From time to time, I’ll switch on the ole’ corporate-controlled media machine, and find some opining ophidian explaining that we have a moral obligation towards “spreading democracy around the world” because we Americans live in a democracy and other nations should have such a privilege as well. Over and over they repeat this, like a mantra.
While their venomous vexations churn my stomach, I am not very surprised to discover that most Americans repeat this nonsense without even understanding what form of government they live within.
If we do not live in a democracy, then what form of government do Americans have?
When asked what form the new government would take in America, Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
What is a republic? How does it differ from a democracy? Why would he say, “If you can keep it”?
.
When you cover your heart, what do you give your pledge to?
.
A Constitutional Republic
The American form of government is, first and foremost, a Constitutional Republic and operates within a democratic framework.
Remember the Pledge of Allegiance we all repeated mindlessly when we were children?
.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands – one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
.
A Constitutional Republic is a state or country, or a union of states under a charter known as a constitution. A charter incorporates an institution and grants authority and/or rights to the entity it creates, but the true source of power rests in those that draw up the charter. While the document conveys certain powers from the granter to the recipient, it is always understood that the granter remains sovereign.
Our nation is comprised of fifty individually sovereign states, united in agreement under the Constitution of the United States. With respect to this specific charter, the granter is and always has been We the People. The entity created by the charter is the federal government. All power the federal government has is based upon the charter, a conveyance of power from We the People. This power is inherent in us,as sovereigns, by virtue of being created. In contrast, the federal government has no inherent power.
A republic is not led by a monarch, king or emperor, but by the people, or a representative portion of the people. The United States is a collection of republic states. Each state has its own state constitution or charter, and in each state the supreme sovereign is, again, We the People.
Here in Austin, we live among many die-hard Texans who proudly hang the Republic of Texas flag from their homes and automobiles. Most Texans are acutely aware of the fact that their state is a Republic.
In Texas, as in other republican states of the Union, the people elect representatives and a governor to oversee the lawmaking process within the state. The governor serves as the president of the state, and the representatives are chosen by the people using the democratic process. These representatives are elected to represent their constituents in matters of law and in keeping with the Constitution of that state. Both representatives and governors swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and in so doing, swear to preserve the Constitutional Republic and your individual liberties.
It is important to note that every elected official has to swear an oath to protect the charter that gives him or her power and authority. If he or she does not respect it, does not protect it, nor defend it against any enemies, they are not fit to fill their position. Plain and simple.
.
The Republic of Texas flag
.
The Constitution is the “law of the land”. In addition to granting certain powers and authorities to the federal government and our elected officials, the Constitution both creates the framework for our form of government and severely limits that government to prevent any abuse of power against its citizens.
This was very important to the founding fathers, for they found themselves in a war of independence, declaring themselves sovereign from the tyrannical rule of King George. They wanted to establish a government that truly was a servant to the people, with the power granted to those in government by the people and held in shackles by the Constitution. Their solution was the separation of powers, whereby the power granted to the federal government was split into three equal branches: the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative. America’s forefathers believed that this would keep any one branch from getting too powerful and becoming an arm of tyranny.
Yet, as the above warning from Benjamin Franklin illustrates, the founding fathers also knew that a Constitutional Republic put a large amount of responsibility on an informed and educated populace. If the people were not protective of their republic, the founding fathers feared, the republic might be undone.
As Thomas Jefferson admonished, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”
That is to say that the protection of personal freedom, both against foreign enemies and the encroachments of government, is something that each and every one of us must be fully aware of at all times and fight against. This is a constant power struggle, as men of lesser character always want to wrest more power from those they apparently serve. Over time, a distracted public can become slaves to their servant, the government.
Paramount to ensuring personal freedom is freedom of speech, and of the press. For many years, the press was known as the fourth branch of government, and served as a watchdog for the people. This helped maintain a level of transparency in government as well, a transparency that has been lost for several decades under matters of national security and secret continuity of government plans. Seventy years ago, before there was a Department of Defense, before the Pentagon, before the CIA, FBI, ATF, DEA, IRS and Secret Service, we had a largely transparent government. That all has changed, dramatically.
The media itself is a controlled beast of enormous size and scope – a monopoly of information and entertainment. In the last thirty years, over two-thirds of independently owned newspapers have disappeared. Thousands of radio stations have been devoured by Clear Channel. As of 2002, six major corporations control the majority of the information Americans receive in the way of radio, internet, television, cable, newspapers, magazines, and even textbooks. Those companies are: Vivendi/Universal, AOL Time Warner, the Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Viacom, and Bertelsmann.
