Politics 101 - Week 1. Republic vs Democracy: The founders vision and today

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
I read this this morning. Found it very informative and a good read.

-----------------------------------------------------

Politics 101 - Week 1. Republic vs Democracy: The founders' vision and where we are now.


Welcome to the very first Politics 101 post. The topic this week is:

Republic vs Democracy
What did the founders envision?
Where does the US government currently stand?


If you were to ask most Americans what type of government the US has, they would say that it is a democracy. Yet, our "Pledge of Allegiance", which millions of American children recite every morning before school, calls our country a republic.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.

So which one is it and what is the difference?

First, let's briefly discuss the definitions of a Republic and a Democracy so that we can dive into the more juicy questions.

Republic

A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people, and the government is ruled by elected leaders and run according to law, rather than inherited or appointed. Source[1]

One of the most famous republics in history is the Roman Republic[2] which began in 510BC after the overthrow of the Roman monarchy and lasted ~480 years. The Roman Republic had many elements which are still seen in modern republics today, such as:

Constitution
Consuls (Senators)
Tribunes (Representatives)
Separation of powers
Checks and balances
Source[3]

The separation of powers that exists in the US government was inspired by the Roman Republic, where power was divided between the consuls, the tribunes and the different assemblies of the people. This division of power was meant to protect minority rights and ensure that no one arm of the government became stronger than another. Source[4] It is also an important distinction between a republic and a democracy.

Comparison between the US government and the Roman Republic.[5]

Democracy

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally – either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run. In contrast with a republic, a democracy structurally favors majority opinion and typically has fewer protections for minorities. Source[6]

There are two basic forms of democratic governments:

Direct Democracy[7] , which is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives.

Representative Democracy[8] , which involves the election of government officials by the people being represented. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgement as how best to do so.

Athens[9] was one of the first known democracies. The city-state operated as a direct democracy for almost 200 years.

The Athenian democracy saw nearly permanent turmoil in its existence, going from being subservient to nearby cities to a regional powerhouse back to subservience based on the outcome of poorly planned and executed wars. Source[10]

Aristotle, a Greek philosopher (considered one of the most influential thinkers of ancient times) lived in Athens and wrote in depth about political theory. He was very critical of democracy as a form of government:[11]

For in democracies where the laws are not supreme, demagogues spring up.

. . . [T]his sort of democracy . . . [is] what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the [demagogues] correspond to the edicts of the tyrant . . . . Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the laws have no authority, there is no constitution. The law ought to be supreme over all . . . .
Aristotle's writings about the dangers of democracies and the importance of constitutions and the rule of law had a profound impact on the Founding Fathers.


What did the founders envision for the United States?


The founders based many of their ideas for the US system of government off of the writings of John Locke, another notable political philosopher. Locke developed many of his ideas off of the works of Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes.[12] He is regarded as one of the most influential forces on the founding fathers and his political philosophy shaped the framework of the United States.

In his Second Treatise of Government[13] , Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, the duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which includes life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. This idea deeply influenced Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence. Source[14]

As a result, the founders envisioned the United States as a Constitutional Republic:[15]

A state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people. They must govern to existing constitution. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers can be separated into distinct branches.

There is quite a bit of evidence that shows the founders did not want the US government to be a democracy, including:

James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10[16] , said that a pure democracy, " there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual."

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, ". . . that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

It is important to realize that the founders feared a system of government which would be dominated by majority rule. In a pure democracy, the majority rules and there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Source[17]

The founders made sure that our Constitution set up a government that has numerous checks and balances to prevent majority rule. Each of the branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) checks and balances another. There are also systems in place to ensure that the voices of smaller states are not drowned out by larger states (i.e. the House of Representatives vs the Senate, the Electoral College, etc).

Where does the US government currently stand?

This is a pretty loaded question and one that is hotly debated.
Some argue that the US is still a Constitutional Republic that has remained true to the founders' vision. While others believe it is a representative democracy. And yet others argue that the US is now an oligarchy[18] :
a government in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.

Article about study that found the US is an oligarchy[19] Note: the original study is no longer publicly available.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no right answer. The founders built the framework for the US government intending for it to operate as a Constitutional Republic. However, hundreds of years have passed and there have been political events and technological advances that the founders could not account for. America has transformed over that time and has tried to remain true to the Constitution, but how well have we done? And where do we really stand now?
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Why is this even a question? This country was set up to be a Constitutional Republic and remains that over 200 years later.

Anyone who says its a democracy belongs on Leno's "Jaywalking."
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Why is this even a question? This country was set up to be a Constitutional Republic and remains that over 200 years later.

