The Danger of Democracy
The Founding Fathers intended for the United States to be a republic, not a democracy. A large portion of the population either is unaware of this distinction or considers it irrelevant. But there are many concerned citizens who do understand the difference and realize that this is not just a small matter of semantics.
To those seeking some background on the subject, there are many resources available at the library and on the Internet. I’m not going to get into the basics here. The main benefits of a republic are that representation allows the nation to preserve the rule of law, protect the rights of the minority, and control factions.
Since the Progressive Era, the word democracy has often been used as a euphemism for democratic socialism. This is a subtle tool which is used to confuse ordinary Americans and enculturate them into a political philosophy that goes contrary to the intents of the Founding Fathers.
Today, there are some Americans who openly advocate for democracy as opposed to republican government. In their reasoning, they claim that the Founding Fathers were elitists who refused to allow ordinary people to govern. This is, of course, untrue, as the Founders made it abundantly clear that every citizen has unalienable rights, and that all power of government is derived directly from the people.
Another argument in favor of democracy claims that a democratic system allows more and more people to have a
voice in government. This is a deception. The truth is that democracy stifles the voice of the individual. Consider an analogy. In a stadium full of people, if everyone attempts to talk at once, each individual voice will be drowned out in a sea of noise. The only way communication can take place is if one person uses a microphone to speak to the entire crowd. The person holding the microphone has a tremendous amount of power.
The Founders understood that democracy inevitably leads to oligarchy. James Madison explained in Federalist #58 what happens when a legislative body becomes too large. He said:
“…the more numerous an assembly may be…the greater is known to be the ascendency of passion over reason…In the ancient republics, where the whole body of people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with complete a sway as if a sceptre had been placed in his single 
hand. On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people. Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation…The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic.” (emphasis added)
Media, Technology, and Cultural Trends Consistent with Shift to Democracy
Since America’s founding, the country has steadily moved away from a republican system and toward democracy. This has been marked by certain political changes, such as the passage of the 17th amendment. But perhaps more significant has been the cultural shift.
How have Americans abandoned republican government? The problem is a sin of omission. Republics create natural channels of communication. Citizens assemble in town meetings, and then through representatives they communicate important information up the chain to the state or federal government. Americans move toward democracy when they ignore these channels and seek political change through other means.
The cultural shift has been characterized by desires which, on the surface, seem positive: democracy proponents seek to expand the ability of ordinary citizens to participate in the political process and make their voices heard. The problem is that these efforts often undermine the carefully constructed system of federalism that our Founders established. As democracy takes hold, the people may feel like they are expressing their views. But in reality, the whole mass of people is being influenced by a a few elites.
Freedom of the press has been a defining characteristic of American liberty since its founding. But media has changed significantly over the last 200 years. When America was young, there was no central control over media. Alexis de Tocqueville remarked in Democracy in America:
“…the Americans have established no central control over the expression of opinion, any more than over the conduct of business…The number of periodical and occasional publications which appears in the United States actually surpasses belief. The most enlightened Americans attribute the subordinate influence of the press to this excessive dissemination; and it is adopted as an axiom of political science in that country that the only way to neutralize the effect of public journals is to multiply them indefinitely.”
Early America was characterized by many small, regional newspapers. But as the culture shifted toward democracy, media become more consolidated. As radio and television became popular, we saw the emergence of influential, national media organizations. In modern society, many Americans rely on national media for their information.
In a democracy, the mainstream media cannot resist the temptation of bias in its reporting. This is because it has a critical role in shaping public opinion. Because of democracy, if a citizen wants to have an influence, he must raise enough money to run a large media campaign.
Consider the effect this has on political strategy. Today, large amounts of money are spent on superficial, confusing, and sometimes deceptive television ads. Ordinary voters have a hard time making informed decisions. In addition, the modern two-party system works in tandem with democracy. Only those candidates that go 
through a major party can obtain sufficient resources to run a successful campaign. Because of this, politicians have become more interested in party loyalty than in representing their constituents.
There are also significant cultural effects of the shift to democracy. Because of increased reliance on the national media, Americans have begun to think less deeply and less independently. In many cases, people don’t do their own research. We have been conditioned to expect and desire sound bites, condensed analysis, packaged and marketed information, and quick answers. We want the information delivered to us.
Web 2.0 has brought Americans new opportunities when it comes to media. The benefits include access to dynamic information content and new ways to connect with others. The Web also has the potential to shake up the power of the mainstream media. The downside is that technology trends are still consistent with the shift to democracy. The Internet is like the stadium full of people, all trying to speak at the same time.
