Hear the Thunder
columnist: Gary Wood

Topic: U.S. History
We Weren't to be a Democracy!

---

Many are under the false belief we are a democracy or we were suppose to be a democracy. History teaches us this is not true!

---

by Gary Wood
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Ω The what you say? We hear it everyday from someone, "We need to help spread the cause of freedom and democracy around the world," or, "We support the aiding of democracy wherever, whenever, and however possible." This misguided or misdirected rhetoric helps the citizens of this country forget one very important historical concept the United States was founded upon, we were not to be democratic thanks to the history lessons our founding fathers learned. Not only was democracy not their goal, a republic, a monarchy, dictatorship, and hereditary aristocracy were also to be avoided.

Hey, if we aren’t to be a republic why are we then labeling the form of government founded by the U.S. Constitution as a Federalist Republic? Where does this federalist theme come in? Actually, we were not to be a pure federalist system, nor were we to be a pure nationalist system. Although some wanted federalism and some wanted nationalism to firmly set the roots in, either of these types of soil would have alienated entire groups of representatives from the different States. A Federalist Republic actually indicates both the system of interaction between the government and the states as well as the system of ruling or operating the system as a whole between the governing and the governed.

STOP!! What a bowl of noodles that all is...and you will see, it really is and there in rests the concept that what the Constitution of the United States produced was a form of government "...unprecedented under the sun," according to Historian Forrest MacDonald. Just how, then, do we unwind these noodles to see what is in this bowl? Hold on to your hats, here we go.

First thing is separating the two main noodles, the Federalist noodle on the left, and the Republic noodle on the rightt. The debate over how much authority the States should have in this new nation created two camps of philosophy between a system founded on federalism vs. a system founded on nationalism. So, those two will be compared to attempt to discover what ingredients went into the making of that Federalist noodle. The debate over how to rule the country, as a whole, is where the debate raged over creating a Democracy, Monarchy (yes, some thought it best...being British and all), or Republic. Serious consideration was never given to a socialistic dictatorship but we will peek at those as well. Everyone set on that so far? It does get confusing but if you press forward I think it will become clearer, not clear mind you, but clearer.

Ok, let’s tackle the left noodle first, Federalist. In the most basic of definitions federalism and nationalism were the two areas of debate which would ultimately determine the role of the States. To look at each in my view (I encourage you to research more deeply for your interpretation);

Federalism " A unity of States joined together through a centralized Federal Government. Sovereignty is maintained by the States and control of activities within the State borders are the responsibility of the State and those citizens living within the State. The Federal Government is limited in its responsibilities to such matters which impact or affect more than one of the States within the union. States appoint representatives to aid in governing at the Federal level. Citizenship is within the State rather than the Federal level.

Nationalism " A National Government directly governing all citizens living within the nation. The nation is of the utmost importance over any other, outside national interest. The National Government is responsible for all matters within its borders. Within a pure form of National Government different townships and cities will be formed but there is no recognition of a State legislative body or Statehood. All citizens of the nation impact the decisions of the government and the governing oversight is selected directly by the people.

The form of government that was created in Philadelphia in 1787 was neither a pure federalism approach nor a pure nationalism approach. Alexander Hamilton invested the entire body of Federalist Paper No. 39 to outlining how the different areas were influenced either from a federalist approach or a nationalist approach. "The proposed Constitution, therefore, even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both."5

Thus was born the raging debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist during the three year period it took to sell the proposed Constitution to the different States for ratification. The collection of speeches used by both sides has become known as The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. The Federalists had the distinct advantage of being able to point out there were combinations of both nationalism and federalism within their proposal. Cries of potential tyrannous opportunities against the people came loud from the opposing camp. The major argument won by the Anti-Federalist camp was the lack of a Bill of Rights. Later 12 amendments would be proposed and 10 of those would be ratified. Oddly, many of the warnings and concerns of tyranny not corrected in the Bill of Rights can be seen attacking the country today.

Even though the Constitution is not pure federalism the left noodle is called Federalist solely based on the fact we are a United States or a nation built from individual States joined in union to a Federal Government. Thus, we have the first term used in describing the experiment born in 1776, Federalist. There now, don’t you feel better?

