An awful lot of people who generally argue for freedom against statism take up the argument that America is actually a republic and not a democracy. They are usually cagey about why they want to make this distinction, but the underlying motivation seems to be that they want to condemn the excesses of democracy.
I want to point out that many people I admire, including 2004 LP presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, have argued their claim that America is a republic. I believe even Ron Paul has made this argument, although I don't remember exactly where I've seen his comment on the matter.
Missing from the usual presentations is a certain degree of balance. For instance, I have yet to see a republican proponent point out that the word republic in Greek translates to dimokratia which is also their word for democracy. The relationship between a republic and a democracy is a lot closer than republicans want to admit.
Also, the focus of the republican argument is usually aimed at the national government of the United States. Because the president is actually selected by the Electoral College, and because representatives in Congress vote on laws and policies, the republican argument is that these prove that our country is a republic and not a democracy.
This is wrong-headed. First, our country is neither a republic nor a democracy. Rather, it is a hybrid of the two, a republican democracy, or a democratic republic (take your pick). Second, indirect election of leaders is not an inherent characteristic of a republic. In both some early republics and some modern republics the head of state was or is not selected by election and does not have to stand for reelection, which are clearly anti-freedom stances. Wikipedia's article on republics has an illuminating paragraph on this point:
Republics can be led by a head of state that has many of the characteristics of a monarch: not only do some republics install a president for life, and invest such president with powers beyond what is usual in a representative democracy, examples such as the post-1970 Syrian Arab Republic show that such a presidency can apparently be made hereditary. Historians disagree when the Roman Republic turned into Imperial Rome: the reason is that the first Emperors were given their head of state powers gradually in a government system that in appearance did not originally much differ from the Roman Republic.
Indeed, Plato's concept of philosopher kings governing a society, as laid out in his dialogue, The Republic, portrays a society which Karl Popper in his 1945 book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, showed clearly that Plato's idealized state serves effectively as a forerunner to modern totalitarianism! No democracy is needed by a republic in order to achieve this dubious honor.
I don't know what the driving motivation is behind those who insist on calling America a republic and not a democracy, but I suspect that partisanship may be behind it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the two major parties in this country are called Republican and Democratic. I think that those who argue for the distinction see themselves as republicans whose party has betrayed them and who hope to see the Republican party return to what they view as its roots. If that's the case, then they should make clear that their purpose is partisan and not merely intellectual.
The biggest weakness I see in the emphasis on republicanism is the implicit (and untrue) implication that if we as a country were only to pay more reverence to the implied virtues of republics, we would be better off. The evidence speaks quite clearly to the opposite view. Executive orders, for instance, are a clear example of republican ruling in action. How many of us have pointed out the inherent anti-freedom characteristics of so many of the executive orders signed by George W. Bush while he was in office? Yet, many of those who decry those orders also applaud their republican nature. How those people can ignore the totalitarian side of republicanism is beyond me.
It's also beyond me how republicans can so easily ignore the inherent elitism and class-based structure of republican governance at the same time that they lambast the notion of democracy. The rich have clearly shown that they are ill-equipped to govern, yet who but the rich would govern in any republic, whether a pure republic or a democratic-republic? Yes, even in democratic-republics the tendency for the rich to rule is overwhelming. Yet, republicans are mute on the subject. They are so focused on the evils of democracy that they can't see the even greater evils of republicanism.
I suggest that they need to spend a lot less time focusing on the virtues of republicanism and a lot more time focusing on the evils of big government, without trying to constantly blame big government primarily on Democrats. Such a refreshing change in position would be good for the entire freedom movement.
©2009 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Last modified: Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Walt Thiessen of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Walt Thiessen |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Gary
Date: 2009-02-11 07:01:54
This is a big thumbs up article Walt and you've opened a line of debate that needs to be discussed and understood. One comment that sets the tone for the debate is; "Rather, it is a hybrid of the two, a republican democracy, or a democratic republic (take your pick)" Actually, my understanding of the initial results of the rules for governing outlined in the Constitution was a hybrid of three; federalism, republicanism, and democracy.
