Words have meaning

This is something else I wrote several years ago in relation to a letter to the editor I had read.

_______________________________________

A recent writer in the "My Turn" column opened his discussion with the following sentence: "One of the Founders of our country said we are giving the people a democracy if they can keep it." He then went on to discuss the losing of our "democracy" to a military takeover from within. Much of what he said I could give a hearty "amen" to, while yet other statements I would strongly disagree with.

Yet, before reading the rest of his column, this first sentence caught my attention in such a way as to yield the rest of his discussion secondary. In this sentence are two examples of error and omission which seem to paint a pretty dim picture of where we as a nation are in our level of understanding of our own history.

First, and this is the least severe of the two, is the fact that this retired professor would use a quote, and a fairly famous one at that, yet attribute it only to "one of the Founders." Exactly how difficult would it be for a learned man to determine who it was who actually said it? Second and more severely, the quote itself was misstated in a way which may seem minor, but has major implications.

The Founder was Ben Franklin. What he said, in response to a question about the type of government they had just given us was that it was a "Republic, if they can keep it." Did you catch that not so subtle difference? A "republic" and not a "democracy" is what our founders produced when they developed the constitution. Which leads to some obvious questions such as "What is a Republic?" "What is a democracy?" "How are they different?" and "Is it really all that important anyway?"

A democracy is defined in my dictionary as "government by the people; esp. rule by the majority." This same dictionary defines a republic as "a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected representatives governing according to law." That is, the choice between a democracy and a republic is the choice between the rule of man (in the majority) or rule of law, administered by elected representatives.

A major danger with a democracy lies in its inability to deal with factions. This is particularly true if that faction happens to entail a majority of the public. It is also true in the presence of many and varied factions which overlap as well oppose each other in both majority and minority groups. To use an extreme and admittedly silly example, I told my son that in a democracy, if the majority (a large "faction") decided it would be a good thing to put all ten-year-old boys in jail, then he would have to go to jail. In a democracy you see, the majority rules. There are no rights for minorities.

Exactly how a democracy or a republic would or would not be able to deal with these factions was the topic of The Federalist No. 10. There, the writer (Publius) says of a democracy: "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies 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." Further, Publius adds "A republic…promises the cure for which we are seeking," adding several paragraphs of explanation.

I am sure that the writer meant by "democracy" actually "representative democracy", a term which he did in fact use some paragraphs later and which would, in essence, mean approximately the same thing as "republic". But, why did he not use the more correct terminology, particularly in light of the fact that he was referring to a direct quote? Words are the means by which we communicate ideas to one another and pass these ideas along to our posterity. A misuse of words causes a lack of understanding. It is this lack of understanding of such terms and concepts as "democracy" and "republicanism" which has led us to the point in which we are now at. Only by regaining an understanding of our history and the type of government our founders gave can we hope to recover the level of freedom all people strive for.

Actually, even the term "republic" is a short hand, simplified version of the government our founders forged. A more complete description would be to say our (central) government is a "constitutional federated republic." Moreover, it is a mixed governmental system, containing elements of the monarchical principle, the aristocrat principle, and the democratic principle, while still being fully republican and not actually being any of these other three. It was a republic in the sense that it was to be administered by representatives elected directly or indirectly by the people. However, these representatives were arrayed in such a way as to have automatic "checks and balances" upon each other, so that the central government would not obtain too much power.

However, not only were the various branches of government checked by being pitted against one another at the federal level, they were also as a whole pitted against the state governments, as well as more indirectly against the local governments and the people themselves. Finally, the central government was also held in check by a written constitution (the law) which specifically limited its powers to an enumerated few. This constitution was then further undergirded by an attached Bill of Rights which specifically limited the central government's power all the more.
However, in the last century or so, much of this system of checks and balances has come under attack. Supreme Court decisions have given the central government powers over the states and the people which can be found nowhere either clearly or hidden within the test of the constitution. Amendments to the constitution such as the one giving it the power to tax the income of its citizens have increased the central government's power over the people. Other amendments, unconstitutional laws, court decisions, presidential orders, moves toward democracy and away from republicanism, and an overall reduction in the level of understanding in the general public have allowed this restricted government to usurp powers which it has no authority or jurisdiction to possess.

So yes, knowing and understanding the differences between a republic and a democracy is vitally important. If we are to ignore the meanings and the histories of these words, the next thing you know we will be distorting the meanings of other words as well, just as this writer did in his third paragraph. There he equates the "right" and "left" with the "haves" and "have-nots". Later, he indicates that most of the "hate" in our politics comes of course from "conservatives". When we get loose with our definitions, we can assault those who disagree with us much easier, thereby strengthening our own "faction". When we discount the value of the meanings of words, when we play fast and loose with our language and we throw all the rules of communication out the window, it is then easy to label one set of people as responsible for all problems.

However, when we understand words and concepts and history, we can more clearly understand that most of our political problems, as well as those in other countries, stem from the lack of limits or restraints on government, and the rise of a faction (or many factions) having a heavily weighted and unwarranted access to the use of unlimited government force.