. The system is inherently majoritarian, and the founders intended it to be. It is not a direct democracy, but that isn’t the distinction this conservative shell-game is making.
Yeah the whole thing is really a distinction without much difference. We are best defined as a representative democracy. A pure democracy is only practical in a very small area. That said, we are still a pure democracy sometimes. Ballot initiatives for instance.
Yes, the two words have different meanings. In modern parlance they get used interchangeably. We never had a pure democracy, that was never the goal. To quote Franklin:" we have a republic, if you can keep it". THAT is what is at stake. A republic, which is a historical aberration or some kind of authoritarian arrangement that has the trappings of a republic?
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
The constitution is large anti-democratic yes. Fortunately we’ve since added a modicum of democratic elements that authoritarian types want to strip away whether by legalism or violence.
People promote the idea that we are not a democracy because they are ignorant of the constitution and anti-democratic. We are a Republican form of government in a federal system. We determine those who serve on the governor by electing them. And voting rights are enshrined in the constitution. This is rooted in history, too— we throw off the crown because of a lack of representation. Those who suggest otherwise are ignorant of the constitution and hate the idea that people who vote contrary to their extremist views actually have a say.
I’m 2-0! I’ll bet you cling to the simplistic notion of democracy = freedom. Convince me that Americans are free.