OPINION: Limited democratic thought?

"The United States of America is the world's premiere democracy." In the sense that we have been the leading advocate of human rights, "endowed by [the] Creator;" and that we stand for the principle "that [before God and before the Law] all men are created equal," this reputation is somewhat valid.

In an earlier article, I wrote, "I champion limited democratic thought when consistent with our historic Constitutional law." A reader asked, "What does 'democratic thought' mean -- limited or otherwise?" That is a great question, deserving thoughtful consideration.

First of all, understand that The Constitution of The United States of America established a republic, not a democracy. One of the most common myths in America is that the United States is a democracy. Many of the Founding Fathers, moreover, feared unbridled democracy and established a republic.

"Democracy" in its simplest meaning is rule by the people. By contrast it is not rule by a church -- theocracy; nor rule by one -- autocracy or monarchy; nor rule by the "best" or "elite" -- aristocracy; nor rule by a small number of wealthy people who shape policy to benefit themselves -- oligarchy; etc. The simplest concept of democracy is direct rule by a contemporary majority, without reference to or concern for minority viewpoints, history, or posterity -- rule according to a popular whim (fickle caprice) of the moment (take, as an example, the behavior of the U.S. Congress and administration in 2021, and especially the Senate leadership in January, 2022). I am a fan of none of the aforesaid.

I have made no claim to being either a Democrat or a democrat -- as a member of a political party or as a follower of a philosophy. The "limited democratic thought" that I had advocated includes these concepts:

• Before the law all men and women should stand as equals -- "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."–The Declaration of Independence. All who abide by the law should be free from threats to their lives, should have freedom from oppressive restrictions, should be free to pursue legitimate means to enhance their happiness ("right to pursue," not "right to have" as a given), and should be secure in their properties.

• Minorities should have a right to express their opinions and their franchise, and to act independently within the bounds of law, without coercion.

• Citizens, especially officials, should adhere to the principles of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights; etc. -- "I, ... , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...."

• These citizens, by a majority thereof, elect their representatives (who with wisdom should seek what is best for all -- not what polls best, nor what helps just them or their groups, but the country).

• The governed are willingly submissive to Constitutionally established law.

• Within these parameters, the will of the informed majority (of citizens) should prevail.

As I am sure you see this is not really democracy but republicanism. The Constitution of the United States of America formed not a democracy, but a republic -- rule according to law, not rule according to the whim of individuals.

The civics class definition that "republic means a representative democracy" is not totally adequate. In a republic, a body of representatives is still bound by certain constraints; it is not free to do whatever a majority might like. A republic is founded on a set of laws (of principles, of a constitution) in which the law is king and representatives are chosen as custodians of the law and as its administrators. By its nature, a republic is stabilized by the status quo of law, history and tradition. For a people to break with its past should require the serious contemplation and the agreement of a supermajority of the electorate to execute any significant variation from the traditional law. This, at least in part, is why the Constitution requires that amendments be agreed to by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the States; and why a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to approve treaties, or to remove from office, one impeached; and why three-fifths (60 percent) of Senators must agree to cut off debate and move to a vote on legislation.

May our republic survive (or revive from) assaults from would-be oligarchs in Washington, D.C.

-- Ted Weathers is a resident of Siloam Springs and a retired educator. He can be reached at [email protected]. The opinions expressed are those of the author.