Liberty
Letters

March 4, 2005
Madison, Tucker, Jefferson, Adams
#19
A Republic,
Not a Democracy
by Steve Farrell
Those who delude themselves into believing our
public schools and universities are telling the
truth about the foundations of American government,
or for that matter, teaching our youth how to think
&endash; ought to read through the stack of emails
I regularly receive from educated individuals who
passionately defend that which is absolutely false
and totally nonsensical.
The latest came from a female New Yorker,
responding to my article, "Blessed Tolerance: The
'Virtue' of a Republic in Decline," who worked
herself into a lather over my suggestion that a "me
first
anything goes" democracy is a shortcut
to tyranny, and that a return to "liberty under the
law," as per a republic, is what America needs if
America expects to remain free.
I noted, summarizing Plato, that the 'democratic
man,' overly fixed on his beloved self interest,
first becomes tyrannized by his own lusts, and next
tyrannizes everyone else in an unending attempt to
satisfy his ever growing list of lusts &endash;
which can never be fully satisfied.
The point being, a society dominated by weak and
undisciplined, brutish and unprincipled individuals
is ripe for tyranny because slavery and tyranny is
already their lot.
Welcome to human nature 101. When self-love and
self-indulgence are ranked as the greatest of
rights, and toleration for every sort of extreme as
the highest of virtues, trouble follows. Morality,
law, stability take a hit. Turbulence, anarchy,
political opportunism come in their wake.
Why is that so hard to understand? This is why
the founding father of modern communism, Karl Marx,
initiated the battle cry of the Communist
Manifesto, "We must win the battle of democracy!"
And this is why the Father of the US Constitution,
James Madison, opposed democracy, in these
words:
- democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found
incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and have in general been as
short in their lives as they have been violent
in their deaths. (1)
"A republic", by contrast,
"opens a
different prospect and promises the cure for which
we are seeking." (2)
Get it? Communist Founder Marx wanted democracy,
and American Founder Madison did not, for the very
same reasons: democracies are unstable, violent,
short lived political systems whose chief aim is
the overthrow of private property.
But that is not all. Democracies have other
problems, as well, especially in their outlook on
equality. They seek to "reduce mankind," Madison
warned, "[until they are] equalized and
assimilated in their possessions, their opinions,
and their passions." (3)
That is, they preach and practice a false
equality that, in the end, impoverishes and
enslaves mankind economically, intellectually, and
morally into one common miserable lot.
This is the exact opposite of the sort of
equality the American Founders promoted. St. George
Tucker, the author of the 1803, View of the
Constitution of the United States (the first
commentary on the US Constitution), explained what
our founders meant by "all men are created
equal":
- By equality
is to be understood,
equality of civil rights and not of condition.
Equality of rights necessarily produces
inequality of possessions; because, by the laws
of nature and of equality, every man has a right
to use his faculties in an honest way, and the
fruits of his labor, thus acquired, are his own.
But some men have more strength than others;
some more health; some more industry; and some
more skill and ingenuity, than others; and
according to these, and other circumstances the
products of their labors must be various, and
their property must become unequal. The rights
of property are sacred, and must be protected;
otherwise there would be no exertion of either
ingenuity or industry, and consequently nothing
but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal
ignorance. (4)
Indeed, the American Founders rejected the equal
ends approach to equality because such an equality,
the equality of a pure democracy, produces
precisely what communism has always produced:
"nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal
ignorance, " even as it undermines the best in
men.
The Republic our Founders gave us, by embracing
true equality &endash; meaning equality under the
law, and equality of God given rights &endash;
produced the most ingenious, industrious,
prosperous, happy, and enlightened people in
history.
And so let's not pussy-foot around here. What,
then, is the real object of a national educational
establishment that has rewritten our history books,
and imposed curriculum mandates that teach the
rising generation that the American Founders gave
us a democracy?
And, what, then, is this educational
establishment's real object when they use democracy
as justification for a "me first, anything goes"
agenda, that bans Capitalism and Christianity from
their "anything goes" list?
Are we really naïve enough to believe that
this fraud was perpetrated by men of pure motives,
men and women who love American liberty so much
that they feel compelled to lie about her
foundations?
My 'educated' reader accused me of writing "an
article supporting the end of our democracy." If
she had been truly educated she might have said
with Jefferson, "In questions of power, then, let
no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him
down from mischief by the chains of the
Constitution." (5)
She might have said, "you are right, Steve. We
are 'a government of laws, not of men,' (6) that
is, a republic, not a democracy &endash; and since
'the best republics will be virtuous, and have been
so' (7) it is incumbent upon all of us to say 'No!'
to false definitions of equality, and "No!' to
moral extremes that aim to undermine 'liberty under
law,' in favor of 'anything goes,' on the way to
absolute tyranny."
She might have said something like that, but she
didn't; and neither will millions of others
similarly educated in this country. And so our work
is cut out for us, isn't it?
Footnotes
1. Madison, James. Federalist 10.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Tucker, St. George. View of the
Constitution of the United States: With Selected
Writings, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, 1999,
pgs. 40-41.
5. Elliot. The Debates in the Several State
Conventions On the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution, Volume 4, p. 543. As quoted from
the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 1799 (authored by
Jefferson).
6. Adams, John, Novanglus Papers, no. 7.,
Adams published articles in 1774 in the Boston,
Massachusetts, Gazette using the pseudonym
"Novanglus." In this paper he credited James
Harrington with expressing the idea this way.
Harrington described a republic as "the empire of
laws and not of men" in his 1656 work, The
Commonwealth of Oceana, p. 35 (1771). The
phrase gained wider currency when Adams used it in
the Massachusetts Constitution, Bill of Rights,
article 30 (1780).
7. Cappon, Lester J. editor. The Adams
&endash; Jefferson Letters, The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1959,
1987, p. 167.
Farrell
Archive
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|