The chairman of News Corp., Rupert Murdoch, (who also owns Fox, MySpace, The New York Post, The Times, The Sun, HarperCollins, the Dow Jones and Wall Street Journal, among many, many others), is quoted as saying, “Our reach is unmatched around the world. We’re reaching [conditioning] people from the moment they wake up until they fall asleep at night.” Mr. Murdoch is rated the 109th richest person in the world by Forbes’ magazine, so he must be doing something right.
With his incredible financial influence, News Corp. has been gobbling up competitors all over the world. Not bad for a company that began less than thirty years ago. Although good for Rupert and Washington, this process of the consolidation and control of information is detrimental to our republic. Control of the information that free people use to form opinions and make informed decisions can only produce these results: a narrowing of choices, debate, critical thinking, and further control of the minds of the populace. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about the press:
“The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”
In Jefferson’s mind, the purpose of the press is to be a constant political agitator and to keep the functioning of government within the public eye and open to criticism. People are right to be critical and wary of their government. Governments have performed countless acts of atrocities against the people. Throughout history, governments have inflicted more terror in the minds of the people than any rogue group could ever hope to accomplish.
.
2002 Chart of Corporate Media Ownership. This is only a partial listing.
.
Founding Fathers’ Thoughts on Democracy
Here are some additional thoughts of early Americans regarding a pure democracy, as opposed to a Constitutional Republic:
“Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.” ~ John Witherspoon
.
“It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.” ~ Zephaniah Swift
.
“… simple democracy … is one of the greatest of evils.” ~ Benjamin Rush
.
“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.” ~ John Quincy Adams
.
“In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.” ~ Noah Webster
.
“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.” ~ James Madison
.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” ~ John Adams
.
The founding fathers were among some of the brightest thinkers in the history of mankind, but they did not get that way by accident. Many of them enjoyed a fine education and were lifelong students of history, government, science and philosophy. Their formulation of a Constitutional Republic as the foundation of our form of government was not taken without much consideration, reflection and discussion. It was a new beginning for government and a break from the past conceptions of republican forms of government. The Constitution is what makes our Republic unique.
Having just proclaimed their independence from the tyranny of King George, these men were keen on the abuses of power. Their solution was a Constitutional Republic, wherein the Constitution would serve to limit the government and bind it from further abuses against the liberties and property of free men. Government, they said, should be a servant unto the people, not an instrument of oppression. After all, governments are instituted by men to serve the needs of men.
The early warnings above are revealing because they show the distrust and contempt our founding fathers had for democracies. Words like “caprice”, “disorder”, “confusion”, “unstable”, and “suicid[al]“, as well as phrases such as, “incompatible with personal security” and “the greatest of evils” should provide us with ample warning that such a government is not in our best interest. They saw that a democracy is tyranny by the mob and leads to a communistic approach to property and more. Yet the talking heads repeat, “we live in a democracy.” Why?
.
Characteristic Differences of Democracies and Republics
Here are some characteristics of Democracy and Republic, respectively, as found in a training manual published by the U.S. War Department in 1928 (source, page 162):
DEMOCRACY:
* A government of the masses.
* Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
* Results in mobocracy.
* Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights.
* Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
* Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
.
REPUBLIC:
* Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
* Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
* A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
* Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
* Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
* Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world.
.
Perhaps you have heard the phrase, “mob rule”, which relates directly to a democratic form of government wherein individual liberties are often sacrificed for the “good of the many” – in a more utilitarian approach towards socialism. This is stark defiance to a republican form of government wherein individual liberties are preserved despite the majority.
The major point of contention between the two types of government rests upon the issue of sovereignty. In a democracy, the sovereign is actually the majority – the mob. In a Constitutional Republic, on the other hand, the sovereign is actually the individual.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines a republican government as: “One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated” [emphasis mine]
In contrast, Black’s also offers up a definition of a democratic government as: “That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy” [emphasis mine].
The distinction above is clear. In a republican form of government, ultimate power resides in the people. In a democracy, ultimate power resides in the whole body of citizens. This is why a republican form of government seeks to protect the rights and property of individual men and why a democracy seeks to protect the rights of the majority.
.
Who or What is a Sovereign?
As defined in the Sixth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, a sovereign is:
.
“The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.”
.
That is such an important definition. Does it not empower you?
This definition reveals that sovereignty – the supreme seat of power and authority in our government – rests in the individual (as in a Republic) or in the majority (as in a Democracy). In a Republic, the individual liberties and rights of every man are protected by government and also protected from the encroachments of government.
