Benjamin Franklin, a four-hour documentary directed and produced by Ken Burns, first aired on PBS early last month. This blog was inspired by Franklin’s words near the end of that highly informative film.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 opened its
first session on May 25, exactly 235 years ago. The 55 delegates (from 12 of
the 13 states in the new nation) chose George Washington to preside. Other
notable delegates were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin
Franklin.
At 81, Franklin was the
elder statesman at the Convention—and arguably the most influential.
When the time came to sign their drafted document, Franklin
encouraged his fellow delegates to give the proposed Constitution their
unanimous support, despite the fact that he himself did not approve of every
aspect of the new plan of government.
Franklin concluded: “On the whole . . . I cannot help
expressing a wish that every member of the Convention . . . would with me, on
this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest
our unanimity, put his name to the instrument.”
“A Republic, if You Can Keep It”: these were the words spoken by Franklin as he was leaving the last session of the Constitutional Convention on September 17. It was in response to a question about the nature of the government in the new Constitution.
The question was about whether the new country would be a monarchy
or a republic. That is, would there be a king, or a government elected by eligible
voters.
A republic is “a government in which supreme power resides in
a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and
representatives responsible to them and governing according to law”
(Merriam-Webster).
Preserving the U.S. government as a republic seems to be one
thing current Republicans as well as Democrats agree on.
In September 2019, when House Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.)
announced the formal impeachment inquiry of Pres. Trump, she used the words of
Franklin to back her arguments.
That same month, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump
nominee, issued a book titled A Republic, If You Can Keep It.
Can the U.S. be Kept a Democracy? This is the burning
question for the U.S. now. There seems to be little threat to the U.S.
remaining a republic. The Republican Party is in support of that—although some
question whether there is full support by the most ardent Trumpists. But the
matter of remaining a democracy is a more precarious matter.
The Democratic Party is certainly not opposed to the U.S. remaining
a republic, but they firmly believe it should be a democratic republic.
It should be noted that “democracy” is not mentioned in the
Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. Accordingly, some present-day
Republicans and rightwing “talking heads,” insist that the U.S. government is
not and was not intended to be a democracy.
The Democrats, naturally, strongly disagree, as do most political science scholars. The title of a November 2020 article in The Atlantic is “‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument.” But that flawed argument has even been made by U.S. senators.
In October 2020, Utah Senator Mike Lee (R) sent a series of
tweets declaring that the United States is "not a democracy" and that
"democracy isn't the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are.”*
Earlier this year, sociologists Phillip S. Gorski and Samuel
L. Perry’s book The Flag and The Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat
to American Democracy was published.
They declare, “As white Christians approach minority status,
white Christian nationalists are starting to turn against American democracy.” They
further assert that “white Christian nationalism has become a serious threat to
American democracy, perhaps the most serious threat it now faces” (p. 8).
As a White Christian who is definitely not a nationalist, I
urge you to join in the struggle to keep the U.S. a democracy—a federal
government of, by, and for the people such as Pres. Lincoln envisioned in his Gettysburg
Address delivered in November 1863.**
_____
* For example, on Oct. 7, 2020, Lee tweeted,
“We’re not a democracy.” That brief statement was “liked” by 31,600 people and
retweeted over 4,500 times.
** For more about this, see my June
20, 2016, blog post.
.jpg)
Two of the comments already received this morning are quite brief.
ReplyDeleteLocal Thinking Friend Bruce Morgan commented on one word: "Amen!"
And Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky wrote: "I second your plea, Leroy."
Here are comments from local Thinking Friend David Nelson:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for your good words and warning. We must attack the problem, not the people. Read, ponder, discuss, and VOTE. Even with efforts to limit the vote being made in many states, the majority of citizens in this nation want us to vote like a democracy. Every vote will be counted."
And then here are comments from my wife after she read the blog post this morning:
ReplyDelete"I read your blog hoping to get a concise definitive explanation for the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, but I didn't catch it."
Thanks, June, for asking for a "concise definitive explanation" of the difference between a republic and a democracy. I originally planned to say more about that than I was able to include in my self-imposed 700-word limit.
ReplyDeletePart of the problem is that there is no universal understanding of the difference between those two, and often the words have been used interchangeably. And there have been different understandings and explanations of those two concepts in the 235 years since the Constitutional Convention.
