Republicanism, not democracy, is what we should be promoting in the Middle East [Reader Post]

Loading

With popular sovereignty and populist revolution bringing Islamofascism (or orthodox Islam) to power across the Arab world, it is important to remember that democracy is not the criterion of legitimacy. To be legitimate, government must be republican. That is, it must serve to establish a system of liberty under law. If the majority use democracy to violate the natural liberty rights of the minority, that “tyranny of the majority” is no more legitimate than the “tyranny of the minority” that is exercised by unelected dictators. Such, at least, is the founding ideology of the United States.

The framers of our Constitution were highly suspicious of democracy, which they often denigrated as “mob rule.” To them democracy was a necessary evil. If we must be ruled, let it be by ourselves. But there are many ways in which we are not supposed to be ruled at all, but are supposed to be free, according to natural law (i.e. according to what can be understood about right and wrong on the basis of moral reason, regardless of whether our capacity for moral reason comes from God or from godless nature).

Hence the enumeration of limited federal powers in Article I of our Constitution, and the enumeration of individual rights in the Bill of Rights (explicitly incomplete). Unfortunately, our Democratic Party seems to take its name literally. They have been systematically breaking down constitutional limits on majority power since the New Deal, when FDR tore down the Constitution’s system of limited federal power.

With the Democrats in control of all of our information industries (academia, news and entertainment media, all of our biggest philanthropies, all of our professional organizations), the priority of liberty is no longer widely understood. As a result, democracy is often held up as a first principle, when in our system it’s value is purely instrumental. It is valued as a way to secure liberty, and it is without value if it fails to be advantageous for that purpose.

Our loss of understanding of the priority of liberty leaves the nation standing perplexed as the Arab world falls in a single sweep to popular tyranny. Democracy—our supposed criterion of right—is leading to the most evil outcome: the empowerment of al Qaeda and Iran in country after Middle Eastern country, while America mumbles half a cheer and a lot of quiet fretting.

Daniel Pipes on the disastrous consequences of regarding democracy as principle in the Middle East

Pipes has a nice piece on our state of impotent discombulation. He does not say anything about democracy not being the correct criterion of legitimacy—very likely he does not understand this point himself—but he nicely sums up the confusion that is created when U.S. policy-makers treat democracy as principle in the Arab-Muslim world:

•Democracy pleases us but brings hostile elements to power.
•Tyranny betrays our principles but leaves pliable rulers in power.

“As interest conflicts with principle,” says Pipes, “consistency goes out the window.”

But is inconsistency really the problem? Obama has actually been perfectly consistent. Where dictators are friendly or pliable, he throws them to the wolves (demanding that Ghaddafi and Mubarak leave). Where they are hostile to the U.S. and not at all pliable, he is silent and unmoved when protesters are slaughtered en masse (Iran and Syria).

The obvious explanation is that Obama himself is not just a Muslim, but is an Islamofascist. (The evidence for both is overwhelming.) He skillfully uses the Democratic Party’s immoral priority of democracy over republicanism to advance democracy where the outcome will be anti-republican, and suppress it where republicanism is likely to prevail.

The key is Iran. A democratic Iran would almost certainly embrace liberty/republicanism, but so long as it remains in the hands of the Islamofascists, it can usurp every populist movement in the area to the Islamofascist side. Hence Obama’s determination to see that Iran gets The Bomb.

Assert republicanism over democracy

Faced with a president who is actively making use of the errant principle of democracy to undermine the national interest, it is not enough to advocate some wise balancing of democracy and interest. Instead, it is necessary to clarify and insist that republicanism, not democracy, is our principle, and that democracy should only be advanced where doing so advances the cause of liberty. Until we get regime change in Iran, that means no-where else in the Islamic world should we be pressing yet for democracy. Iran has to come first, or it will usurp every other attempt at democratic reform.

This strategy would expose Obama for what he in fact is doing, using a false principle to advance the Islamofascist cause. Pipes, in contrast, casts Obama as a bumbler, presumably well intentioned. Would that it were the case. Pipes’ suggestions for how to deal with the conflict between democracy and interest are fine as far as they go:

Aim to improve the behavior of tyrants whose lack of ideology or ambition makes them pliable. They will take the easiest road, so join together to pressure them to open up.

Always oppose Islamists, whether Al-Qaeda types as in Yemen or the suave and “moderate” ones in Tunisia. They represent the enemy. When tempted otherwise, ask yourself whether cooperation with “moderate” Nazis in the 1930s would have been a good idea.

