Another republic vs. democracy rant

I spent a lot of time on this response in a discussion on Facebook, and wanted to keep it handy.

The question is: "What did the founding fathers say we created?" A republic or democracy?

The answer is: It's not either/or. We're a republic IN a democracy.

Let's start with this line from a Constitution Center article: "Americans had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty--'democracy'--as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776." [Source]

But upon that bedrock of democracy, "The Founders," didn't create anything, because "The Founders" were a mix of people with different philosophies.

Was Patrick Henry a Founder? Of course, but as an anti-Federalist he didn't "create" anything. He fought *against* the Constitution. What about Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph? They were delegates at the Constitutional Convention, so surely they're Founders, right? Well ... they refused to sign the Constitution. Doesn't that disqualify they them from "Founder" status since as non-signatories they essentially disavowed it?

This question of what "The Founders" would say they created is a red herring. Benjamin Franklin's fabled line -- "a republic, if you can keep it" -- would be perfect but for some uncomfortable realities: 1.) it's apocryphal, 2.) he's only one person, and 3.) that's not the full story.[Source]

Which is what this article from The Atlantic was about.

"In “Federalist No. 10” and “Federalist No. 51,” the seminal papers, Madison argued that a large republic with a diversity of interests capped by the separation of powers and checks and balances would help provide the solution to the ills of popular government. In a large and diverse society, populist passions are likely to dissipate, as no single group can easily dominate. If such intemperate passions come from a minority of the population, the “republican principle,” by which Madison meant majority rule, will allow the defeat of “sinister views by regular vote.”[Source]

In other words, he promoted a representational system of government based on majority rule. That sounds a lot like democracy to me. And it matches the context in these quotes. On December 29th, 1940, FDR said we must be "the Arsenal of Democracy." [Full text]

On June 8th, 1982, Ronald Reagan defended democracy in his address to the British Parliament, saying, "The objective I propose is quite simple to state: To foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means."[Source]

And in November 2003, when George W. Bush addressed the National Endowment of Democracy, he stated, "Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are "ready" for democracy -- as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. In fact, the daily work of democracy itself is the path of progress." [Source]

Did these presidents not understand we weren't *actually* a democracy in the first place? Of course not. They were speaking of what we were -- our /style/ of government -- not our federal republican framework.

Besides, the notion that America is not a democracy relies on on equivocation -- a bait and switch in terminology. One Heritage Foundation article reveals this. The headline reads "America is a Republic, not a Democracy," but the first line reveals the switch. "America is a republic and not a pure democracy." [Source]

The Founders who signed the Constitution promoted a national system where the majority of voters would rule -- a federal republic based on the principles of democracy. The two words "republic" and "democracy" describe different things.

So this notion that we can ignore the ideals of democracy because that's not the term "the Founders" used is dangerous. It implies turning away from majority rule -- the democracy on which the Constitution is based -- toward something we haven't seen in 250 years.

And that, I oppose.