Hamilton argued for life terms for both the president and senators with the president selecting governors. This nationalist approach gives great insight into the debates among three groups identified in Luther Martin's (from Maryland) record of the deliberations. Hamiltonian monarchists (clinging to the British model), Madisonian nationalists (who would form a coalition with the monarchists as the two were not as far apart in principles as those favoring nationalism would admit), and many who favored federalism that would strengthen the national government beyond the Articles of Confederation but still hold to the sovereignty of the states. (In typical political marketing the group we identify as Federalists were actually nationalists and those we identify as Anti-Federalists were actually federalists.)
In our partisan politics of the day I found your presentation of Democrats and Republicans interesting. One can study history and see those favoring federalism mixed with aspects of republicanism and democracy won the early debate. However, monarchists and nationalists would see an evolution more closely resembling their favored approaches. If there is to be an argument for pure forms of republicanism or pure forms of democracy being our preferred method both must caveat the inherent dangers of either form of government. When there are calls for a restoration of our roots where is the voice that asks for the hybrid of what one 1820s political cartoon showed to be the 3 pillars; federalism, republicanism, and democracy?
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-02-11 07:25:44
Hi Walt,
Usually communication is better served by a clear definition of terms. I found this article to be the opposite; it was aimed at blurring relevant distinctions and thus, disserve communication. In this I can't fathom your purpose.
I think you avoided a few specific words that would have helped frame your position. First, the word "pure". Most people who use the word democracy do not distinguish between a pure democracy and a system that employs democratic processes with specific limits. Pure democracy is generally what one who is distinguishing between a Republic and a Democracy is alluding to. Pure democracy is nothing more than tyranny by the majority with no recourse or protection for anyone who is on the minority side of a vote. There isn't even a hint of the notion of checks and balances in the paradigm of pure democracy.
The second word you managed to avoid, a good trick when discussion the very foundation of our society, is "Constitutional". The question of Republic versus pure Democracy isn't a fad, or a matter of opinion, "Republican form of government" is guaranteed by the US Constitution; it is an very precise phrase. Again, the word "pure" is missing. Your article ignores the word "pure" when you mention democracy but strongly implies the word when you refer to Republic/Republican.
Your article removes these words so you can argue from a lofty, abstract linguistic point of view. I find it just as ridiculous when you do it as when Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn does it. Why not examine why our Constitution was crafted to specifically avoid the notion of "pure" democracy? Why not ask why our nation's founders guaranteed to the States a Republican form of government?
Do you think it was a coincidence? Do you think they really meant Democracy not Republican but they couldn't tell the difference because that linguistic word-root nonsense you brought up confused the colonial leaders simple unenlightened minds? Too bad you weren't there to help those poor fools.
Big government is the goal of government. It doesn't matter the philosophy of the individuals who embody that government or what words or word roots can be used to describe the government. The trend towards big government is a constant fact that defenders of liberty must never cease their opposition to.
I'd suggest if you want to debate the nature of the US government you start with the document where it is defined, not toss that out and go back to some academic or philosophic treatment of some of the words in that constitution. Our government is NOT defined by ancient Greek or Latin word roots. The government of the USA is defined by the US Constitution.
My question to you is what would motivate you to totally ignore the immediate, relevant definitions still in force, at least nominally, in the US Constitution and cause you to go to what I view as a nonsensical, navel gazing muddlement of the obvious that the likes of Chomsky and Zinn are so fond of?
Word tricks, blurred meaning and contextual abstractions do not change a single aspect of the real world. Irrelevant navel gazing is all I can say to describe such tactics. In the real world, governments, unchecked by their citizens, grow and grow in ways that tend to reduce the potential for citizens to continue checking them.
The struggle for the defense of individual liberty doesn't depend on word-roots or ignoring the definitions of those words that are in force today. That struggle must continue regardless of the words you prefer to define the opposition.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-02-11 08:48:35
I don't think there's anything to be gained by using the word "pure" where the word democracy is concerned simply because I've never heard of a "pure" democracy in history. So I think you're really grasping at straws, Jahfre, by trying to say that I was blurring distinctions. To the contrary, I think I made distinctions that are rarely acknowledged by those who argue for republicanism. It's the republicans who blur distinctions by claiming that democratic republics are actually "pure" (to use your word) republics.