Ok, let’s get this right noodle, Republic, figured out. There are many general names used to describe how countries are ruled. Without turning this into a book of its own we are going to briefly look at a monarchy and hereditary aristocracy, dictatorship, socialism (confused with a system of rule), democracy, and republics. Over the centuries there has been a grand mixture of these varying philosophies which go well beyond the scope of this writing yet it is the mixture of democracy and republicanism which causes such confusion in the U.S. today. This mixture is why it is so easy for the politicians to tout how we support democracy around the world and the citizens merely cheer in support as well since it sounds right to our ears.

Monarchy - ruled over by a single king or queen. Holding dominion over the 13 colonies prior to the founding events of the United States was the British Monarch King George III. In a monarchy power usually changes through heredity with no public input into who would rule over them as the people’s king or queen. Citizens are referred more often as subjects since they are subject to the laws of their monarch. However, through nationalist pride the subjects are often extremely loyal to their monarch and their land. This loyalty breaks down if the monarchy imposes too many oppressive laws. Although the country is ruled by the monarch it is well beyond the ability of a single person to control the whole of a country or empire, as was the case of the British Empire, so the king required assistants. This assistance was generally appointed by the monarch and carried a variety of titles such as lord or duke, etc. Once appointed to such a noble position these individuals became a part of an aristocracy within the country. The titles, rights and responsibilities were generally expected to be passed on from generation to generation which is how we obtain hereditary aristocracy as part of the ruling class of a country or empire. Quite! (A bit of a side note, if there is no monarch and the rule is by the hereditary aristocracy then it is known as an Oligarchy)

Dictatorship " in the hopes of not having too many professors of history slap their foreheads in further discuss this form of governing is going to be summed up real simply. A dictator is as powerful as a monarch but there is simply a decision not to use the title of king or queen. A dictatorially ruled country is controlled by a single person and generally rule is enforced with an iron fist. Citizens obey the laws either through nationalistic admiration for their country and ruler or by force from the usually strong policing arm of the dictator. The dictator appoints advisors and officers within his cabinet or ministry to aide in the running of affairs. The voice of the people is of no concern. It is an extremely authoritarian means of rule.

Socialism " often connected in our minds with a dictatorial ruler or the communist approach to government there is a good reason we have this connection. The rule over a socialistic country usually is extremely authoritative, especially if the economic conditions of the citizens becomes heavily depressed which is a common effect in socialist societies. With a socialist society the citizens are basically provided their needs as property and the distribution of wealth are handled by the government, or community. The entire concept was not really a philosophy of consideration during the founding of the United States as its chief voice came in the late 1800s due to the disillusionment of a capitalistic, private ownership approach to economy. We think of socialism as a form of government for whatever reasons however it really is more accurately an economic system. Just as capitalism and private property ownership are part of economics so to is socialism so we need to separate it as such. The confusion is part of the reason many U.S. citizens cannot grasp the fact we are becoming more and more socialistic due to the government control and distribution of a large percentage of personal income earned by the people. Yet if someone were to say we are becoming socialistic, which we are, most are in denial due to the connection with a dictatorial form of government, which we are not becoming. To say we are more a socialistic democracy today than a federalist republic would be a true and accurate statement but many will call a person’s patriotism into question if they dare declare it to be.

Communism " the system U.S. citizens faced off against for much of the time after WWII until the eventual collapse of the U.S.S.R. was believed to be communism. Just as discussed with socialism, communism is actually an economic system where pure control of all assets of the community are equally controlled and distributed by the community. It is a sort of utopian world envisioned by Karl Marx. The means of reaching this nirvana was to be through a shift from capitalism to socialism based on the dictatorial control of the ‘proletariat’ or working class. The path to communism, therefore, is routed through socialism by a dictatorship form of rule. Most of us remember that the U.S.S.R. was the Soviet Union. The actual name of the union was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This union never reached the ultimate end of the evolution of their society, as Marx believed, that of pure communism living equally, happily sharing in all fruits of each citizen’s labors with no private property entanglements or capitalistic greed. It was not reached by the U.S.S.R. nor has it ever been obtained in history, to date.

Once we can accept the fact both socialism and communism belong linked with capitalism as economic systems we can then more easily understand the remaining methods of rule. A final note, the U.S.S.R. was a union so it could be considered federalist and the individual States or countries were termed to be Republics so we could say the Soviet Union was a Federalist Republic. This is where all this mixing of a few different ingredients produces entirely different dishes. Lenin and Stalin (among others) mixed together dictatorship and socialism to produce their version of a Federalist Republic known as the Soviet Union. Jefferson and Hamilton (among others) mixed together democracy and capitalism for our version known as the United States of America. The Soviet Union version lasted 69 years while the USA version lasted 133 years (go ahead, pick your chin up off the floor, you are thinking we still have the USA version but wait until you read the book, 1913: Death of the Federalist Republic: Who Dare Revive the Dead?) All right, enough straying away from the kitchen, lets get back to that right noodle.

