Posted on 03/16/2013 2:11:08 PM PDT by rmlew
A minor point, but Franklin was distinguishing it from a monarchy, not a democracy. [Original lack of punctuation retained] "A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it." [From the notes of Dr. James McHenry, delegate to the Convention]
> If we want to be precise we would call that what we have which is a Constitutional Republic formed specifically to temper democracy in favor of individual liberty.
I agree, and I’m in favor of that (but it’s tempering the representative democracy that’s present in the government itself).
I don’t think it’s a good idea for the right to let the left have exclusive possession of the word ‘democracy’ (which I’m sure has favorable connotations for most Americans). I prefer to use such terms as ‘tyranny of the majority’ for the oppressive intrusion of the majority into the affairs of the individual, and to use ‘representative democracy with protections for individual rights’ as a good term.
I have no problem with the term ‘Constitutional Republic’ either because that’s the form it takes, but if people on the right start out by saying they’re against democracy, in the eyes of most persons they already have two strikes against them. Then they have to talk their way out of that hole. It’s easier just to say I support democracy, but a democracy with provisions to protect the rights of the individual (a Constitutional republic with a bill of rights). Without those rights, a democracy can become a tyranny of the majority. People can easily understand that.
Democracy in theory isnt negative or intentionally and ultimately oppressive. It is in practice. Individual rights are enumerated in the Constitution of course as already mentioned. And still a Constitutional Republic is distinct from a Democracy, even as they share some commonality in political process and representative govt. Rule of law checks Democracy and administrates governance via the spectacular framework of Federalism, so it is a distinct form. Nice chat, but tapping on this tablet is unwieldy...
>Democracy is the road to socialism— Karl Marx
That line has not been found in any published work by Marx. Marx opposed “liberal democracy” (that is, the conservative limited-government democracy of the time). Later Communist regimes were dictatorships of a small elite, and merely used the term “’democracy” as a cloak to cover what was really going on (also “People’s Republic” — there’s that word ‘republic’ again :-).
Both ‘republic’ and ‘democracy’ are used loosely by different groups to mean all kinds of things. Only the specifics determine what’s really meant.
> tapping on this tablet is unwieldy
OK, I’ll slack off for a while, and quit flooding you with words. :-)
The main take-away is that democracy as a pure value can be quite destructive if exported without all the trimmings and qualifications our system placed upon it.
In fact, our Founders correctly recognized that unbridled democracy would destroy our republic. And to the extent that the low-information voters have as much say in elections as conscientious, taxpaying citizens with a stake in ownership of our land and responsibility for the maintenance of what they own, it’s undeniably true.
Passage of the 16th and 17th amendments killed the Republic, a process started by Abe Lincoln, finished by the progressives.
I must agree; the civil war did not really solve the constitutional problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.