Walter Williams: Why the Founders Did Not Want a Democracy

[Rigby5]

I think that what you don't get is the difference between 'democracy' and 'a democracy'

If it's of any consolation, you're not the only one. Far from it...

You have my interest, but I don't quite get what you mean?
Are you contrasting the method with the results?

 

[Curried Goats]

Actually it sort of does.
The problems of the US, like slavery, did not come from the Republic, but from the monarchy that created the states.
The problem the republic faced was because the origin of the states preceded the Republic, so could not take the issues like slavery head on, right away.

That's just bullshit rationalization. We were a Republic and we did have slaves because who and who isn't considered part of the "people" is an important distinction.

 

[Rigby5]

No it doesn't. What you describe is a direct democracy and as you said above we are a representative democracy. There is no need to fear the word.

When one says just the word "democracy", that implies the direct democracy of ancient Athens, the source of the word "democracy".
If you want to imply "representative democracy", then you have to specify that, and not just use the word "democracy".
But even a "representative democracy" is not sufficient in my opinion.
You also have to imply blind justice by adding the modifier "constitutional".
And it still likely needs even more.
We clearly are not doing well the way we are.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You have my interest, but I don't quite get what you mean?
Are you contrasting the method with the results?

Good question, Rigby, thanks for asking.

I've posted the same thing so many times that I just keep a clipboard copy around because I know I know it'll always come up again.


Here you go...

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.


A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority.

In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.


A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few. This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

 

[Mac1958]

The structure of the Republic is not the problem.

The problem is an electoral system that incentivizes and rewards the worst impulses of its participants.

 

[Rigby5]

That's just bullshit rationalization. We were a Republic and we did have slaves because who and who isn't considered part of the "people" is an important distinction.

No, the reason we had slaves in the Republic until after the Civil War, was because of money that prevented a true republic.
If the original American Revolution had pushed for a real and total republic, then the wealthy southern plantation owners would have funded the British and we would have lost.
We were NOT really a Republic until AFTER the 14th amendment and end of slavery.
We were more a federation of states that could dictate whatever they wanted inside their own states.
For example, states like Pennsylvania and Connecticut dictated religion originally.
Everyone likely knew that was wrong, but the original Bill of Rights only restricted federal interference in religion, not state interference.

 

[gipper]

true, but hopefully with the mid-terms coming up we can start undoing the mistakes of 2020 and get back to normal

Not a chance in Hell. After all that’s happened, you still think the Rs are different from the Ds??? How?

 

[struth]

Not a chance in Hell. After all that’s happened, you still think the Rs are different from the Ds??? How?

They aren't demafascist.

 

[gipper]

No it doesn't. What you describe is a direct democracy and as you said above we are a representative democracy. There is no need to fear the word.

Why argue about something that doesn’t exist?

 

[Curried Goats]

When one says just the word "democracy", that implies the direct democracy of ancient Athens, the source of the word "democracy".
If you want to imply "representative democracy", then you have to specify that, and not just use the word "democracy".
But even a "representative democracy" is not sufficient in my opinion.
You also have to imply blind justice by adding the modifier "constitutional".
And it still likely needs even more.
We clearly are not doing well the way we are.

Are there even any direct democracies still in existence? Why would the word democracy make me think of a long gone ancient civilization before i think of our very own democratic elections?

 

[gipper]

They aren't demafascist.

The Rs are just as bad…well maybe just slightly less bad, when it comes to authoritarian government. A difference without a distinction.

 

[Rigby5]

The structure of the Republic is not the problem.

The problem is an electoral system that incentivizes and rewards the worst impulses of its participants.

True.
That is why I have found writing about meritocracy to be an interesting concept.
One thing we can easily do is end the 2 party strangle hold over candidates by going open primary, so then only 1 election becomes necessary, and a rating system used to deal with when there is no clear majority winner, to avoid the need for run offs.

 

[Mac1958]

True.
That is why I have found writing about meritocracy to be an interesting concept.
One thing we can easily do is end the 2 party strangle hold over candidates by going open primary, so then only 1 election becomes necessary, and a rating system used to deal with when there is no clear majority winner, to avoid the need for run offs.