I didn't go out of my way to avoid the word Constitutional. Rather, I don't believe that the word is as germaine to the debate as you seem to suggest. A constitution is nothing more and nothing less than a document created by a group of delegates to a convention sent by elected representatives. If there is a better description of a democratic-republican style of government creation than a constitutional convention, I don't know what it is. While the U.S. Constitution does indeed guarantee a republican form of government to the states, it does not guarantee said government to the nation. Nor does it define what is meant by republican. If we take the Constitution as its written as a definition of the word by example, then clearly the word republican as it is used should really be understood as republican-democratic, since the Constitution does not describe a perfect republic sans democracy.
If you're going to accuse someone of blurring distinctions, you should avoid such blurring yourself. I can see that you are determined not to discuss the totalitarian side of republicanism.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-02-11 09:17:26
Gary: Thanks for the big thumbs up.
I neglected to address your question: "When there are calls for a restoration of our roots where is the voice that asks for the hybrid of what one 1820s political cartoon showed to be the 3 pillars; federalism, republicanism, and democracy?"
I didn't choose to include federalism into my article because I think we have enough to do just contrasting republicanism with democracy, as Jahfre's comment shows. However, I will say this about federalism...it has been a decided disappointment, at best. Nor can I say that I agree with the sentiment of the 1820s cartoon you cited. The federalism vs republican issue was still hot at that time. Just because Jefferson was no longer president (and hadn't been for quite some time) and just because Hamilton was long dead at that point doesn't mean the debate had disappeared. To the contrary, it had refocused at that time on an issue we can appreciate today: the role of government in banking and currency issuance. The founding of the Second Bank of the United States in 1816 created a turmoil of inflation and monetary creation that we would recognize today. By the time of the 1820 cartoon, the economy had already gone through panics and devastation due to the currency creation and manipulation by the Second Bank of the United States. It took the election of Jackson (a widely recognized republican/Jeffersonian and a slave holder) to finally shed the light of day on that central bank and the damage it inflicted on the economy, even as the Jackson administration continued to shore up the institution of slavery.
Come to think of it, it's pretty hard to identify a better example of the problems of republicanism than the Jackson administration, because it clearly showed that republicanism is simultaneously a curse and blessing.
Posted By: gene
Date: 2009-02-11 09:23:32
Excellent article Walt. It is the combination of both that attempts to bring balance to the system. My view is we are actually far less democratic than we should be. Would we be in better shape if we could vote for the cabinet or the Fed? or maybe vote some offices out? And we definately have experienced a slant towards the totalitarian side of republicanism in the last administration!
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-02-11 10:20:07
Gene: Thank you. Would we be better off if our system were more democratic? I don't really see any evidence to support that view. Certainly, republican advocates would reject it, and rightfully so in my opinion. HL Mencken was quite correct when he wrote, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
This is why I think the emphasis should be on big government vs small government rather than republican vs democracy. I think we should be looking at ways of placing even more limits on government than the U.S. Constitution and the various state constitutions currently place. I think we need to place more emphasis on rights and take emphasis away from delegated or assigned power.
If we adopted the idea that governments need to be less powerful than they are, then we'd be on the right road...away from totalitarianism.
Posted By: Gary
Date: 2009-02-11 22:58:02
The point of the cartoon was the very debate you discuss. By creating a hybrid government of these three components many initially believed it would help achieve the goal of a more perfect union while protecting from the negatives and building on the positives of each of the three. The cartoon shows how the debate raged on as two were attempting to pull down federalism and democracy while Washington gazed from the clouds trying to warn against it. There was another cartoon in 1820 ran in Europe showing King Jackson which indicates some level of understanding of what republicanism alone can lead to. Quite the example indeed. I'm in the middle of 'American Lion' which so far reaffirms my beliefs in the Jacksonian era.