In the online world, it’s harder for Americans to prioritize information. Also, relationships have become increasingly impersonal as people abandon face-to-face communication in favor of anonymous online messaging. Because of the Internet’s democratic nature, getting attention through superficial means has become more important than the value of information that is shared.
The Importance of Local Institutions
Another significant characteristic of the shift toward democracy has been the decline of local and state authority.
Federalism, which is America’s unique system of republican government, recognizes the critical importance of three separate groups: the federal government, the state governments, and the people.
The underlying principle of federalism is that all power is derived from the people, who have natural rights given them from God. The people then surrender a certain portion of that power so that a government may be formed. In order to keep that power from being abused, it is immediately divided. From Federalist #51, we read:
“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [state and federal], and then the portion allocated to each subdivided group among distinct and separate departments [executive, legislative and judicial]. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people.”
As our country has moved closer to democracy, Americans have sought to bypass municipal and state institutions in order to have more direct influence in Washington D.C. As a result, the power and sovereignty of local and state institutions is greatly diminished.
Recently, some efforts have been made to restore state sovereignty. Many states have passed 10th Amendment initiatives, which assert state authority over the federal government. This is certainly a step in the right direction.
But the municipal institutions may be the most important tool the people have to express their voice. And these have all but disappeared.
In the early part of America’s history, the townships played an unquestioningly vital role. They were so much a part of the nation’s culture, that the idea that their influence could possible be diminished was likely not fathomable to the Founders.
When Alexis de Tocqueville visited and observed America, he noted the importance of the townships. He saw that most of the tasks related to governing were handled at the local level. He wrote:
“Municipal independence…is a natural consequence of the principle of the sovereignty of the people in the United States: all the American republics recognize it more or less; but circumstances have peculiarly favored its growth in New England.”
De Tocqueville also gave us an answer to the problem of our dumbed-down, media-reliant, democratic culture. He taught us that municipal institutions are the classrooms of liberty. This is the place where the people can make their voice heard. He said that,
“…municipal institutions constitute the strength of free nations. Town meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people’s reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a free government, but without municipal institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty.”
Today, many Americans are concerned about the direction the country is heading. But grassroots liberty efforts still tend to focus on top down change. The goal is to shake things up in Washington. Activists overlook another option, which is to restore the power of the people by restoring local institutions.
Local Discussion Groups: The Solution to Social and Political Democracy
The challenge we face now is this: to pull our country in the right direction, we have to counter a broader cultural trend that has been going on for many years. I believe that Americans already possess the knowledge and wisdom required to preserve the republic. It’s just a matter of channeling that knowledge into the places where it can have the greatest impact.
Local discussion groups can help restore the right paradigm. How?
First, they provide an opportunity to meet face to face. This helps people improve their communication and allows them to begin to develop a sense of citizenship. Personal meetings also help people develop lasting 
relationships of trust with their neighbors.
Second, discussion groups help citizens to become more educated by providing an opportunity for them to learn from each other. By engaging in healthy debate, they will become more aware of the world around them. They will find out what issues are most important. They will uncover true principles and find ways to apply those principles in society.
Third, individuals can use discussion groups to become citizen journalists. I believe it is important for Americans to document, discuss, and share what they see around them. As Americans become better citizen journalists, they will become more independent and less reliant on outside, powerful media.
Finally, local meetings provide an opportunity for citizens to develop that municipal spirit which is lacking in American culture. They will help people gain an appreciation for the republican system of government.
A Time for Action
Many liberty activists agree that it’s important to work on shaping the cultural climate of America. But for some of them, the priority is on taking political action that will help reduce the power of the federal government. Their strategy is to inject key political leaders into Washington who will then work to make the required changes.
But it is also possible for locally oriented discussion groups to become instruments of political power. As groups multiply and expand, they can mobilize and join forces on key issues. As more and more citizens use this approach, the voice of the people can truly be restored. The people will be able to assert their sovereignty over federal and state governments.
LibertyDiscussions.com is a place for citizens and groups to connect online. It’s unique value lies not in the network by itself but in the commitment of its members to shared values. It is a simple tool, but the results may be profound.
In Federalist #1, Alexander Hamilton began to lay out the case for the Constitution. He noted the historical significance of the time when he said:
“…it has been reserved to the people of this country, to decide by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”
I believe that we live in a similarly historic time. We likewise face important questions, the answers of which will affect generations to come. Will we uphold the Constitution? If so, by what means?
Our republican society was created out of reflection and choice. We can likewise uphold it by reflection and choice.
Log in to LibertyDiscussions.com and start making your voice heard.
