Everything you know is wrong (III)

The topic today is government, specifically, the type of government in the United States. If I asked you what form of government the United States has, what would you say?  A democracy? A constitutional democracy? A representative democracy? An oligarchy, run by big government elites? Anarchy (especially under the current administration)?

This is not an academic question: if you don’t know what type of government you have, you may be surprised when things happen that you thought could not–or should not–happen. I noticed this after the last Presidential election, when the popular vote did not track with the electoral outcome, and many commented that this should not be. I saw it again recently when the very vocal students marching for gun control were talking about making democracy work. You will often hear politicians and thought leaders referring to “our democracy.” I trust they are using a shorthand reference, but are they correct? What is our form of government?  As Warner Wolf used to say, “Let’s go to the videotape.”

Okay, there is no videotape, but there is a historical record. But when asked what form of government the new Constitution established for these United States, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A Republic…if you can keep it.” The Founding Fathers had many negative things to say about democracy as a form of government: they saw it as majority rule, or the rule by factions, as they called it.  The Federalist Papers (especially Federalist #10) detail their concerns: They wanted a government “of the people,” but they distrusted the average “person.” So they built in several safeguards, limiting the franchise (i.e., the right to vote) creating the electoral college, bifurcating the legislature. While we can all agree some of their methods were morally suspect (e.g., denying women the right to vote), their intent was sound: people making the choice of our governmental representatives should be informed and properly disposed. The Founders thought it very important to use voting as a means to establish the representatives in our government, but they knew the masses could be impassioned and misled.

Here’s another hint: recall the beginning of the Pledge of Allegiance. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands…” Now the pledge has no authoritative standing, but it has been around since the late 19th century, and represented the common knowledge and wisdom of our culture.

Now, before I go any further, one must recall that the names political parties give themselves (today and historically) are not relevant within this discussion. In the Cold War, communist governments called themselves democratic socialist republics. In the United States, today’s Republican party was cobbled together out of the old Whig and Free Soil parties, and once gave birth to the Progressive party (in the early 20th century). Today’s Democratic party began as the anti-federalist Democratic-Republicans! As so much else in politics, you have to look past the labels. So forget about them, for the time being.

Every form of government has to have two things: a source of its legitimacy (hereafter source), and an authority for its actions. In a democracy, the source is the people, and the authority is the majority. If you further define a government as a representative democracy, the source remains the people, but the authority becomes some form of legislature. Communist governments also said the people were the source, but claimed the party was the authority.

Republics can choose different forms of source and authority. A Monarchy can be a republic that chooses God’s divine right as source and a King /Queen as authority (or perhaps vice versa). Our own republic claims the people as source, but establishes a constitution as the authority. How do we know this? Majorities of the U.S. population have frequently been told that what they wanted was not to be, according to the Constitution. Likewise, various governments at the federal and state level have been denied their policies for the same reason. Now, the astute reader will point out that a majority can amend the Constitution. True, but not just any majority: only by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States! As you can see, it is a most difficult proposition, and hardly represents a trump card for “the majority” over the constitution as authority.

Over time, democratic methods have become more and more important within the U.S. republic. Federal senators were originally appointed by the States, to be the voice of the state governments to Washington (in addition to being the curative to the passions of the more democratically-elected House of Representatives). Some states sent poor representatives, since they saw it as a chance to get rid of one of their worst, or because Washington was far away and less important.  In the early 20th century, this led to direct election of federal senators, a victory for democracy but a loss for the state governments, who to this day have no representative to the federal side.

Likewise, various states have experimented (as was intended by the Founders) with greater democracy. California has been at the forefront of this movement, especially with its ballot initiative process that permits simple majorities to enact amendments to the state constitution binding on the state government (recall Proposition 13, which famously tied the state government’s hands with respect to taxes).

Based on the evidence, it is clear the United States began as a republic.  It is fair to say it has changed, and continues to change, toward more democratic aspects and methods. It cannot be called a democracy, even in shorthand. Why does this matter (“now he asks, after I read all this!”)?

That must wait for a future post!