|
|
Colin McNickle at Large -
Sunday, November 26, 2000
|
A republic, if we can save it from the sly and ignorami
Dear Mr. McNickle,
``Since I thought we lived in a democracy, can you explain the definition of a constitutional republic and how it differs from a democracy?''
Thank you.
Lori Nist
Monroeville''
Dear Lori,
Even the great Tocqueville got it wrong.
When Alexis de Tocqueville published his seminal book ``Democracy in America'' in 1831, it was roundly - and appropriately - hailed as a masterpiece, the piece justificative for our way of government. The aristocratic Frenchman's expansive look at what made the United States ``tick'' - its essence - gathered impressions from a nine-month expedition that began as a fact-finding tour on America's prison system for the government of Louis Philippe.
Messr. Tocqueville, then all of 25, and his friend, Gustave de Beaumont, 28, spent most of their time in Boston, New York and Philadelphia. They were given near carte blanche to interview the early 19th century's prominent and influential, presidents to the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll, included.
But Messrs. Tocqueville and Beaumont also traipsed through the then-wilds of what now is Michigan and all the way to the mouth of the Mississippi at New Orleans. There, too, they explored everything from racism and the monetary system to the judicial system and the role of the free press.
Too bad, however, that Tocqueville erroneously titled his book. After all, the United States is not a democracy (and God help us if it ever becomes one). We are a republic. More specifically, we are a constitutional republic. Unfortunately, Tocqueville's mistake - fueled even by many dictionaries that have accepted this popular misusage - likely has influenced multiple generations of Americans to think and act in concert with his flawed moniker.
Even more lamentable is that many people who should (and likely do) know better, have used Tocqueville - directly and indirectly - to raise the passions of the people by pandering to the populist predilections that dwell in us all.
An apropos contemporary example would be first lady and New York Democrat Sen.-elect Hillary Clinton and Pennsylvania Republican U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter. In the middle of the presidential election stalemate between George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore, each called for abolition of the Electoral College. Each favors the popular, or direct, election of the president; each seeks, ostensibly, to restore American ``democracy.''
But far from any restoration, it is an attempt to reinvent America into something never envisioned, and, in fact, something greatly feared by the Founders, based on ``democracy's'' troubling historical antecedents.
Now, it's not that Tocqueville didn't know America was founded as a republic. In the 1848-written preface to the 12th and next-to-last edition of ``Democracy in America,'' he wrote as follows:
``(T)he principles on which the constitutions of the American states rest, the principles of order, balance of powers, true liberty, and sincere and deep respect of the law, are indispensable for all republics; they should be common to them all; and it is safe to forecast that where they are not found the republic will soon have ceased to exist.''
Hence, Tocqueville's indiscretion is that, at times, he seemed to consider the words ``republic'' and ``democracy'' interchangeable. To wit, Tocqueville notes how America's ``democracy follows its own inclinations'' and marvels at ``democracy's difficulty in conquering the passions and silencing momentary requirements in the interest of the future (that) can be observed ... in the most trivial things.''
But the words ``republic'' and ``democracy'' and the concept behind each are not interchangeable, Lori. Allow me to use the most instructive words of Revolutionary-era pamphleteer Thomas Paine in helping to explain their differences.
``Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies,'' Mr. Paine wrote in ``The Rights of Man,'' his definitive work of 1791. ``In those, the mass of the people met and enacted laws ... in the first person. Simple democracy was no other than a common hall of the ancients.''
But ``as these democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed,'' he continued.
(As an aside, Paine, with a remarkable prescience that foretold the likes of Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Specter, also noted that it always has been the political craft of courtiers and court-governments ``to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain.'')
The bottom line, Lori, is that democracy, en masse, is unworkable. But isn't ``majority rule'' the quintessential hallmark of the American process? In our duly elected, representative legislative bodies, yes. But among the populace it is mere mob rule.
``Those who contend for a simple democracy ... actuated by the sense of a majority .... assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious,'' James Madison, the father of the Constitution, wrote to Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter.
Continued Mr. Adams later that year in Federalist No. 10: In a democracy, ``there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such democracies 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.''
Benjamin Franklin was asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 what hath the delegates wrought, a republic or a monarchy. ``A republic if you can keep it,'' Mr. Franklin responded.
Keeping the republic - in the aftermath of a protracted presidential election in which sly and ignoramuses alike have become such a dangerous force aimed at short-circuiting it with ``democracy'' - is this nation's clearest and most present danger as we look to 2001.
I hope all of this clears up any misconceptions you might have had, Lori.
Colin McNickle is the Trib's editorial page editor. Ring him at 412-320-7836. E-mail him at: cmcnickle@tribweb.com
Have an opinion? Share it in Straight to the Point: PittsburghLIVE Forums
Images and text copyright © 2000 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from PittsburghLIVE.
|
| Site Search |
|
|
|
|
| Featured Links |
|
|
|
|