Yep.

As small as it is (so far), there is only one party that is serious about changing this fucked up system.

Our Platform

The Forward Party supports ranked-choice voting, open primaries, and other reforms that will lay the foundation for a more representative multi-party democracy.

www.forwardparty.com

 

[hadit]

No it doesn't. What you describe is a direct democracy and as you said above we are a representative democracy. There is no need to fear the word.

Words mean things. Calling a donkey's tail a leg doesn't mean it has 5 legs. Calling a man a woman doesn't make him a woman, and calling the US a democracy doesn't make it one. We are democratic in that the people get to vote for those in power, but we are not a democracy wherein the population votes directly on legislation. There is a difference.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Not a chance in Hell. After all that’s happened, you still think the Rs are different from the Ds??? How?

The current brood of Rs and Ds are really just passing off the baton to one another over the course of election cycles, all with the same goal in scope.

It's clear to anyone paying attention.

Eventually everything will come to light with regard to Trump's operation warp speed, etc.

Or operation foreknowledge, as I like to call it.

A lot of people like to say, well Trump didn't start a war.

Well..that's because that was clearly planned to be Biden's leg of the relay.

And Biden will pass the baton back off to Trump after he's done pounding America in the rear end.

 

[Rigby5]

Are there even any direct democracies still in existence? Why would the word democracy make me think of a long gone ancient civilization before i think of our very own democratic elections?

Because they ancient one is the original source, so anything else is inaccurate and contrary to detailed fact.
And all small systems do tend to use direct democracy still.
For example, when congress votes on a bill, it is a direct democracy voting method.
Families, clubs, religious groups, tribes, PTAs, etc. all tend to use direct democracy.

 

[Rigby5]

Words mean things. Calling a donkey's tail a leg doesn't mean it has 5 legs. Calling a man a woman doesn't make him a woman, and calling the US a democracy doesn't make it one. We are democratic in that the people get to vote for those in power, but we are not a democracy wherein the population votes directly on legislation. There is a difference.

And we likely need even more tweaking.
This whole system is not working all that well yet.
We likely need to add even more qualifiers.

 

[Rigby5]

The current brood of Rs and Ds are really just passing off the baton to one another over the course of election cycles, all with the same goal in scope.

It's clear to anyone paying attention.

Eventually everything will come to light with regard to Trump's operation warp speed, etc.

Or operation foreknowledge, as I like to call it.

A lot of people like to say, well Trump didn't start a war.

Well..that's because that was clearly planned to be Biden's leg of the relay.

And Biden will pass the baton back off to Trump after he's done pounding America in the rear end.

Quite likely.
We maybe are just being manipulated by a scripted plot, with actors we think are real candidates?
For example, the current Ukraine war likely was already written into the plot before the 2014 coup in Kyiv.

 

[dudmuck]

They aren't demafascist.

Two strategies, though never entirely absent from Republican behaviour in the past, have become far more central to their approach. One is a greater willingness to use or tolerate violence against their opponents, something that became notorious during the invasion of the Capitol by pro-Trump rioters on 6 January.

