Question #4: What is the American form of government?

June 14, 2008 by Stephen Palmer 

| 10 Foundational Questions | Introduction | Question #1 | Question #2 | Question #3 |

The most common–and grossly incorrect–answer to this question is that we are a democracy. The right–albeit simplistic–answer is that we are a republic. A more sophisticated answer is that we are a constitutional republic.

The most thorough answer came from James Madison, who said that our form of government is an “Extended Limited Commercial Federal Democratic Republic.”

By “extended” he was referring to geography–never before in history has there been a republic that covered so much territory.

“Limited” refers to the fact that the Constitution expressly defines what the government can and cannot do.

“Commercial” refers to our national character. The Founders said that there were three main national characters–martial, religious, and commercial. Rome had a martial character, as does China. Ancient Israel had a religious character. Since religious and martial-character nations tend toward tyranny, the Founders chose commercial.

By “federal,” Madison meant as much power as possible was preserved with the People, and that the federal government only existed for specific and limited purposes. The idea of federalism is that the closer one gets to the People the more power there is, while the closer one gets to the federal government, the less power one finds.

“Democratic” refers to the idea that we are a social democracy, although not a governmental democracy. Social democracy is the concept that intrinsic in our culture is the understanding that all men and women are created equal, that no individual is better than another, and that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed.

(As an interesting side note, Dr. Oliver DeMille, founder and President of George Wythe College, gives an updated version of Madison’s lengthy label. DeMille says that we are now an “Internationalist, Sometimes Constitutional (Except Where Prohibited By Law), Extended (Globally), Increasingly Commercial, National, Representative/Virtual/Popular Democracy, With a Technocratic Supremacist Court.” But that’s a conversation for another day…)

Why It Matters

As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10, “…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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

In a pure democracy, all it takes to pass a policy is simple majority vote. But what happens if the policy encroaches upon unalienable rights? If 51% vote in favor of it, the 49% who voted against it will be tyrannized.

Furthermore, what always happens in a democracy is that very few people are even actively involved–which means that it always degenerates into some type of aristocracy or oligarchy, or rule by few.

To quote James Madison again, “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

“The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

“The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.”

In other words, a republic has a much greater chance of protecting and preserving unalienable rights than does a democracy. Democracies in history have always degenerated into “mobocracies” that tyrannize minorities, and they have always failed.

Beware of those who say we are a democracy–they are those who will encroach upon your unalienable rights in the name of equality.

Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.

Email This Post Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.

Filed under: America, Constitution, Government, Liberty, Philosophy
Tagged: , , , , ,

Comments

5 Responses to “Question #4: What is the American form of government?”

  1. pks on June 19th, 2008 1:53 pm

    Thanks for motivating me to read Rice’s article in Foreign Affairs magazine. I’m part-way through it and it’s giving me a clearer idea of what our federal government’s “big picture” foreign policy priorities are.

    Zbigniew Brzenski (Carter administration) said that the USA had a unique opportunity to shape the world. It appears that Rice is picking up Brzenski’s baton, and focusing this country’s influence on the “smaller” countries of the world to transform them into “democratic”, capitalistic states.

    Neoconservatives seem to focus heavily on exporting democratic capitalism, with the intention of forging a growing “club” of allies who begin to value what they value, and who will cooperate with them, since incentives are aligned. It seems like a plan for soft hegemony.

    – Paul

  2. tdyches on June 19th, 2008 2:36 pm

    I cringe when I hear our leaders constantly use the “D” word to describe America and it’s governmental form. BUT, it is kind of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we describe ourselves as a democracy, the closer we get to being one.

    I looked up the definition of “democracy” on Merriam-Webster.com (http://www.merriam-webster.com). This is what I found:

    a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

    Okay, I’m confused by that definition. Anybody else? Seems to be full of contradictions. Government by the people? Representation? Directly or indirectly? Someone please clarify it for me. Thanks!

    - Thomas

  3. Stephen Palmer on June 20th, 2008 7:10 am

    Paul, I think that “soft hegemony” may accurately describe what the neocons would like to have happen, but in reality I don’t think there will be anything soft about it.

    Condoleezza’s closing paragraph was downright scary, but you’ve got to read between the lines. She says, “An international order that reflects our values is the best guarantee of our enduring national interest, and America continues to have a unique opportunity to shape this outcome.”

    In other words, as long as everyone else in the world has the same worldview as us, thinks and acts and feels in the same way, then we’ll be safe. And the way to achieve that end is to militarily impose our values on as many nations as possible.

    Think of the beautiful world we would have if everyone had this same idea in their marriages and families, communities, workplaces, clubs, etc. (If everyone was just like me, I’d never have any conflict.)

    I can’t believe that this actually makes sense to such intelligent people!

  4. Stephen Palmer on June 20th, 2008 7:24 am

    Thomas, it’s interesting that you bring up the dictionary definition, because it precisely proves my point about the power of words.

    Our definitions of words reflect our culture evolution. One fascinating study is to compare contemporary dictionaries with Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

    For example, in the 1828 dictionary, the definition of democracy is:

    DEMOCRACY, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

    Notice no reference to a “system of representation.” See, the word “democracy” has been used so many times to describe our form of government that it’s become totally common. So common, in fact, that it’s changed the definition of the word.

    Here’s another thing to note about both of these dictionary definitions: they both speak of the “supreme power” that is vested in the people. I think that when most people read this, they think of the word “power” in terms of rights. But there is a significant difference between power and rights–it’s the same difference between abilities and rights. In other words, I have the ability to kill you, but I don’t have the right.

    So for a dictionary definition to say that in a democracy the people have the power, what it translates into in reality is they basically have the power to do whatever they want to do based on a simple majority vote. It says nothing of having their rights protected.

    That’s why I always say that the “power to the People” play almost always results in oppression to the People. The intellectuals convince the people that they need more power in their political processes, yet more power in a democratic form results in less rights, and therefore, ultimately less power.

    For example, in the Progressive Era (1905-1913), the intellectuals were able to convince enough people that the People needed more power, that our government needed to be more democratic, which enabled them to pass the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act. These in turn opened the floodgates for the Great Depression, the New Deal, and virtually every single form of illegitimate wealth redistribution in our nation today including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc.

    Sure, the people got more “power”–and lost their rights to a large degree in the process.

    Like I say–words have power, and we’ve got to reclaim the appropriate definitions to educate the people. We’ve got to change their emotional associations with the words. Democracy is a dirty word! Maybe we should make a bumper sticker that says that.

  5. tdyches on June 24th, 2008 4:06 pm

    - Democracy is very clearly defined in the 1828 version. I recommend everyone do some word searches on that web page. Definitions have certainly “evolved” or “devolved” (however you wanna look at it).

    - Nice distinction on the difference between Rights and Power.

    - Bumper sticker idea, classic!

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!