Watching the Democrat Party's National Convention, I am amazed at how much they call this country a democracy. They strive for democracy. They claim that without democracy this nation is lost.
"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." --John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, 1763
The constitutional republic created by the U.S. Constitution enabled the Founding Fathers to provide a system that could eliminate the likelihood of a closed ruling class making all of the decisions without representation of the population present, while ensuring the typically uninformed voter did not compromise governmental authority through a purely democratic voting system. The republic created in the United States was designed to ensure the individual was the original authority, while leaving the representation in government up to those that were educated about political processes.
Constitutionally, or at least prior to the 17th Amendment, the only direct election the citizens of the United States would participate in at the federal level would be their choice for representation in the House of Representatives. This did not in any way take away the importance of the vote of the people, for the House of Representatives from a constitutional point of view, is the most powerful part of government. The House of Representatives holds the purse strings regarding the national budget as per Article I, Section 7, Clause 1, and The House has the sole power of impeachment as per Article I, Section 2's final clause.
We are a republic. . . for a reason.
A pure democracy is the tyranny of the majority - or sometimes the tyranny of the loudest and best funded.
A pure democracy is a form of government in which the vote of the people determines all matters of government. Democracies invest all power in the will of the people. The Democrats would like you to believe that we are supposed to be a pure democracy, and to move the United States in that direction they are dismantling the checks and balances in place that were created with the specific intent of protecting us from the excesses of democracy.
The Founding Fathers recognized democracies as failed systems, and designed the American form of government specifically for the purpose of avoiding the dangers of democratic systems.
The Founding Fathers are not the only ones to recognize what democracies are. Karl Marx, one of the minds behind the creation of modern communism/socialism, once stated, "Democracy is the road to socialism."
One of the problems with democracies, and one could say is one of the primary contributors to the unsustainability of democracies, is the fact that once the voters realize they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury, and subvert freedom under the guise of "for the common good," the breakdown of the social construct is inevitable.
As the system teeters, a ruling class emerges, promising benevolence through government sponsored programs, but ultimately becoming an oligarchy of powerful elites that seeks to undermine freedom of the individual, promising that the loss of freedoms is simply for the benefit of the overall community.
Some democratic processes do exist in our republic, though changes over the last couple centuries have increased how much democracy infests our system (i.e. 17th Amendment). The democratic processes originally allowed were to ensure that the people held on to their original authority. However, the power of the vote was also divided in such a way that most parts of government were influenced by only an indirect vote.
As with anything else, too much power concentrated in any one location is dangerous, and that included in the hands of the voting public.
The constitutional republic created by the U.S. Constitution enabled the Founding Fathers to provide a system that could eliminate the likelihood of a closed ruling class making all of the decisions without representation of the population present, while ensuring the typically uninformed voter did not compromise governmental authority through a purely democratic voting system. The republic created in the United States was designed to ensure the individual was the original authority, while leaving the representation in government up to those that were educated about political processes.
Constitutionally, or at least prior to the 17th Amendment, the only direct election the citizens of the United States would participate in at the federal level would be their choice for representation in the House of Representatives. This did not in any way take away the importance of the vote of the people, for the House of Representatives from a constitutional point of view, is the most powerful part of government. The House of Representatives holds the purse strings regarding the national budget as per Article I, Section 7, Clause 1, and The House has the sole power of impeachment as per Article I, Section 2's final clause.
The U.S. Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures, not by the people. This ensured that the State Legislatures also had a voice in the federal system. The people, because they voted in their State Legislators in a direct manner, chose their Senators in an indirect manner through their State Legislatures. This was a process put into place to divide the power of the vote, while also ensuring the States, from whom the powers of the new federal government had been granted, had a level of influence on the workings of the central government.
The same can be said for the electors in the Electoral College. Though it is actually the electors that vote the President and Vice President into office, the choice of the electors is influenced by the vote of the people on a state by state basis. Therefore, as originally intended with the U.S. Senate, the President is voted into office indirectly by the people. This protects the system against the excesses of democracy, while also ensuring the minority (small States) also hold a reasonable influence in the election of the President.
The democrats market the federal government as a government of the masses. They claim that nothing is built without the government being involved, and that the central government must be a safety net for all people, to ensure nobody suffers for any reason. The goal, in the end, is to control all of your actions for your own safety, which includes controlling all means of production, distribution, and economics through the auspices of government for the supposed ever-progressing interests of its people.
Individual liberty hinges on individual choice, and a limited government. When government takes over those functions, freedoms are lost, and the concepts of self-reliance and personal responsibility become lost somewhere inside all of the bureaucratic red tape and government mandates.
The democrats market the federal government as a government of the masses. They claim that nothing is built without the government being involved, and that the central government must be a safety net for all people, to ensure nobody suffers for any reason. The goal, in the end, is to control all of your actions for your own safety, which includes controlling all means of production, distribution, and economics through the auspices of government for the supposed ever-progressing interests of its people.
Individual liberty hinges on individual choice, and a limited government. When government takes over those functions, freedoms are lost, and the concepts of self-reliance and personal responsibility become lost somewhere inside all of the bureaucratic red tape and government mandates.