Help the liberal, secular, and modern elements, those who in the first place stirred up the upheavals of 2011. Assist them eventually to come to power, so that they can salvage the politically sick Middle East from its predicament and move it in a democratic and free direction.

If Obama was merely a bumbler, he could learn from this advice. Since he is actually an Islamofascist, the only counter is to assert correct moral principle: that our goal is to advance liberty, and that democracy is only on the side of principle where it serves to promote liberty. Otherwise Obama can just continue to pretend to be acting on American values as he helps elevate Islamofascists to power across the Middle East.

Addendum: the New Deal actually ushered in a new (and un-ratified) Constitution

Since everything affects interstate commerce in some way, post-New-Deal Supreme Courts have held that Congress is empowered to regulate anything and everything under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Pre-New-Deal Courts had rejected that interpretation on the grounds that it violated Justice Marshall’s first principle of constitutional interpretation:

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).]

Allowing everything to be regulated under the commerce clause did not just render one clause of the Constitution without effect, it vitiated the entire system of limited enumerated powers.

That system of limited enumerated powers stood in the way of FDR’s desire to implement a Soviet-style command economy, where the government dictates to industry the quantities that it will produce and the prices it will charge. Yes, Roosevelt did actually try to implement such a system, dictating prices and quantities to every major industry in America. That was the job of the NRA (the National Recovery Administration), created by the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA). (See FDR’s Folly, by Jim Powell, chapter 9.)

NIRA was struck down by the Supreme Court, prompting FDR’s infamous court-packing scheme and “the switch in time that saved nine.” Intimidated by a popular president during a time of national agony, the Supremes agreed to abandon the Constitution, and we have never gotten it back.

Crossposted at Error Theory

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Another element that adds to the erosion of our Constitutional republican democracy is when they stopped teaching Constitutional law and begin teaching precedent in our law schools.

Hell, Anticrocks, I’ve dealt with just recently some High Schoolers who were more fluent with the USSR’s former Consitution than our own when helping tutor for their Pre 1865 US History college classes.

Egypt, Libya and Tunisia were already republics.

Egypt, Libya and Tunisia were already republics.

You mean like China (People’s Republic of)? Hey, check it out, North Korea calls itself a republic too. Kind of like Islam calling itself a religion of peace.

Sure – as like as you’re not ruled by a monarchy – it’s a republic. Whether you want to promote the specific of the US republic system is a different matter – that doesn’t make them not republics.

Excellent article, Alex. I also agree with you that Obama is an Islamofascist.
One thing, though. You wrote

the enumeration of individual rights in the Bill of Rights

I’m sure you mean that the Bill of Rights was written not so we know what our rights are, but as an admonishment to the new government as to what it can’t do to the sovereign individuals.
From the preamble

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

I often get the sense when listening to people talk (or reading their comments) about the BoR, that many have the mistaken belief that the BoA is assuring us of our rights instead of them understanding that our rights, inherent from birth, are unlimited, and that the BoR is explicitly telling Congress that “Congress shall make no law” that diminishes our natural rights.

I think it’s an important distinction that should be noted.

Right 95. The framers did not view the Bill of Rights as establishing rights, which in their understanding were established by natural law. Any violation of natual liberty rights undermined the legitimacy of a government, making it in that degree tryannical even if it was democratic (in which case it was a “tyranny of the majority”). This was the American concept of republicanism, as articulated in particular by John Adams.

Gaffa is right that there is also a broader concept of republicanism that CAN include pretty much any form of non-hereditary leadership, so long as minimal “republican” qualities of citizenship and virtue are incorporated. The models here were Greek and Roman. Maoist China and North Korea would certainly not qualify, though modern China might. Be that as it may, my reference is of course to the American concept of a republic and what it means to act for American values.

Very good article Alex and one of my favorite subjects. It has become almost impossible to find anyone who is able to clearly and concisely explain what a “Republican” form of government is. Most people make the same mistake Anticsrocks did and simply combine the two words, but a Republic and a Democracy are completely different forms of government.

What is a Republican form of government? Can you or anyone you know describe it? Our Constitution mandates that ““…the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” in Art 4 Section 4. So let’s try to figure out what a Republic is.

