Undemocratic America

On “Democracy”
How many of us during junior high government class innocently referred to the government of the United States as a “democracy”, only to be instantly corrected – informed that the United States is in fact a “Democratic Republic?” I do not doubt that a vast majority of us experienced this or a situation similar at some point in our lives, thinking that we live in a democracy. To us, democracy in general is a good thing – the people get to rule, but the impracticalities of a pure democracy make our system more appealing by allowing us to delegate our decisions to a representative all while choosing our own executive and leader. But what if I were to tell you that this notion that democracy is an important American value is in fact a myth? The United States is not a democracy, nor is it a “Democratic Republic.” And in light of history, it certainly should not be either of these. 


 Let us first consider the notion of democracy, be it direct or representative – this distinction is not important to our investigation. The philosophy behind democracy must that either 1) the people have a natural right to rule themselves, or 2) that the best leadership will come from a majority decision of the people, so natural rights are irrelevant. Inherent in both of these philosophies is the assumption that the people, the majority, are suited to rule themselves. In an atypical strategy, we should first consider this assumption using our own experience and common sense. Imagine, if you will, a classroom of seventh-grade students. Charging headfirst into adolescence, these young men and women surely have many ideas and opinions about life. Indeed, if enough discussion is held amongst them, a majority consensus can almost certainly be reached on nearly every issue. But on issues of their own wellbeing, would even a majority of these consensuses be considered “good decisions?” Would long-term benefit be found by even some of the decisions made by these seventh graders? In nearly every case, the answer would be a resounding “no.” Experience and common sense tells us that children may be able to agree on ideas, but they are usually unable to make good decisions for themselves. This is often because the right decisions are unpopular and may have little immediate payoff. Two-hour long recesses seem much more preferable to more time spent learning about the commutative property of equality. The children’s inability to make good decisions at this level is simply the result of their natural level of maturity.


Or, for another brief comparison: how many corporations would rise to a successful status if they managed themselves by majority vote of all the employees? How many effective CEOs would this produce? Or how many of the employee-elected executives would be nothing more than charismatic celebrities? What about company policy – would democratically-created policy benefit the company as a whole or would it provide large sums of benefit to the immediate employees for perhaps a year or two and then leave the corporation crippled after the money has run out? 


Now consider the general populace in the question of government. Is the average citizen educated in laws or enforcement of policy? Is the average citizen able to make a responsible decision about who is really the better choice to lead the government? Even when candidates fully disclose their beliefs on issues, what is to say that the people even know what is essential in these matters? Indeed government does affect everyone…but so does corporate policy affect all employees of any particular corporation. Simply because we are all affected by the state does not mean that we are all qualified to make decisions for it. 


The “mobocracy” is a commonly-cited reason for the avoidance of democratic philosophy. If the majority opinion is what governs, again be it directly determined or delegated to representatives, then the majority will always be able to rule over the minority. In a theoretical democracy, this can even include the scenario in which the 51% vote to take away the rights of the 49%. Now, proponents of democracy will tell us that this is why we have a bill of rights, and that the bill of rights is what protects the 49% from the 51%. This is true, but even the bill of rights cannot stand up to a true democracy, because all the 51% needs to do is vote to repeal the bill of rights, and their only obstacle has been eliminated. This is not possible in the United States. More on that later. The point is, when “the people rule”, no minority is safe. Period.


Were the framers, the founding fathers who created and adopted the United States constitution and therefore the federal government and the model for the State governments to follow, themselves democrats? In short, no. The founders have been attributed to have made many statements against the philosophy. Benjamin Franklin was noted for saying “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" and Thomas Jefferson stated the argument made in the previous paragraph: “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.” John Adams provided this warning: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”


The Federalist Papers, the principles of which were agreed upon by many of the framers, tells us of the arguments these men used against democracy when crafting the United States Constitutions. James Madison, writing under the pen name “Publius” (which I myself have adopted in several arenas, one of which may or may not be the role-playing video game Skyrim), railed against democracy for its instability and inability to prevent inevitable factions, saying “Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Of course, what he refers to is the failed political experiment that was democratic Athens in the ancient times. The founders feared a repeat of the Greek disaster, and sought to keep democracy out of the United States. 


But you say “Aren’t democratic ideals in the constitution?” Once again, the answer is no - sort of. You will find three votes guaranteed to all the people in the Constitution plus the Bill of Rights: a vote for one’s Representative in Congress (Art. 1 Sec. 2), a vote on a grand jury (Ammend. 5), and a vote on a trial jury (Ammend.s 6&7.) In these cases, it is clear that the understanding was that the people would be the ones making the decisions not because they had a right to, but because in these specific circumstances, the people were the best choice. In selecting representatives, it is only logical that those whom the official is representing choose him, and juries by definition are supposed to consist of ordinary citizens. But the words “democracy,” “democratic,” or any other derivative do not appear anywhere in the constitution. The word “republican” appears once, and it does not refer to the political party. 


The Federalist Papers make it clear that the United States is a republic, and the constitution requires that all states are republics as well. A republic is a government which exists solely to protect the pre-existing rights of its citizens. Though citizens may vote on certain matters, the will of the people is not what governs. What governs is the law. We should always remember that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of wills. Because freedom that can be taken away by a simple majority vote is not freedom at all.