The more I study the more I believe the real downward spiral began when the compromise was struck in the form of the Constitution. It seems the protection from tyrannical abuse would have been better under the Articles of Confederation. I have spent the past three decades attempting to embrace the foundational meaning of the Constitution and supporting a restoration of the core principles. This effort has lead me full circle to a view I am just starting to explore; were the Articles of Confederation superior rather than inferior to the Constitution that ultimately replaced them? If so it would seem to be a better argument to restore our government to that point rather than with an arbitrary point within the changes to the Constitution. After all, it was penned with the idea of it chaining government and it has failed in that endeavor. Our policies have helped the failure, no doubt. Especially the unification of the judicial and executive branches. The judiciary was to be the least feared among the three branches UNLESS it were to merge with one of the other branches at which time tyranny was likely to evolve. How different our debates today would be were the Articles of Confederation remained the rules for federal level government to operate by.
Posted By: the original jason
Date: 2009-02-12 01:37:28
Gary,
"...[The constitution] was penned with the idea of it chaining government and it has failed in that endeavor."
a piece of paper can't make someone do something- likewise, it cannot fail to do so. that is our failure. over the last, say 150 years, we have continually failed to raise enough hell to force the government down the trail we would choose for ourselves.
jason
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-02-17 09:08:45
Gary: I agree with you about the whole thing going downhill from the day the Constitution was created. It has too many loopholes in it, too much power given to the Federal government, too much protection of powers to the state governments. This might not have been the intention of those who supported it, but it's the undeniable result.
Posted By: Joseph
Date: 2009-02-19 15:34:17
Walt, I disagree with you on many points.
Pure democracy is also known as direct democracy (I believe there's even a Wiki-page for it), and I agree with the above comment from Jahfre. As children we learned that we pledge allegiance to the Republic, that the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government and that each state is a Republic - like my wonderful home state, the Republic of Texas.
Notice that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution do not mention democracy. By choice? By chance? As our founding fathers were among some of the brightest thinkers in history, I believe the answer is the former.
Does our Republic have many similarities with a democracy? Sure. Do we utlize a democratic process? Sure! I think this is why many people think that our form of government is actually a "hybrid". Some call it dual federalism. Both miss the point.
This is due, largely, to the fact that our American form of government - Republican in nature - is different from Republics of the past. As such, an appeal to historic republics is moot.
Our forefathers set up a Constitutional Republic, which is why Jahfre believed it was necessary to point out your avoidance of this very important distinction. Each Republic state has a Constitution, which is a charter that incorporates the state government and conveys power and authority from We the People to the state government. The Constitution of the united States is a charter of the union of States, which incorporates the federal government and conveys power and authority from We the People through the States to the federal government.
Every elected official swears an oath to protect and defend the charter that gives them authority and power. Thus the Constitution is central to any meaningful discussion regarding the government of the united States of America. It erects the framework for our Constitutional Republic and severely limits government to protect the individual rights of men.
It is true that this distinction has been muddied and many can no longer see a difference between republic and democracy. This is further compounded by the two-party system we have, which often have nothing to do with their namesake form of government. The corporate-controlled media is really awful about portraying our nation as a democracy and that it is, therefore, our moral obligation to help spread democracy around the world! The problem is, Americans are inclined to believe these misrepresentations.
Many of our forefathers would be appalled!
The most important distinction between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy (to be understood as a pure or direct democracy) rests in the notion of the sovereign. I wrote more about that on my blog, if you are interested: http://withonebreath.wordpress.com.
Thanks for the read.
Posted By: Joseph
Date: 2009-02-20 08:43:32
By the way, I agree with you that an ugly side of republicanism can be totalitarianism. Although I love Plato and The Republic is one of my favorite classics, Plato's idea of the Philosopher King and the Guardians is certainly totalitarian in nature.
I think this is clearly evident in the way the Republican party runs politics in Washington today (and for many years). Many Republicans lean towards totalitarianism and fascism - a scary fact that George W. Bush made all too real during his two terms.
Likewise, those on the Democrat side tend to lean towards socialism. Obama is a good embodiment of this. He wants social program after social program, paid for by all taxpayers. This mortgage bailout is a case in point. We'll all be paying for other people's bad notes.
