As my favorite holiday approaches I have been musing.

There is a story about Ben Franklin that I think is marvelous. It goes that he was asked after the Constitutional Convention, What have you wrought? He answered "We have given you a Republic if you can keep it." The last part of this haunts me, as I do not believe we are keeping it. I think it is slowly eroding.

Some of what has been in the media and elsewhere lately has really bothered me. The terms Democratic government and Democracy as they relate to the U.S. are mentioned constantly. It seems that no one understands that we do not live in a democracy.

The framers of the Constitution of The United States wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without once mentioning the word Democracy. No part of any one of the existing state Constitutions contains any reference to the word democracy.
Our Republic is dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." We are granted "unalienable rights" Minority individual rights are a priority. This is not true under a Democracy. In a Democracy only the majority have rights.

There are critical differences between a Democracy and a Republic. Under a Democracy, a central federal government may and most likely will grow tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson said. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was never will be".
We need to understand the basic differences of these two types of government, and make certain our children are being taught correctly.

I wholeheartedly agree. I raised similar points in a few postings to the "When Losing..." thread. While I use the dreaded d-word there (as is the common fashion), I do at least qualify it.

It's a pity more people aren't familiar with Franklin - or, indeed, the intentions of most of our Founders. They must all be turning cartwheels in their respective graves since about December 2000 (not that they would've been resting that peacefully since, say, the Civil War).

Actually our founding father's have been turning cartwheels in their graves since the mid 30's.

I'm actually also inclined to agree with Nettie... How can you argue with Ben Franklin for goodness sake? Sheesh...

The founding fathers also knew the world was going to change. That's why they let us make ammendments to the constitution. They didn't intend to free the slaves, does that make it wrong. The world changed in the 30's and if we didn't change the country might have become communist or facsist. Would the founders like that? Now we have people like John Ashcroft going through our garbage to see if we are terrorists. That isn't nice. Unless you are a terrorist.

I understand what you're saying, I understand also the difference between a democracy and a republic. I think it is similar to the way we use communism as well. There's a big difference between, say, the Soviet government and communism, yet we have tended to use the terms interchangeably.

If conventional usage equates democracy with American-style government, it makes sense to use the term colloquially when referring to our nation, unless that is the focus of the debate itself.

Ranciduncle, I agree with you. The founding fathers provided a process to change the Constitution and it was called AMENDMENTS, not reinterpretation of the general welfare clause. Thank you

I don't know about all of you, but I was always taught that America was a republican democracy--having elements of both an old style republic and a true democracy, like Athens. In the beginning, of course, it was very much a republic, resembling closely the republic of the Romans before Caesar. The executive branch was basically identical, the legislative and judicial branches quite similar as well (save for our legislative body was and is bicameral).But with the advent of Jacksonian democracy and the development of party politics, as well as the amendments of the Progressive Era which gave voting rights to women as well as making senatorial and representative election a matter of popular voting rather than of of the outdated electoral college. we still used representatives, yes, but in a true republic of the old form, like that of Rome or the United Provinces of the Netherlands, the governing body was not elected so much by the populace than by the aristocracy who'd reserved voting rights for themselves. Even in parliamentary England (which,we define today as a republican or controlled monarchy)during the Revolutionary War, a war which was brought on by the colonists desire for representation in parliament, not even a tenth of the members of parliament were appointed by popular vote. This is what makes America, if nothing else, more of a democracy than earlier republics.
Anyway, as to the remakr about a federal government growing tyrannical under a complete democracy, I disagree. Perhaps back then, government could not have survived as a complete democracy--but I think that today, with modern communications technology and educational methods, we can safeguard against tyranny. If the Greeks (however great they might have been) could maintain a complete democracy for about a century twenty-four hundred years ago, I think we could manage the same without serious trouble.

Without going back to my Greek history books, I don't think the Greeks ever had a complete democracy. There were entire groups that were disenfranchised - slaves and women, for starters. They were also unable to adequately defend themselves because of the inherently devisive nature of governance by democracy. (everyone wants to make a speech before voting)

Democracy can certainly become the tyranny of the majority. It is also a cumbersome way to govern and generally is only thought to work for a civic group with a small population in a more remote location with little interaction with outside groups - and therefore less need to defend itself militarily, economically, culturally.

