In my last article, I referenced Ward W. Keesecker on "Democracy" played which prompted this question from a reader: Utilizing this quote would indicate that you were opposed to Democracy; and if so what would you propose as an alternative? The reasoning behind using Keesecker's comment was that there are differences between a "Democracy" and a "Republic" without actual saying it; because, my next article was going to be a discussion on this very topic.
My response to this question would be: No, I am not opposed to "democracy" or proposing another form of government. Understanding the difference between these two forms of government and how moving from one form to the other is essential to comprehending the fundamentals involved, how it changed and what is at stake for our Republic.
Our Founding Fathers wanted a limited government where no single interest would dominate another leading to the simplistic expression - "majority rule" with "minority rights." Democracy and Republic are not only dissimilar but antithetical. Distinct contrast exists between an "unlimited" majority in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard for the rights of individuals and the minority and a "limited" majority in a Republic with a Constitution that safeguards the rights of an individual and the minority.
In a Republic, the Presidency represents the "monarchial" aspects of our government; the Senate represents the aristocracy/land owners and the House embodies the people. The Senate, even though it represents the aristocracy; were also to represent the "state's" interest as a corporate entity and the people. The Senate was also designed to be the "guardian of the Constitution;" with checks and balances over the House as well as the President.
Woodrow Wilson, in Division and Reunion 1829–1889 (1893), wrote that "The Federal government was not by intention a democratic government. In plan and in structure it had been meant to check the sweep and power of popular majorities." By asserting democratic rights and principles could actually paralyze constitutional procedures and processes; so when the system becomes corrupt the whole process ceases to function as intended - a Republic. Chapter on "Constitutionality of the 1st 'Bank of the United States" is very interesting.
The main distinguishing component of a Democracy is: rule by an all-powerful, "unlimited" majority. Key word here is - "unlimited." Individuals or any group of individuals composing any minority have no protection against the "unlimited" power of a radical ideological driven majority. Our Founding Fathers condemned "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of individuals and the majority. Think about it – we currently have legislation that favors special interest groups over or to the detriment of others and an executive branch attempting to suppress the opposition is inherently dangerous. You appeal to a group of individuals who have a "sense of entitlement," in the name of "social justice," ends up creating "takers instead of makers."
"We the people" means, the electorate, not an elite group or an all-powerful "unlimited mob-ruling" majority be it a political party, conglomerates and/or unions. The Constitution was designed to preclude the existence of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate the individual's rights or endangering the liberties of all its citizens.
Bella Dodd, an ex-Communist, described her experience working with communists and their goal to destroy our country by undermining our basic religious and moral foundations including natural law. The Council on Foreign Relations Council as well as elitists such as the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Goldman, Sachs, and others have undermined our Constitution, sovereignty and promoting a New World Order since the late 1800's. Note the number of individuals appointed to top positions in this and previous administrations – most are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
During the late 1800's and early 1900's, term "democracy" was used in political speeches and debates relentlessly by politicians, "socialists" and communists for a reason. Note changes to the Constitution: 16th Amendment established the "income tax" and the 17th Amendment altered the manner in which "Senators were appointed." Both occurred in 1913. In her book, Dodd stated that one goal was to influence legislation and policy - "work to change laws in your (their) favor."
Garth Jowett implied: "Use of the term itself is a systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve the desired response thus achieving the desired intent."
Noam Chomsky theorized: "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
If you dismantle the manner in which Senate representatives are appointed, you fundamentally change the character of our government. The 17th Amendment altered the original intent of the Constitution and undermined the "checks and balances" thus achieving one mechanism of change - a "republic" to a "democracy." Giving Congress the authority to levy an income tax was another mechanism used to expand and increase the size of our government. Both were controversial; but in the end were ratified. Achieving defined and desired goals require "slow meticulous and methodical steps."
When the people are excluded from the legislative process like Obamacare; or any branch alters existing separation of powers or accumulates too much power toward its own favor dispensing with the legislative process (checks/balances - nuclear option); then any and/or all will destroy a Republic, the very form of government created to safeguard its citizens from this type of abuse.
This is Part 1 in a series. Click here to read Part 2.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.