In my opinion, both parties should be closely watched to ensure that neither extreme (socialism - totalitarianism) results.
In my opinion - In our country today, we're teetering on the brink of both.
Posted By: Jim
Date: 2009-03-13 11:49:04
This is a rather inane and clumsy attempt to defend the prepostorous notion that the government created int he US. Consitution by the Founding Fathers was in fact a democaracy. I have yet to read any knowledgable individual on the far right, Patriot movement, Freedom movement, (insert whatever term you may want to use) who claim that America is a pure republic.
Most commentators carefully point out that our government was intended by the Founders to be a "Constituional Republic" (despite the attempts of the left to hide, and subvert this intention). Mr. Thiessen is correct in statig that there were and are many forms of republics. However, the Founders were very clear that they intended to form a constitional republic so stating exccesses or weaknesses of other forms of republics in the article has no bearing.
Furthermore Mr. Thiessen's comments concerning the linkage of the original Greek word for democaracyand republic is equally useless to the discussion on the relative merits of constitutional republics and democracies. I do not dispute the linkage of the words but the Founding fathers had clear meanings of the words "democaracy" "republic," and "constititional republic" in mind when they crafted the Constitution. These arguements are clearly laid out in the Federalist Papers. Relying on an ancient greek definition of the words "republic" and "democracy" has no bearing on the use of words now and during the period of the founding and smacks of intellectual chicanery.
I also believe Mr. Thiessen misses the boat when he argues that our government is a hybrid of a democaracy and republic. What our government has become and what it was intended to be by those who created it are two entirely different entities. The point is that the federal government, aided and abetted by coprporations and big businesses, and activelly assisted by their co-conspirators in crime the black robed Supreme Court justices, have perverted the original intent and all but destroyed the Constitution. Since this Constitution, with its carefully crafted division of powers, and its system of checks and blances served as the ultimate bulwark against intrusion into individual and states rights, its demise is all the more alarming for individual citizen.
Also alarming is Mr. Thiessens assertion that executive orders are "clear example of republican ruling in action." Perhaps in the republics that Mr. Thiessen describes this is true. However, if we had maintained the constitional republic as the founders intended that these executive orders would and should not exist. Indeed, if the suppossed guardians of the Constition, the above fore mentionned Supreme Court justicses had been correctly interpreting the Constitution instead of playing partisian politics and legislating from the bench for the last 100 years or so we would not find ourselves increasingly governed by executive decree.
No system of government is beyond repreoach but the "consitutional republic" as created by the founders was the highest form of government yet attained on this planet. It did avoid the problems of "mobocracy" and "the tyranny of the majority" that Mr. Thiessen alludes to; a situation that invariably occurs whenn democaracy goes unchecked by law. It is our Constitution that prevents "the tyrany of the majority" from subverting our unalienable rights. It is a shame that we the citizens of this country have allowed that form of government to become the perversion that it is today.
Mr. Thiessen aslo seems to be usig the tried and true tactics of divide and conquer when he asserts that an "inherent elitism and class-based structure of republican governance." Way to stir up class animosity. Yes I do agree that in our present perverted system of governance the upper classes dominate. It is also equally true that this same arguement can be used against the democracies that Mr. Thiessen seems to be advocating. Also rememeber that in the Founder's original concept, virtuous "disinterested" (used in its 18th century context) would set aside private pusuits, serve the republic for a term or two, and then reurn to private life. Remember that many famous American's came from humble roots, Alexander Hamilton, Davy Crocket, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln all rose humble origins. We the people have allowed the upper classes of society to dominate government and by asserting our individual and state's rights, and by restoring the "cosntitutional republic" that Mr. Thiessen has such little taste for we can take control back and rememdy the situation.
Jim in NH
Posted By: Brittany
Date: 2009-09-28 16:33:57
I agree with what your saying that the American government is a democratic republic, but I can't help but notice you single out the Republican party and can't seem to get past attacking them to get to a relative point. Try writing the article without sounding biased and it would be good.