We are a representative republic. We were more of a republic when the country began because the US Senate was elected by the state representatives. Now we are more of a democracy because we have increased the franchise to include more groups as well as opened up the vote for the Senate to the popular vote.

The electoral college (along with the two senators per state solution) was established to guard against the tyranny of the majority. I do believe it is considered (though when it doesn't go the way we wish we have our doubts ) a truly brilliant mechanism to meld the needs of the many with the needs of the few. Had the electoral college not been devised there was a strong possibility that the Constitution would not have been adopted. The smaller states would not have signed.

Our form of government depends upon two vital elements. According to Montesquieu, one of those is "honesty." Now before you fall off your chair, you need to think of it as comparative honesty. It is more honest than despotic government, more honest than monarchy, or oligarchy, or autocracy, or feudalism.

We are always demanding honesty from our government and always lamenting its lack. But it is the very act of being able to demand honesty - that makes us different. People living under a despot don't even have the means (short of complete rebellion) to demand honesty.

The second (but no less important) is education. We depend upon the citizenry being educated. This is the area which gives me the greatest trouble. We are not educating our children about the country and its governance - how will they carry it on? The Founding Fathers were very much aware of this, especially Jefferson.

When a college graduate of today can't tell me (I've asked) the date of George Washington's birthday, when the history textbook devotes one half a page to his role in history, when they can't list the 13 colonies (one thought California was an original colony) - and when they can't even say why it is important that they know these things - my friends, we are in trouble.

I don't fear for this country from outside forces (an occasional WTC hurts but won't destroy us), but the educational rot within is the true disaster.

By the way - not all states have a bicameral legislature - Nebraska does not (as I recall).

Your brilliant defense of the electoral college is so clear I wish I could have said it myself. I have always believed that it is needed to keep the country together. As you stated, it prevents states like California(I know you are from San Diego), and New York, FLorida from dominating the national debate. I hadn't even thought about the fact that Alaska has two senators, just like California. Those Founding Fathers were pretty smart old guys. You notice the attacks liberals still make on the November 2000 election of President Bush. How the Constitution was trampled on. Actually it was AL Gore and his buddies, who believe in a "living" constitution, their way of validating the fact that they have no core values. Funny how Gore wanted recounts in only heavily democratic counties in southern florida. Didn't see any calls for recounts in conservative panhandle area of Florida. How convenient

Take the 2000 election debate here: The Election that Wouldn't Die, For dead-horse beaters only.

Thank you HeatherRob - purrr - purrr

There is actually one state, I think it is North Dakota, but I could be wrong that ends up with one Representative (based on population) in the House and two Senators.

Yes, here it is: Earl Pomeroy

So it's states like ND that are given equal voice in at least one of the bodies of Congress.

The two big hangups in the Constitutional Convention was this issue of representation and the other was the problem of how to deal with the question of slavery within the issue of representation. The arguments were so heated and the potential for not getting a Constitution so great, that Franklin recommended beginning each daily session with a prayer for Larger Guidance.

The result of is known as the Great Compromise.

Do I have to follow you around asking the same question over and over, HR? Are you capable of posting to any thread without inserting an unsubstantiated, off-topic partisan attack? As a posting tactic, it's unconvincing and, frankly, infantile.


He won't Jaime - that's part of his ploy. He knows that no responsible participant here will respond to his off-topic idiocy and, since he never posts these comments to the appropriate thread, he can get away with making any kind of wild, unfounded claim likes. Hit 'n' run - hit 'n' run - hit 'n' run. It is extremely unfair. I personally feel that every post into which he inserts one of these attacks should be deleted in its entirety. Maybe then, he would finally start to learn how to post like an adult. Though I wouldn't count on it.


EDITED TO ADD:
Jaime/Mike: This posting was probably a bit hasty. I responded to blatantly inflammatory (and patently untrue) comments by being inflamed. I should have just reported HR's post, appended my remarks, and left it at that. It' just that it really ticks me off when he does this - and he does it a lot. Please feel free to take note of my opinion and delete this posting.