Contrary to popular myth we do not live in a democracy, and hopefully we will never succumb to its false allure. In their infinite wisdom, our “Founding Fathers” created a most unique bicameral form of government, best described as a representative republic. As one of our most esteemed founders, John Adams, warned, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” In our founders’ view, democracy is majority rule that is ultimately destructive of liberty because there are no laws and other safeguards to prevent a simple majority from trampling on the rights of the disenfranchised.
The term democracy is not found in our Nation’s Constitution and for good reason. We are not a democracy, we are a republic, as specifically stated in Article IV of the Constitution which “guarantee(s) to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government.” The Federal Government was established under the same guarantee. As commonly understood, a representative republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government that is indirectly controlled by the people through elected representatives. A democracy conversely is majority rule. The will of the majority regulates whether it is based on deliberation or, as can readily be the case, governed by political fever and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences.
James Madison, another of our “Founding Fathers,” noted “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 number of citizens and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be exercised.” When written and implemented, the Constitution was hailed for its creation of a most unique form of government: a government that embodied democratic principles into a system of government directly controlled by the people with novel checks and balances to insure “freedom and liberty for all.”
Over the course of history, and even today, many in our nation came to believe that the Constitution was a democratic instrument and treated it as such. When the Constitution did not reflect their views, they crafted amendments, rejecting the design of the Constitution, not their mistaken assumptions. This misconception has led in great part to the imbalance we now see in the shared partnership between federal and state government and their relationship with the people. “Progressives,” somehow in their self-created delusion concerning a political utopia, believed that the cure for the ills of democracy was more democracy, or at least their version of it. This formula has remained the prescription for American politics even to the present.
Much of what is happening within government today can be traced directly to ill-advised tampering with our Constitution. An excellent case in point is the Seventeenth Amendment. This one act has set about a series of perhaps unintended consequences that have led to much of the disillusionment and dissatisfaction felt towards our federal government by most Americans today. The direct election of Senators may have seemed to some, and particularly “Progressives,” a more “democratic” method of election. But, omitted in the argument is the impact this change has had on the delicate balance of power between the partners within our republican system of government.
These same “Progressives” today envision a system of government in which a mere majority can dictate all terms in which our nation operates. It would appear that the legislative branch of the Federal Government, a co-equal partner in our system, has been separated from its original intent to represent both the states and the people. The Seventeenth Amendment negated a very deliberate and essential part of the Constitution. As James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10, the reason for bicameralism: “Before taking effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people’s representatives in the House and the state legislature’s agents in the Senate.” The requirement for mutual concurrence was designed to thwart the influence of special interests, and by satisfying two very different constituencies, would assure that the citizens were well served.
Only the misguided would reject the wisdom of our “Founding Fathers.” The “tripartite” division of political power consisting of representatives chosen directly by the people, senators chosen by state legislators, and a President chosen by a college of electors, was a brilliant concept that gave our government and its people stability, balance and restraint. These are elements sadly lacking in our system today. It is well past the time when we should have gone “back to the future” and reinstated the measures in our Constitution that were stripped out or added for the wrong reasons.
The Seventeenth Amendment was touted as a forward step towards cleaner politics and the elimination of corruptible special interest. Many problems concerning campaign finance, corrupted elections, and the power of special interests remain throughout the federal legislative branch today. Repeal of this Amendment is not a panacea for the frustration felt by the electorate but it is surely a beginning. Make the right people worry about the right things. Make state legislatures responsible for senator selection. After all these legislators are directly answerable to the citizens. The clamoring for term limits and recalls is not, in my opinion, the solution as many have advocated. I do not advocate term limits as a solution because I believe in the Constitution, a Constitution with no such provision. The answer is a return to a constitutional approach and repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. It’s a good start anyway. My two cents…for what it’s worth.