by Mike Lee
During the recent vice presidential debate, I pointed out on Twitter that our form of government in the United States is not a democracy, but a republic. The confused and vehement media criticism that ensued persuaded me that this point might be better served in an essay rather than a 140-character Tweet.
Insofar as “democracy” means “a political system in which government derives its powers from the consent of the governed,” then of course that accurately describes our system. But the word conjures far more than that. It is often used to describe rule by majority, the view that it is the prerogative of government to reflexively carry out the will of the majority of its citizens.
Our system of government is best described as a constitutional republic. Power is not found in mere majorities, but in carefully balanced power. Under our Constitution, passing a bill in the House of Representatives—the body most reflective of current majority views—isn’t enough for it to become law. Legislation must also be passed by the Senate—where each state is represented equally (regardless of population), where members have longer terms, and where (under current rules) a super-majority vote is typically required to bring debate to a close. Thomas Jefferson described the Senate as the “saucer” that cools hot passions more prevalent in the House. It’s where consensus is forged, as senators reach compromise across regional, cultural, and partisan lines.
Once passed by both houses of Congress, a bill still doesn’t become a law until it’s signed (or acquiesced to) by the president—who of course is elected not by popular national vote, but by the electoral college of the states.
And then, at last, the Supreme Court—a body consisting not of elected officials, but rather individuals appointed to lifetime terms—has the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. What could be more undemocratic?
As I said in a follow-up Tweet, democracy itself is not the goal. The goal is freedom, prosperity, and human flourishing. Democratic principles have proven essential to those goals, but only as part of a system of checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, as well as between the federal government and the states.
Rest assured, every single critic who attacked me for correctly crediting America’s political success as a republic, not a democracy, supports counter-democratic checks and balances on majorities he disagrees with. My critics support Supreme Court decisions that overturned democratically enacted laws. They support Democratic filibusters of conservative legislation to, for instance, repeal Obamacare or allow for school choice or build a border wall to stop illegal immigration.
Advocates of “democracy” have convinced themselves the obstacle to progress in Washington is all these counter-democratic parts of our system. In truth, Congress’s failure to pass sweeping progressive—or conservative—legislation in recent decades is a signal that neither party has won the necessary support from the American people to pass it. That does not indicate a flaw in the system, but flaws in the two parties’ agendas. This is a feature, not a bug.
In the absence of national consensus, there isn’t supposed to be federal law. That’s what the states are for—to provide smaller, more homogeneous polities to reflect our broad national diversity.
Everytime I hear a Democrat screech about protecting our democracy I hear we must protect our mob rule. Some where on our voyage to become a more perfect union a mob was formed. We try to correct the mistakes made by mobs, or power elite.
They are the type that grant super rights and entitlements that errode the rights of those that just exercise their natural rights with effort.
From The Oxford English Dictionary:
Republic: “A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives…”
Democracy: “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”
What Democrats detest is the steady erosion of the say that a majority of the people have in the governing process. When money directly buys power, and the people’s democratically elected representatives become nothing more than the tools of wealthy and powerful special interests that put corporate interests first and the well-being of the common man second, you then have a republic in name only. This is precisely what the Republican Party under Donald J. Trump has come to represent.
“Democracy” has become a metaphor for what our government really is. Yes, it is a representative democracy, a Constitutional republic, as Lee says. It merely shows the stupidity of the left when they go nuts because someone with more intellect than they have (which is almost anyone) correctly defines our government.
Odd that those pitching the fit are those who support the people trying to destroy what they pretend to hold so dear.
@Greg:
Trump lost money in becoming President. Biden got rich being the VP.
You pretty much explained by the Democrat Party is the enemy of our Constitutional, Democratically elected, Republic.
Because they think they are a majority…but when they are not?
The EC is important. Without it, we become a tyranny ruled by propagandists and mob rule.
Not on my watch.
Were a Republic and not a Democracy
The right is collectively smarter than the left, to the same degree Trump is “a very stable genius” or “the least racist person in the room”.
@Greg: How many countries did Obama get to normalize relations with Israel (creating peace) compared to Trump’s achievements? Hmmm? How many would that be? 0 to 4… so far? With another just announced on the verge of agreeing? Obama got a Nobel because he looked like he might promote peace (instead, he released ISIS and supported the Muslim Brotherhood spreading civil war throughout the region) and Trump will be denied any recognition for, perhaps, the greatest achievements towards peace since Israel was established.