If we look in Blacks Law Dictionary, 1st Ed, it says that “Republican government. A government in the republican form; a government of the people; a government by representatives chosen by the people.” That’s not very helpful is it? Kinda like saying that a horse is an animal. Black’s seventh edition does not list the phrase Republican government, it does list the term Republic. Let’s look at it…

“Republic. n. A system of government in which the people hold sovereign power
and elect representatives who exercise that power. It contrasts on the one hand
with a pure democracy, in which the people or community as an organized whole
wield the sovereign power of government, and on the other with the rule of one
person (such as a king, emperor, czar, or sultan).” – Blacks Law Dictionary
(seventh edition)

That’s a little better and although not really clear it gives us a starting point. The key words there are “sovereign power” sovereign power is the ultimate power within the country. It is the power that a King or Monarch holds over his country. It is the power of ultimate authority. And the definition above hinges on who holds this power. In a Democracy “sovereign power” is held by the people as an ORGANIZED WHOLE this is majority or mob rule.

The other contrast provided is where the sovereign power is concentrated with one individual, a king, emperor, czar, or sultan. And in the first sentence the definition points out that in a Republic the sovereign power is held by the people, not as an organized whole as in a Democracy, but as INDIVIDUALS. There in lies the key to understanding the Republican form of government. The individual is the source of sovereign power.

How does sovereign power come to reside in the Individual? To understand that we must look to the Declaration of Independence….”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

Rights are powers and authorities. Here we see that RIGHTS (power and authority) are granted by the Creator (God). That these rights include, but are not limited to, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is important to acknowledge that we all possess the same rights since we were created equal. That you have no more RIGHT than I, and I do not have any more RIGHT than you.

The next step in understanding the characteristics of a Republic form of Government, is to understand that we confer of OUR POWERS & AUTHORITIES to the government as we create it. The fact that God is the source of our individual power and authority is also the basis for the divine right of kings. The assumption here was that the King had been endowed by God (the Creator) with divine rights and that the individual people under his rule had no rights or privileges other than what the king might confer and take away at will. The people were subjects to the will of the king. If you enjoy history you know that kings have been very liberal in their interpretation of what rights have been conferred by God. All too often they were despots and bullies, feeling no restraint on any power they wished to exercise.

Divine rights were conferred upon kings by God. Accordingly, given that all men are created equal, it becomes clear that the divine rights of Kings is equivalent to unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights that can not be lost, sold or transferred. They are unalienable.

Alien. n. To transfer or make over to another; … – Blacks Law Dictionary (sixth edition)

Keep in mind, there is a world of difference between civil rights and unalienable rights. Civil rights are created by law (man’s), regulated by law (man’s) and taken away by law (man’s). Unalienable rights are given by God and man may not alien them.

Now that we have unalienable rights and sovereign power, how are we to keep it? Once again we must look to the Declaration of Independence…

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, the primary purpose of our Republican form of Government… to secure these rights. What rights? The unalienable rights, the same sovereign power granted to the kings by God.

The Founders set up our Government as a Republic, the people elected the Representatives, hence the term “The Peoples House” this was “Nationalism”, the State Legislatures elected or appointed the Senators this was Federalism, can you imagine the legislators voting for an Al Franken, or a Barbra Boxer to represent them? And the president was elected by the Electoral college, members of the college could not be members or employees of the State Government and were usually respected businessmen, teachers or members of the clergy. Thus all segments of society were represented. Our founders never intended for to populace to vote for President they were scared that a smooth talking mountebank would pull the wool over the eyes of the people.
Look at the Federalist papers # 68 and #39 for confirmation of this.

I borrowed from many sources in writing this as we all build on the work others have done before us.

Nice compilation Poppa_T. Not only does the Declaration of Independence declare that the reason for government is to secure the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but the Preamble to the Constitution is also explict that a primary purpose of the Constitution is “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Thank you Alex. The sad fact however is that our Republic has devolved into a defacto democracy. Our citizenry is no longer taught the differences between the different forms of governance. There is a National Popular Vote (NPV) referendum sweeping the nation. Already States with a combined 132 out of 270 electoral votes have passed NPV bills, that’s 49%, all they need is one more state and they will have successfully circumvented the Constitution. These ignorant fools are marching lock step into subjugation.

I’m sure you have read or heard of “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen. Published in 1958 Mr. Skousen lists 45 goals he believes the commies must be met to facilitate the downfall of our Nation, I’m afraid that they have succeeded. We were once the most educated nation on earth, now our citizens care for nothing more than panem et circenses. If you have not yet seen the 8th grade exit exam from Selina Kansas circa 1895 check it out here and compare it to what our mush headed progeny are currently studying. As RA Heinlein once said “Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves bananas, they’ll never climb another tree.” We no longer climb trees.

” Republic- I like the sound of that word. It means people can live free, talk free- go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober.
Some words give you a feeling- same feeling you get when your firstborn shaves for the first time, or makes his first sound like a man- Republic is one of those words.”
John Wayne, as Davy Crockett, in The Alamo