These liberties are upheld by clear principles spelled out in the Constitution that do not change according to the whim of the majority. Those powers that are not specifically delegated to the government are reserved by the people who are both the source of government and the purpose for the existence of government.
In other words, liberty cannot be sacrificed by the lemmings or the mob. Those liberties are unalienable, meaning they cannot be voided, undone or taken away – even my ignorant choices.
It should be said, however, that we can all individually and quite freely be sloppy and lazy with our liberty. The cost of that is government encroachment and more control. This is why we are where we are at now, as a nation. We have allowed what Thomas Jefferson feared to become a reality.
(Jefferson was also vehemently against a central bank, of which our Federal Reserve is one – and incidentally, a central bank is one of the ten planks of the communist manifesto. Those who are keen on the destruction of our Republic know that the current economic fiasco is terribly bad for our nation. As the federal government receives trillions of dollars of “bailout” taxpayers’ money, we become enslaved even further to debt, while the size of government grows as it socializes banks and corporations.)
In a democracy, the individual has no innate of unalienable rights because sovereignty does not rest in the individual, sovereignty rests in the “whole body” – the majority. Thus, a majority of 51% is all that is needed to effectively challenge and revoke the rights or privileges of any minority. I don’t know many people who would think “spreading democracy” around the world, in this context, is a good thing. This is because, in a democracy, the minority has no rights – only what the majority establishes. This can change with the tides or the whims and fancies of the majority of the day.
.
- Fear is a great political motivator, magnified greatly by the media. James Madison left us with this last warning, “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
.
Conditioned to Live in a Democracy
I return to the question, “Is there a reason why they have changed our thinking to believe that we live in a democracy and not a republic?” The answer is obvious to me: to steer the mob into adopting changes to their government that they normally would not, if they understood what living in a Constitutional Republic really means.
Would it surprise you that children aren’t being taught this distinction in schools? Or that children are barely taught the Constitution and its importance to the preservation of individual liberty? Were you? Are your kids?
If our children grow up to believe they live in a democracy and believe their rights dependent upon the majority, they effectively hand over their individual rights to the majority without question.
Additionally, they are being taught by omission and by example that the Constitution is less and less important.
Yet the Constitution is the law of the land and serves to construct the framework for our government and set its limits!
As you can see above, one of the results of a democracy is anarchy and another is tyranny, both of which result from destruction of the law by the majority.
You see, if you can convince all of the individuals out there that they are subject to the majority, then their voice is effectively squashed. A population of conformists is a lot easier to control than 300 million people doing their own individual things and exercising their individual liberties.
In a democracy, rights can readily be changed into privileges, and over time, those privileges can be taken away. Similarly, an inattentive and self-absorbed populace in a republic can be turned towards democracy simply by virtue of the individuals not exercising his or her rights.
Democracies do not last long, historically. Many eventually collapse into despotism, a direct result of the anarchy created by pure democracy. In the turmoil and confusion of such a state of anarchy, the majority decide to place an individual in supreme control, an individual who promises to end the chaos, and rarely does so without an iron fist and curtailing of civil liberties. This is, in effect, what happened in pre-Nazi Germany to the Weimar Republic and the subsequent rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime.
This was also one of the major claims within the Declaration of Independence against King George:
.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
.
I like to use the analogy of a muscle when talking to others about rights. Just as terminally ill patients or persons in a coma can suffer from muscle atrophy if they do not exercise their muscles, so do rights atrophy and disappear if A.) the individual is not even aware of his rights and/or B.) does not flex them.
Taking away rights is not easy to do when Americans know that each man, woman and child is a sovereign. Historically speaking, the sovereign has long-been the emperor, ruler or king. The founding fathers did something quite different, however, which changed the course of history and government: they established each person as a king or queen over his or her own dominion. You see, government can’t control what is the source of its power unless that understanding is turned on its head and people believe themselves to be subjects to be controlled.
And this brings me to the conclusion that the powers that be are intentionally confusing us.
Again, it’s all about control. They don’t have it, but they are trying to wrest it away from the sovereign through confusion. They’re doing a pretty damn good job of it.
.
For more reading:
An Important Distinction: Democracy vs. Republic
Republic vs. Democracy (Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority)
Republic vs. Democracy (Restoring America)
.
Wikipedia:
Filed under: Call to Action, Conspiracy, government, politics , american, comparison, Constitution, founding fathers, government, mob rule, pledge of allegiance, politics, republic vs. democracy, sovereignty, united states
