Democrat vs. Republican

Sounds very much like Democracy vs. Republic

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy – A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” - James McHenry. Diary, September 18, 1787

Disclaimer: This is a little longer than usual, and even so, it is not a complete treatment of the subject matter. I considered splitting it in two, but attempting to do so would break the flow, so…

It caught me off guard when President Biden, in his speech regarding dropping from the 2024 presidential race, quoted Benjamin Franklin regarding the U.S. being a republic. After all, the left is constantly screaming about Our Democracy™, claiming that it is under attack, that the right (or at least Donald Trump) poses an existential threat to Our Democracy™, that voting for the wrong person could mean the end of Our Democracy™. Often, in response to such claims, you’ll hear some on the right, also recognizing Franklin’s statement, respond with quips such as, “we’re not a democracy; we’re a constitutional republic.” What really is the difference? Isn’t this just playing semantics? Don’t we live in a republic that functions democratically?

I find it rather interesting that the party names align the way they do. Democrats do claim to fight for democracy. And if you listen to the policies they want to enact, you might believe it true. They are, after all, the ones who want to put an end to the electoral college and base the Presidential election on the popular vote (i.e. majority rule). And this is, by definition, what democracy is - majority rule:

democracy

1a: government by the people

especially : rule of the majority

 b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy - emphasis mine

Yes, the second definition sounds somewhat like America today, but that is not the definition to which our founders would have held. Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language reflects what the founding fathers would have understood as “democracy”:

DEMOCRACY, noun [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/democracy

Those who created this republic knew what democracy is and what is the end state of it, as James Madison describes in the Federalist No 10:

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. 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. 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.

emphases mine

This is largely what we see coming from the left today, and this is specifically why America was not founded as a democracy. There are certainly some democratic principles employed in our form of government, but that does not make it a democracy. As a matter of fact, you will not find the word “democracy” anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Instead, according to the Constitution (and this is the only place the word appears in the Constitution), each state is to guarantee its citizens a “Republican Form of Government”:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4

So, what is a republic?

republic

1 b(1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

As with democracy, there are additional definitions of republic, however, the one cited is the most fitting, and also the one that would meet a definition as understood by the founders. Again I cite Webster’s 1828:

REPUB'LIC, noun [Latin respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]

1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Republic

Of course, we can also allow the founders, a la James Madison, to provide their own definition. Again from the Federalist No. 10:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

You see, one of the main problems the founders were trying to avoid, and it is a problem that plagues democracies, was the problem of factions, and the difficulties such factions would raise. In a way, factions could be considered to be political parties, but it also goes beyond party. As Madison explains:

By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Unfortunately, the development of factions is human nature, which also is why we have political parties, despite the founders’ disdain for them. Thus the founders sought to avoid the problems of faction that plague democracy by establishing a different form of government - a republic. A republic, as Madison further discussed, has the advantage ”over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction” (ibid).

There remains a problem, however - the founders underestimated the depths of human avarice. Madison expected his fellow countrymen would be patriotic, and not self-serving, assuming that even if some were of lower character, that would be countered by the rest. He believed that a republic was the cure for this illness that he called “faction”:

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states: A religious sect, may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it, must secure the national councils against any danger from that source: A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire state.

Ibid - note also that Madison thought “equal division of property” (i.e. equity) to be a “wicked project”

John Adams warned, in 1798, that “Avarice, Ambition and Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.” And such is what we have seen. For all the talk from Republicans of us having a republic rather than a democracy, they have done little more to preserve what the founders intended than the Democrats have.

In reality, neither of the two major political parties want a republic. What they seek is a technocratic oligarchy. Yes, there are a few in Congress who may have a proper view of what government should be; but they can likely be counted on one hand. I have rarely, if ever, heard a politician express a proper understanding of Constitutional principles. Instead, they twist it to their desire (or ignore it altogether) in order to accomplish their own agendas regardless of the needs or will of the people.

I have often mentioned that most Americans no longer have a knowledge or understanding of our founding documents. At this point, I don’t know that most want to know or understand them. While we often witness much hand-wringing and pearl-clutching over “constitutional rights,” those engaged in such histrionics are just whining about what they want, not anything actually enshrined in that 235-year-old parchment. The reason we have those in office who take advantage of their position is because the people will vote for whomever promises the most. People want government to take care of them, to protect them, to provide for them - much as a nanny does a child.

This is why “equity” holds a strong draw for so many. This is why collectivism has become so pervasive and why the government seeks to override or, at the very least, regulate our unalienable rights. We have lost the mindset of the founders who were rugged individualists, who believed in personal responsibility, who expected government to have limited reach into our personal lives. Where do you stand? With the founders, or with the collectivists? What are you willing to do to help constitutionally-sound candidates into office? This must be done if we are to avert becoming the next socialist union.