Republicans like to play a little game with the word “democracy.” Whenever someone refers to the United States as a “democracy” they pipe up in a self-righteous know-it-all voice and say, “The United States is not a democracy, it’s a republic.”
This word game, while technically historically accurate, is essentially meaningless. While the founding fathers did express concern about the potential flaws of “democracy,” they were not using the word as we do today. They were referring to the ancient Athenian form of “direct” or “classical democracy” in which all adult male citizens voted on public policy issues in person.
What does “democracy” mean today?
In this century the word “democracy” simply means government by the people. Another phrase used to describe it is “the sovereignty of the people,” This is in contrast to a monarchy, which is the sovereignty of just one person (ie. a king ).
The United States is a democratic republic. This means that the people choose representatives to set policy on their behalf. Making a fussy distinction between “democracy” and “republic” nowadays is meaningless because ALL democracies in the world today are republics.
In fact, in the phrase “democratic republic,” the word “democratic” is more important than the word “republic.” It clarifies that the government representatives were chosen by the people. Russia also claims to have a “republic,” but their representatives, of course, are chosen by the Party. Russia has an “authoritarian republic.”
Democracy IS the objective, Senator
LDS Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee has apparently forgotten his Book of Mormon. When King Mosiah retired, he set up a democracy to govern when he was gone. He taught that a democracy would be superior to a monarchy.
Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
Mosiah 29:26-27
And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
In other words, a government by the “voice of the people,” a democracy, was the best form of government. Yes, if the people choose iniquity, he warned, then peace and prosperity would be lost. But peace and prosperity are ultimately not determined by what the government does. Peace and prosperity come about through the collective moral decisions (righteousness) of the citizens.
In a democracy, especially on this continent, the success or failure of the society is always directly connected to the character and the behavior choices of the citizens. This is why, in the Book of Mormon, whenever the government becomes corrupt, the solution is “the preaching of the word” of the Gospel to the people. When the people repent, they overthrow their corrupt government and the crisis is over.
What is Mike Lee actually saying?
Mike Lee prides himself on his constitutional knowledge. He has, no doubt, read the Federalist Papers and other texts by “the Founders.” Yet he consistently spins his knowledge in service to the wealthy and the privileged. He pushes a distinction between “democracy” and “republic” because he does not believe the “rank” people are smart enough to make their own decisions.
In Lee’s “republic” the enlightened few (like himself) should properly make the decisions for everyone else. This authoritarian idea allows Republicans to feel comfortable with their blatant efforts to suppress voter participation — especially among the poor and people of color.
When Lee says that “rank democracy can thwart” the flourishing of “the human condition,” what he really means is that popular democracy is a threat to the upward flow of wealth. If the working poor vote, they will insist on their fair share of the wealth they produce. If people of color vote, they will insist on equal treatment under the law.
Lee is articulating a view that has long been in vogue on the American right but which Republican politicians were generally hesitant to express openly. The premise is that liberty is a higher value than democracy, and they define liberty to mean a right to property that precludes redistribution.
Jonathan Chait
Mike Lee’s agenda is Power and Gain
When Lee talks about “prosperity” he is talking about money and property. His tweet implies that he wants all Americans to “flourish,” but his actions as a US Senator show that he is only interested in helping those who are already flourishing.
Republicans like Lee view progressive taxation, any type of governmental regulation, and every program that helps to create a social safety net, as oppressive. They throw around the words “freedom” and “liberty” as if they are defending the rights of the majority, but they are actually working feverishly to lock in the privileges of the wealthy minority.
And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands.
Moses 5:33
Sources: Jonathan Chait, “Republican Senator Blurts Out That He Hates Democracy,” Intelligencer, New York Magazine, October 8, 2020.
Michael Austin, “Senator Mike Lee and the “We’re Not a Democracy, We’re a Republic” Blues,” Dialogue & Discourse, Medium, October 8, 2020.
Zack Beauchamp, “Sen. Mike Lee’s tweets against “democracy,” explained,” Vox, October 8, 2020.
Lee Davidson, “Mike Lee tweets that ‘rank democracy’ threatens liberty and prosperity,” The Salt Lake Tribune, October 8, 2020.
George Packer, “Republicans Are Suddenly Afraid of Democracy,” The Atlantic, October 9, 2020.
And, note that the Deseret News no longer accepts comments from the great unwashed, i.e. the Utah public. Republicans no longer believe in democracy, so this means most Mormons don’t either. Wow, just wow.