• 43 Senate Republicans voted against Trump's impeachment for inciting Capitol Insurrection
• A Republican congressman who denied there was an insurrection and likened Capitol rioters to tourists was photographed barricading the chamber doors against them
• Cop Nearly Killed By Trump Mob Rips GOP For ‘Peddling Bullshit’ On U.S. Capitol Riot
• 21 Republicans vote against awarding medals to police who defended Capitol
• Here Are the Excuses Republicans Are Giving for Voting Against Honoring Capitol Police Officers - The bill to award gold medal to officers who responded to the insurrection passed, but 21 GOP lawmakers opposed it
• 212 House Republicans voted against a $1.9bn funds to increase security at the Capitol
• 175 House Republicans and 35 Senate Republicans voted against the Jan. 6 Commission
• Senate panel releases scathing report about the 'violent and unprecedented' Capitol insurrection days after lawmakers blocked a bipartisan commission
• 'I just couldn't stay quiet anymore' | Officer Sicknick's mother urges Republicans to back Capitol riot commission
• Girlfriend of Officer Brian Sicknick who died after Capitol riot blasts GOP for blocking commission
• Progressive PAC says Fox News refused to air its ad about how law enforcement were treated by rioters on January 6
• GOP congressman refuses to shake hands with D.C. police officer who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6, officer says
• Days before Rep. Mike Nearman helped protesters breach Capitol, he coached constituents just how he’d help them do it
• Republican Congressman Madison Cawthorn Casually Suggests Armed Citizens Should Overthrow the Government
• Josh Hawley has no regrets about his MAGA fist pump ahead of the Capitol riot
• Tucker Carlson suggests “a real insurrection” over asylum seekers at the southern border receiving taxpayer funded aid
• Gaetz Tells Supporters Second Amendment Is For ‘Armed Rebellion Against The Government’
• Flynn: Myanmar-Style Coup 'Should Happen' In U.S.
• Stochastic terrorism: There is nothing funny about Mike Pompeo's violent PAC recruitment ads The PAC from the former secretary of state launches with a violent call to arms, recruiting "pipehitters" to join
• A second insurrection: The real mission behind Republicans' absurd Arizona "audit" - Republicans are recklessly ginning up Trump supporters to believe they have an obligation to take real world action
• The FBI’s New QAnon Report Is Scary as Hell The FBI is warning lawmakers QAnon followers may move from being “digital soldiers” to “real world violence.”
• This QAnon Militia of Ex-Cops and Soldiers Is Training ‘Patriots’ for Revolution
• G.O.P. Bills Target Protesters (and Absolve Motorists Who Hit Them)
• State-level Republicans are making it easier to run over protesters
• A Florida Republican reportedly compared his political rival to a 'f---ing speed bump' and threatened to send a hit squad to make her 'disappear'

The other change among Republicans is much less commented on, but is more sinister and significant. This is the systematic Republican takeover of the electoral machinery that oversees elections and makes sure that they are fair. Minor officials in charge of them have suddenly become vital to the future of American democracy. Remember that it was only the refusal of these functionaries to cave in to Trump’s threats and blandishments that stopped him stealing the presidential election last November.

• Jail Time and Big Fines: G.O.P. Seeks Harsh Penalties for Poll Workers - Republicans seeking to restrict voting are proposing strict punishments for election officials and workers who make errors or violate the rules.
• Trump-inspired death threats are terrorizing election workers
• More Than 100 Scholars Issue Warning That American Democracy Is In Danger, Call For Federal Reforms
• Voting Laws Roundup: May 2021 - States have already enacted more than 20 laws this year that will make it harder for Americans to vote — and many legislatures are still in session.
• Texas Republicans finalize bill that would enact stiff new voting restrictions and make it easier to overturn election results
• What Georgia’s Voting Law Really Does - The New York Times analyzed the state’s new 98-page voting law and identified 16 key provisions that will limit ballot access, potentially confuse voters and give more power to Republican lawmakers.
• Florida Enacts Sweeping Voter Suppression Law - The law imposes new restrictions on mail voting, makes voter registration more difficult, and modifes rules for observers in ways that could disrupt election administration.
• Iowa governor signs Republican bill restricting voting access into law - Republicans said the new rules were needed to guard against voting fraud, though they noted Iowa has no history of election irregularities.
• Arkansas lawmakers approve changes to state’s election laws
• Montana Democrats sue after GOP governor signs into law two bills restricting voting access
• 23 voter suppression bills in Arizona legislature
• Kansas groups fight voter suppression laws
• Georgia's top election official says Lindsey Graham pressured him to throw out all mail ballots cast in certain counties

 

[Orangecat]

The little bitches afraid of the word democracy.

No one is afraid of the word "democracy", fool. I assume you're looking forward to the people exercising democracy on the state level to determine limits on abortion, correct?