The Republic For Which We Stand

Friday, May 8, 2009

Our forefathers heatedly debated the form of government they envisioned for the new United States, and there were heavily contested views of whether the country should be a true democracy or a republic. Then, as today, there was probably much confusion on the terminology, but during that time the framers of the constitution understood that running a country as a democracy, a simple majority vote, could create many unintended consequences.

Chief among the advocates for a republic was James Madison, who understood that the effects of different factions could be lessened or filtered through a smaller number of representatives who could provide a focal point for public opinion on major issues. He wrote eloquently on this subject in the Federalist Papers.

Madison noted that "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater the number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."

He also believed that a large republic would make it even more likely that a majority faction could occur. "Extend the sphere," he claimed, "and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have common motive to invade the rights of other citizens."

The advantage of a republic, he then concluded, "consits in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice. A rage for paper money, for abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union."

So, how does Madison's vision play out in today's world? Is his still a valid concept or is it outdated? Has the world changed significantly to make his views obsolete?

It seems that Madison had it right about not letting mob rule determine how the government should operate for the common good of its citizens. To do so would be to potentially miss a core issue or subtle component of an issue and just go with what the majority wants...a variation on anarchy. But perhaps where Madison erred was in the assumption that those elected as representatives of and by the people would have the same lofty principles that most men of the time possessed: Wisdom, patriotism, love of justice and the true interest of their country at heart. After all, these were the same men who had pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the formation of a new experiment in freedom. If that were still the case today with our congress, President and other elected officials, our government would certainly be operating with more focus and determination...and most likely with more efficiency and fiscal responsibility.

But there has been a fly in the ointment. Madison had no way of knowing that in generations to come, the mass media would alter his equation for balance and the reasonable contrast between various factions of the political spectrum; the "tempering" he envisioned is today wildly distorted by the unconstrained ambitions of newspaper editors, talking heads and nameless political advisors, advocates and lobbyists who have a financial or personal stake in the issues they report on. Worse yet, Madison assumed that his fellow countrymen, who were enlightened and patriotic, would always be the antidote to any abuse or injustice (we have only to look around today at a lanscape littered with the remains of a vibrant economy gone bad and a people withered by political correctness and burdened with the enormous debt of a government that has lost sight of why it is in business.

Who is to blame? We the people... for letting Madison's great vision slip from our grasp and become perverted. It is now up to us to make it right by insisting on a return to a republican government with wise, honest and patriotic representatives of the people.