Anyone who says its a democracy belongs on Leno's "Jaywalking."

Did you even read it? Can you please expand your comments to some points of facts and relevant info that are contributory instead of just automatically blasting what I thought was a pretty good thought provoking post? Jesus..:rolleyes:
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Did you even read it? Can you please expand your comments to some points of facts and relevant info that are contributory instead of just automatically blasting what I thought was a pretty good thought provoking post? Jesus..:rolleyes:

Yes, I read it. Where did I blast anything?

It's very obvious what this country is, and how it was intended to be. Anyone who thinks its anything close to a democracy needs a lesson on history and government.

Your hypersensitivity is getting the best of you. :\
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Did you even read it? Can you please expand your comments to some points of facts and relevant info that are contributory instead of just automatically blasting what I thought was a pretty good thought provoking post? Jesus..:rolleyes:

What did you expect on this forum?

It seems to me that we are no where near what was intended for this country.
 
Last edited:

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
Full disclosure: I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of any militia, order, or other misc. group with anti-government views.

The real difference between democracy and republic is sovereignty. That word has been associated with the aforementioned groups and tarnished accordingly. The word democracy is bandied about for the benefit of populists who care nothing for our constitutionally documented rights. The French revolution was probably the purest exercise of democracy in the history of "modern" western history.

I recognize why some might think the US is an oligarchy, banking has captured more of the economy while at the same time consolidating in to an ever smaller group of ever more privileged elites while agents of our government are allowed to insider trade, Ike's military industrial complex and science / academic industrial complex (which no one ever talks about) are other sources of graft and strife.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Whatever the founders envisioned, the truth is that currently the US government contains elements of a representative democracy, constitutional republic and an oligarchy. The trick is to weed out the oligarchy.

Any political system looks great on paper, when you get people involved most turn to crap.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
Quick question: why do we care what the founders envisioned? They've been dead for several centuries.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
Quick question: why do we care what the founders envisioned? They've been dead for several centuries.

Well then, who's views / visions should we care about? Serious question - where do you want to see our country head? Pure democracy, representative democracy, central committee, other?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
Well then, who's views / visions should we care about? Serious question - where do you want to see our country head? Pure democracy, representative democracy, central committee, other?

Why don't we just care about our own views and visions? We're the ones that have to live here, after all.

I would like to have a representative democracy, but one that's fairly different than the one the founders put in the Constitution.

First thing I would want to do is throw out their electoral system, as it's shit. I'd like to switch to a unicameral body that's elected proportionally. Even if we kept the House/Senate I would at a minimum want to switch to proportional representation for the House.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
I would like to see a return to the original intent of the Founders. Limited central government, a return of the Senators selected by the States, not the people to provide a balance again against the whims of a majority populace, and the States take back their powers that were not otherwise granted to the central government.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Uhh, we've had a Constitutional Democratic Republic since the founding.

Constitutional = A document that lays the basic foundation for all laws, government structure, and basic divisions of power (if any) within the government structure.

Democratic = voting measures by either direct or representative voting for either government position fillings or laws themselves.

Republic = Divided power amount the top governmental branches.

The US is a not a pure democracy, nor a pure Republic, not a Constitutional only government systems. It's a layered setup that originally was created to hopefully use the best of various governmental setups that previously stood long tests of times in other nations in the hope the make the best system out there. Is it perfect? Nope and never will be. Is it the best? Was for a time at least, but is it now? That is up for debate, but there are certainly worse systems out there.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
I would like to see a return to the original intent of the Founders. Limited central government, a return of the Senators selected by the States, not the people to provide a balance again against the whims of a majority populace, and the States take back their powers that were not otherwise granted to the central government.

Where are you getting your idea for the intent of the founders from?
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
Whatever the founders envisioned, the truth is that currently the US government contains elements of a representative democracy, constitutional republic and an oligarchy. The trick is to weed out the oligarchy.

Any political system looks great on paper, when you get people involved most turn to crap.

The US government contains no element of representative democracy. None of our democratically elected representatives are obligated in any way to vote how their constituents want them to. Incumbency is a powerful thing.

Quick question: why do we care what the founders envisioned? They've been dead for several centuries.

Because it's the supreme law of the land.

Uhh, we've had a Constitutional Democratic Republic since the founding.

No, we haven't. Having a vote doesn't make a country a democracy. The US is a constitution based federal republic. The states are considerably more democratic than the federal government. 26 in particular have initiative and/or referendum.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
Sounds to me like the very thing that the founders were concerned about. I see this as a potential step towards tyranny of the majority.

Why don't we just care about our own views and visions? We're the ones that have to live here, after all.