In a democracy, the "will" of the people is unchecked. In a republic, the "will" of the people, though important, cannot extend beyond the bounds of what is constitutional, or beyond the opinions of the officials in government placed there directly, or indirectly, by the democratic vote of the people. In a republic, it is also easy for the people, should the representatives not govern in a way consistent with the expectations of the people, to vote out their representatives and replace them with officials more apt to govern in line with the preferences of the populace.
Democracies collapse when the people begin to entrust more of their freedoms to those they elect, instead of the voting public acting as the oversight against those they elect. To guard against the rise of tyranny in such a manner, the founders put into place a series of checks and balances against the parts of government, and against the vote of the people. The three branches of government operate under a doctrine of "separation of powers," enabling checks and balances to exist between the three independent branches of the federal government, while keeping in place a limited connection between them. In the same way the two Houses of Congress, the House of Representatives, having its members voted in by the people, and the U.S. Senate, having its members originally appointed by the State Legislatures, served as checks against each other, while together serving as a check against the other two branches of the federal government - a system that protected against collusion between the branches.
In a democracy, these checks and balances, and separations of power, would not be in place. In a republic, while each part of government is independent from the other parts, the built-in system of checks and balances ensures each part of government does not abuse or usurp. These safeguards were necessary to ensure each part of government acted independently, while also having a degree of constitutional control over each other. In other words, the system of checks and balances serves to enable constitutional control in the hands of each department while preventing any usurpation of power by any part of government.
This is how the Founding Fathers wished to protect us from the excesses of democracy. . . however, today's liberal democrats reject those protections, calling the American form of government a democracy. They work to make that democracy even stronger, pushing to eliminate the constitutional protections designed to ensure our government operates as a system limited in its scope and powers. According to our founders, the authorities of the federal government are few, while the powers of the member states are many. The democrats disagree, pushing for a big central government, for a system where the federal government is all-powerful, and capable of compromising the rights and freedoms of anyone that dares disagree with it.
Democracies collapse when the people begin to entrust more of their freedoms to those they elect, instead of the voting public acting as the oversight against those they elect. To guard against the rise of tyranny in such a manner, the founders put into place a series of checks and balances against the parts of government, and against the vote of the people. The three branches of government operate under a doctrine of "separation of powers," enabling checks and balances to exist between the three independent branches of the federal government, while keeping in place a limited connection between them. In the same way the two Houses of Congress, the House of Representatives, having its members voted in by the people, and the U.S. Senate, having its members originally appointed by the State Legislatures, served as checks against each other, while together serving as a check against the other two branches of the federal government - a system that protected against collusion between the branches.
In a democracy, these checks and balances, and separations of power, would not be in place. In a republic, while each part of government is independent from the other parts, the built-in system of checks and balances ensures each part of government does not abuse or usurp. These safeguards were necessary to ensure each part of government acted independently, while also having a degree of constitutional control over each other. In other words, the system of checks and balances serves to enable constitutional control in the hands of each department while preventing any usurpation of power by any part of government.
This is how the Founding Fathers wished to protect us from the excesses of democracy. . . however, today's liberal democrats reject those protections, calling the American form of government a democracy. They work to make that democracy even stronger, pushing to eliminate the constitutional protections designed to ensure our government operates as a system limited in its scope and powers. According to our founders, the authorities of the federal government are few, while the powers of the member states are many. The democrats disagree, pushing for a big central government, for a system where the federal government is all-powerful, and capable of compromising the rights and freedoms of anyone that dares disagree with it.
Political Correctness is just the first step being used by the supporters of an ever-expanding central government. They silence their opposition through ridicule and personal attacks. They call their opposition bigots and haters in the hope of censoring them through shame.
The Democrat Party says we are a democracy, and if they get their way, it will be. . . creating a one way road to destruction of the American System.
The concept of a Constitutional Republic, as provided to us by the U.S. Constitution, is the solution.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
3 comments:
John Adams in the Wealth of Nations also said that we are capitalistic society. And the advocate of pure capitalism said the end to taxes. Yeah! Then he said the system will only work if inheritance tax was 100%.
This is where we lose the trust fund kids.
Mr. Robert, you are in error. John Adams is not the author of Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith was.
Your quip about Inheritance tax is inaccurate, but I will address that at the end of this response. In Wealth of Nations Adam Smith did not write that we are a capitalistic society. His writings were studied by the founders, as they were a study into successful economic systems. Smith was a Scottish economist, and moral philosopher, who published his Wealth of Nations coincidentally in 1776. The writing of the work, or course, began long before the American call for independence, a combination of 17 years of notes. Five editions were published: 1776, 1778, 1784, 1786, and 1789. Original publication was in March of 1776, prior to the date on the Declaration of Independence. In America, as the new country sought to define its identity, statists like Alexander Hamilton argued against many of Smith's principles, while those that championed liberty found Smith's writings about the free market to mirror what was emerging in the United States, and saw the policies of capitalism ones that would be beneficial to the growth of the country - consistent with the principles that already made up the quiltwork of American Exceptionalism, such as self-reliance, personal responsibility, hard-work, and the ability to keep what one produced. As for your quip about inheritance tax, in Wealth of Nations Smith did not write that inheritance tax should be 100%. In fact, he wrote that estates should be able to cascade down through the generations. Heavy taxation on inheritance encourages the wealthy to remove their money from the economy to avoid the tax, spreading it around in other countries, rather than giving it to posterity who will likely invest that money back into the domestic economy.
Post a Comment