One of the first political parties was the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792, so obviously there was no problem for them in seeing the country as both a democracy and a republic. And as I mentioned in the blog article, there was, and is, no disagreement now between "democrats" and "republicans" as to the country being led by people, representatives, chosen by the voting public rather than being under a monarch.
A democracy puts more emphasis on a government being "of the people," meaning all citizens without limitation, except for those under a certain age. In that sense, the original constitution did not set up a democracy, for women couldn't vote--and enslaved persons and indigenous people were not considered citizens. Thus, the government was a republic, but it was not a democracy because it was a government of representatives elected by White men.
The threat today is certainly not to the U.S. as a republic but as a democracy. As I quoted Gorski and Perry in the post, democracy as rule by “the people” includes "universal suffrage, human rights, and equality under the law." Anti-democratic forces seek to reduce the number of people who can vote, and White Christian nationalists seek to limit/skew voting to favor they demography they champion.
When Sen. Lee tweeted "democracy isn't the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are," it can be correctly argued, I think, he meant liberty, peace, and prosperity primarily for Whites. That is entirely possible in a republic, but not so much so in a democracy.
In a democracy I pledged allegiance to the flag of my country, the USA as a 1st grader. But in a Republic dominated by white supremacists, I have no country any more to which to pledge allegiance. I am Japanese American. Dickson Yagi
ReplyDeleteDickson, I think I understand what you are saying, and certainly White supremacy is a current threat to democracy in this country. But despite their strength, I don't think the White supremacists dominate the country now. That is why I raised the question in the title, Will the U.S. remain a democracy? I think it can, but it will take all of us who value democracy working together to keep it. Mazie Hirono was born in Japan (in 1947), but she has been a U.S. Senator since 2013. She and others like her will be doing all they can to keep the U.S. a democracy.
DeleteI agree with most of what you say in your Blog Leroy and don't want White Christian men to control our Government, but don't you think there should be certain requirements for voting besides just age?
ReplyDeleteThere are certain undesirables that should be excluded and this could be determined Democratically.
Thanks for your comments, and question, John Tim (and I'm glad you were finally able to post under your name). I wonder what "undesirables" you have in mind. For decades the Whites in the South considered Blacks as "undesirables" and restricted their voting by Jim Crow laws and intimidation. I don't think that is what you have in mind, though. Perhaps you have in mind convicted felons?
DeleteThe field of possible matters for response is broad, Leroy. I agree with Mrs. Seat that "republic" and "democracy" - I think especially the latter - merit more definition. Even the terms (you did not use them thus) "democratic republic" and "republican democracy" connote big differences. To be sure, the American Constitutional Experiment at the start, and still, had no pure democracy, but was representative, and even the debates about that set our political futures out in advance. But with no guarantees; such was a fraught and foreboding melange of compromises.
ReplyDeleteBut compromise now on some topics? No way. Lock up Congress? Yes. Things recently remind me of the "gag rule" problem in the 1840s -- the prohibition of talk of slavery in the House or Senate; wrangling over slave-state opposition to abolitionist literature in the federal mails. Worsened things, polarized folk even then. Tik-Tok, time passes, history rhymes, rarely recollects . . . . Certain Radical Rightist ("leaders") these days remind me of Southern "fire-eaters". (I do not forget Radical Left stubbornness, either.) What are the 1800s analogues to white supremacy (and its children) and civil rights? . . . Well, of course, anti-slavery and civil rights withheld from "other" groups, elite hatred of lesser ethnics, including poor whites and Catholics, Jews, and so it goes.
De Tocqueville in his time found public associations scary but also necessary in plebian America. We should, too, but what are our actual public associations today, and are certain leaders taking them toward single-party, authoritarian republican establishments? And don't they rely on group fears? Isn't that dangerous in any circumstance?
Thanks for your comments, Jerry, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond to them yesterday.
DeleteDid the explanation I posted (above) in response to my wife's comment help to clarify the point I was trying to make?