I would like to have a representative democracy, but one that's fairly different than the one the founders put in the Constitution.

First thing I would want to do is throw out their electoral system, as it's shit. I'd like to switch to a unicameral body that's elected proportionally. Even if we kept the House/Senate I would at a minimum want to switch to proportional representation for the House.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
Sounds to me like the very thing that the founders were concerned about. I see this as a potential step towards tyranny of the majority.

Can you explain? It's really hard to see how any of that has anything to do with the tyranny of the majority.

Also, it's unlikely that the founders were worried about a proportional representation system; it's more that they simply copied most of the elements of the British system. If they were worried about it, well... the experience of most other western democracies should show why that fear was unfounded.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
Because it's the supreme law of the land.

This is incorrect. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not visions of the founders. Understanding that our law is based on current documents that are legally in force and not the presumed whims of individuals that are centuries dead is an important part of understanding how our system of government works.

We can make the Constitution whatever we want. Indeed, the current Constitution differs dramatically from their "vision". So again I ask, why do we care what they thought?
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
contemporary writings, where else would you suggest?

The Federalist Papers are a good source as well; also the other writings of the founders. Many of the founders were very literate, well educated men. Just because they've been dead for a couple hundred years doesn't mean their opinions are of no value.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
This is incorrect. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not visions of the founders. Understanding that our law is based on current documents that are legally in force and not the presumed whims of individuals that are centuries dead is an important part of understanding how our system of government works.

We can make the Constitution whatever we want. Indeed, the current Constitution differs dramatically from their "vision". So again I ask, why do we care what they thought?

Lot of laws currently on the books were written by dead people. Why should I care about social security? Or any of the other things dead people cared about 50 or 100 years ago?

If we don't care about what dead people thought, then why are you so hellbent on stopping the Republicans from gutting the federal government of things that were put in place by dead people?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
contemporary writings, where else would you suggest?

Well there were a great number of founders and a lot of them had dramatically different ideas for the country than what you listed. Everyone who wrote the Constitution did so with the intent of creating greater centralized federal power, but some of them wanted to take it dramatically farther than the Constitution did. There were others that wanted to take it less far too, but it hardly seems that you could state that the founders had a particular, coherent vision.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
Lot of laws currently on the books were written by dead people. Why should I care about social security? Or any of the other things dead people cared about 50 or 100 years ago?

This is a baffling argument. Who cares if the laws were written by dead people? I don't care about social security because people cared about it 50 years ago, I care about it because people care about it now. Where did you come up with this nonsense?

If we don't care about what dead people thought, then why are you so hellbent on stopping the Republicans from gutting the federal government of things that were put in place by dead people?

You're right, we definitely should not care about what dead people think. We should care about what living people think though, and they don't want to gut the federal government. Pretty simple, huh?
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
The Federalist Papers are a good source as well; also the other writings of the founders. Many of the founders were very literate, well educated men. Just because they've been dead for a couple hundred years doesn't mean their opinions are of no value.

The federalist papers were one of the contemporary sources I had in mind.

edit: and their opinions and thoughts very much matter today and tomorrow just as much as they did 200+ years ago.
 
Last edited:

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Well there were a great number of founders and a lot of them had dramatically different ideas for the country than what you listed. Everyone who wrote the Constitution did so with the intent of creating greater centralized federal power, but some of them wanted to take it dramatically farther than the Constitution did. There were others that wanted to take it less far too, but it hardly seems that you could state that the founders had a particular, coherent vision.

I think it obvious that while everyone had their individual views, what ended up being our Constitution and the deliberations behind the decisions that led to it are in fact sources for the intent of our Founders. So in fact, there was a coherent vision of what our Founders expected even while they may disagree on some point or another.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
My biggest issues is that I have no faith in the moral restraint of politicians. The founders didn't intend for people to make a lifetime career of being in congress. They were expected to serve for a while then have to go back to live with the consequences of the laws they passed. Our country is so polarized today that the rancor between the two sides would push towards a never ending 'we won' attitude, leading to the potential for tyranny of the majority. I thinks this is part of what drove the compromise decision to have 2 houses of congress, not just a blind copy. Just out of curiosity, how much of the writings of the founders have your read? I admit I'm not an expert, but I do know a few people who are VERY literate on the founders and have had many discussions about their thoughts.

Can you explain? It's really hard to see how any of that has anything to do with the tyranny of the majority.

Also, it's unlikely that the founders were worried about a proportional representation system; it's more that they simply copied most of the elements of the British system. If they were worried about it, well... the experience of most other western democracies should show why that fear was unfounded.