Democracy " in its pure form is government rule by those being ruled. Jefferson described it this way. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." He must have been thinking about the Greek origin with the roots of demos, "people," "the mob, the many," and kratos, "rule." History traces democracy as far back as Mesopotamia but the best historical reference of democracy was found in Athens, Greece. To truly describe democracy now is like playing the game where you whisper in your neighbor’s ear and then your message is passed from person to person until the last person has a completely different message but they could still say it originated from you. Even the North Korean constitution claims democracy yet there is little doubt of the totalitarian dictatorship in control of that country.

Democracy is a majority rule philosophy of government. Within a democracy factions can rise to majority status and gain control over the minority. As Jefferson said, this can be as little as a 2% difference, 51% to 49% but in a democracy the 49% would have to follow the rules of the 51%. In a civil society of 100,000 citizens, organized under pure democracy, 49,000 may be quite unhappy while 51,000 tell them to suck it up. This simple fact led the Federalists to observe the following. "Hence it is that such democracies 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."6 Clearly, history had taught the founders if the United States was to survive in peace and prosperity, if inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was to have a chance the United States could not be founded as a democracy.

That being said, we humanoids like to rule over ourselves, the ideals of liberty and freedom rally our hearts and passions. This is why you can no longer clearly define democracy and this is why there are so very many variations on the theme today. This is also why you find it woven into the methods selected for electing representatives, although it was never to be the method of electing all representatives as we are so close to doing today in the United States.

Republicanism " is a method of governing through a division of powers into branches of government, as developed in Rome during the time of the Roman Empire. The initial scheme was based on the creation of a legislative branch, the senate. Senators were prominent citizens who served in the senate for life. The senate selected two of its members to serve as the executive branch for a period of one year, after which they returned to the senate. It was devised after the citizens of Rome deposed their monarchy. After failing to survive in Rome it disappeared for centuries. There were some 16th century philosophers, among them Machiavelli who authored The Prince, yet most applied the form to small city states rather than nations. As we have seen with other forms of government the variations really started to morph the concept of a Republic with many sound aspects being hailed while many of the tyrannical possibilities being assailed as too dangerous to implement.

Modern republic states desired to tie in the philosophy of the people’s rights which the Philosopher of Liberty, John Locke, wrote extensively about in the 17th Century and his philosophies would be among the most influential in the minds of the founding fathers. In order to actually maintain a nation under a republican form of government many factors were considered essential. One was the establishment of openly known and accepted laws, commonly referred to as the rule of law. Second was the need for citizens to actively participate, oppose corruption and live their lives with civic virtue. If these factors could be sustained then a Republic was thought to have a good chance to not only survive but to thrive.

With this in mind those representatives attending the Constitutional Convention, behind locked doors, put together a system that dared to bring all the positive elements of federalism, nationalism, democracy and republicanism into one. It may be easier to now understand why this is often called an experiment and why it was, and is, considered unprecedented and unlike anything under the sun.

The United States was meant to be a Federalist Republic that was unified federally and decentralized politically. "The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures," is how Hamilton explained it. There cannot be enough emphasis on how fragile the balance was to keep things level. All aspects have to be maintained, all ingredients must be mixed properly, if the experiment is to succeed. If a baker is making a pumpkin cheesecake and substitutes the cheesecake with more pumpkin does it not then become pumpkin pie instead, no matter what he calls it?

Because we have moved away from the experiment of the Constitution we are seeing the polarizing effects which history has taught and we are moving toward teaching the same lesson again. We are more democratic today; we altered the ingredient of how each branch of the federal government was elected turning us into more of a democracy, still called a Federalist Republic but look at us. We altered how we funded the Federal government and demanded the Federal government do more for us in our daily lives balancing out the inequality of capitalism, moving us closer to socialism, still called a Federalist Republic but look at us. How violent will the U.S. be in its death if we keep marching on our path toward this new bowl of noodles more accurately described as a socialist democracy?

©2008 by Gary Wood
- Permission to copy with attribution granted.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
4 thumbs so far

2008 Gary Wood, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, January 8, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Gary Wood only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary Wood 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 Gary Wood of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.