I am wondering if it is correct to say--and I am inclined now to think that it is--that the U.S. didn't come very close to being a democracy until 1964-65. A major step was taken with the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, although it was greatly impeded by the Jim Crow laws. Another major step was taken in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment. But, still, a large segment of the Black citizenry was inhibited from voting until the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and especially the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So, can't it be argued that democracy in the U.S. was more fully implemented after 1965 than it had ever been before?
Here are thoughtful comments, as usual, from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your comments about 'democracy in America,' to borrow a term from de Tocqueville.
"After the remarks by Senator Mike Lee, I had a conversation with a Republican friend, who defended Lee's remarks, but I pointed out that while the U S is not a direct democracy, it is nonetheless a representative democracy, as is the case with almost every democracy.
"But one needs to make a distinction between the federal government on one hand and state and local governments on the other. Article One, section 2, requires members of the U S House to be "chosen" (elected) by the people. That is representative democracy. Until the adoption of the Seventh Amendment, U S Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, but they are now chosen by the people, again an example of representative democracy. So, to argue that the U S is a republic but not a democracy is incorrect.
"But here is a caveat. Article Two, section 1, says that electors for the presidency and vice-presidency shall be appointed, for each state, 'in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.' Some Republican-controlled state legislatures have taken over this responsibility from their secretaries of state so that these legislatures can appoint electors regardless of how the voters voted. In other words, the 2024 presidential election could in fact be stolen, unlike the 2020 election. That would be an affront to democracy--and it's a real danger--and a reason to eliminate the Electoral College.
"Nonetheless, I think we have too many elections and too many elective offices at the state and local level. That said, however, I strongly favor universal voter registration and a national voter database. We also need much better-informed voters, a difficult challenge."
In addition, "perhaps the biggest threat to democracy in America" is '"the scandalous sums of money spent on political campaigns, much of it being used to keep voters misinformed. America may be a representative democracy, but it is also very much a plutocracy."
I was going to start with Lincoln's famous "of the people, by the people and for the people" but it turns out he was quoting a preacher who was quoting a Bible (John Wycliffe's prologue from 1384). You can read more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-coined-government-of-the-people-by-the-people-for-the-people/2017/03/31/12fc465a-0fd5-11e7-aa57-2ca1b05c41b8_story.html
ReplyDeleteOur problem is not so much that various Americans disagree with each other as it is that wealthy and powerful people are gaslighting the rest of us on a regular basis on many subjects. Their hand-picked Supreme Court has made a series of disastrous rulings declaring corporations people, money speech and gerrymandering fun. We can see how far they have wandered from common understanding by taking a plain language and original intent look at the Second Amendment. In fact, in response to the latest massacre (Uvalde, Texas) Seth Meyers does it for us. Watch his lecture on "a well-ordered militia" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS3cAOEVTss
So, I guess my answer to the question of whether we can keep our republic goes even farther back than Wycliffe. As Jesus puts it, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Craig, and for the words with which you closed. But knowing the truth takes considerable time and effort, and we seem to be surrounded by people who tend to traffic in lies and trod on the truth. The struggle for truth may well be even harder than the struggle for democracy.
DeleteYesterday, Thinking Friend Wade Paris of Bolivar, Mo., sent an email saying,
ReplyDelete"Hopefully we will remain a government by and for the people. If the name for that is a democracy, I am certainly for it."
Wade, I found it interesting that you mentioned a democracy being "by and for the people," which I certainly think it is. But the reason I found it interesting is because in Justice Gorsuch's book that I mentioned in the blog article, a couple of places in the few pages of the book I read, he referred to government "of and by the people" but did not mention it being for the people.
DeleteIt seems to me that one of the ongoing emphases of the Republican Party, especially since 1980, has been downplaying the federal government's role in doing things "for the people." Government programs for the equality of women and People of Color as well as for providing for better living and economic conditions for the lowest quadrant of society has been primarily the doing of the Democratic Party, which truly seeks a democratic government of, by, and for the people.
Representation in the Senate and Electoral College is not completely democratic. The founding fathers set it up that way to prevent states with large populations from bullying states with smaller populations. Consequently, some recent presidents did not win the popular vote, and proposed laws with popular support sometimes cannot get past the Senate. Gerrymandering and politicized Supreme Court are additional examples of ways that a minority can control governance. Sill I think it’s correct to refer to the USA as a democracy, just not a pure democracy.
ReplyDelete