Interesting on Maddow last night to watch clips of the various things certain Republicans were saying with respect to the 2016 election, when Trump won and Clinton gave a concession speech, about accepting the voice of the people (by which they meant the Electoral College, even though 3 million more citizens voted for Clinton), compared to what they are saying now, in support of Trump’s bid for Tantrumocracy, with Trump down around 4.5 million votes, and the Electoral college pointing towards an exact reversal of 2016.
Trevor Noah compared the spontaneous celebrations on Saturday in many cities in the US to those in Africa when dictators were overthrown. It certainly felt that way in my house. I took note a sign in the Philadelphia celebration that said, “We grabbed him by the ballot!”
I am sad to hear that the point of mentioning that our form of government ought to be referred to as a republic comes off as “a self-righteous know-it-all voice.” The reason I have heard it stressed as often as I have is that small-government minded folk see it as a distinction with an important difference.
I’ll pause to clarify that I am not a Republican, but instead subscribe to most of the ideals of a Libertarian (though a quick survey of a handful of Libertarians will demonstrate a wide-ranging set of opinions on multiple topics). Coming from this perspective, please allow me to expound on the import of the distinctions between strict democracy and our Constitutional Republic.
One of our unique distinctions among the free world is our adherence to the idea of representation.
Benjamin Franklin, one of my most adored Founding Fathers is cited by James McHenry as the source of a famous exchange with Elizabeth Willing Powel. She had asked, “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic,” replied the Doctor, “if you can keep it.” Franklin was rightly pointing to the preference of the power being held by the people over heavy executive rule. Franklin is also quoted commenting on the Presidency, “The first man put at the helm will be a good one. Nobody knows what sort may come afterwards. The executive will be always increasing here, as elsewhere, till it ends in a monarchy.”
We have two institutions that help to support our unique form of representative government. The first is the United States Senate. The Senate provides for equal representation among the states and is meant to be the voice of the States, where the House of Representatives serves as the voice of the People based on population. The representation offered by the Senate has shifted somewhat since we moved to a popular vote for our senators with the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment. I believe the States’ standing has weakened, but is still valid.
The second institution making the United States unique in representative government is the Electoral College. This is a much-debated process, and has spurred imagery like this GIF to be shared widely online: https://twitter.com/i/status/1181934417650040832. This GIF was created by Karim Douïeb (of Brussels). It shows that populations are not spread out evenly across the country, and that the county map does not truly represent an overwhelming support of Trump in 2016. The mantra shared with the GIF has been, “Land doesn’t vote; People vote.” While this populist ideal feels good, I believe it is lacking in perspective.
What the Electoral College does is important. Different areas of the country have varied standards of living, needs, sets of industry, and demographics. These are not 50 carbon copy states, but separate unique quasi-sovereign States, United under one Federal system designed to protect the rights of each individual citizen. For this to be a true Representative Republic, each state’s needs must have a voice. The Electoral College allows for that and a strict popular vote that favors population centers fails in that promise.
It is true that democracy has become the catch-all term to describe the free world. I submit that because there is a substantive difference between straight majority rule and a representative balance among the states, differences in terms are important. We could even come up with new terms to describe these. For us to find common ground and build a more perfect union we should strive to understand one another.
Brandon, Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
I have two points: 1. Our “adherence to the idea of representation” is NOT “one of our unique distinctions” in the world. As I pointed out in the original post, EVERY democracy in the world is a representative democracy. The old Greek “pure democracy” idea is impractical with large populations. I also pointed out that even autocracies like Russia have assemblies that claim to be “representative.”
2. The two areas where the US might claim to be unique are the two you identified: The Senate and the Electoral College. I believe those two are precisely the areas that the US has outgrown and needs to change. I understand your argument for a balance between representation for the people and representation for the states. As you know, the Founders argued this issue and both the Senate and the Electoral College were compromises. I believe the states, as “unique quasi-sovereign” entities, already have a great deal of autonomy on their own and do not need to be represented in the Federal government apart from their people.
The Federal government needs to serve the people as a whole. Pandemics, the internet, air pollution, water supply, corporations, wild fire, postal mail, crime, commerce, transportation, international relations, capitol, labor…. None of these issues respect state boundaries. In fact, having different “solutions” in each state often makes these problems worse. The US failed to limit Covid-19 precisely because Trump did nothing and left the problem to the states. Back when the colonies were newly united, it was important that they still felt they were independent “States.” I believe that now the more important word in our name should be “United.”