Benjamin Franklin - “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
The response is attributed to Benjamin Franklin - at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation.
I’ve been asked why I don’t support the “Move to Amend” movement, which reacts to how the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission last January. My opposition is based on the goal they strive for, which they state is, “In a democracy, the people rule.” Well to inform you, The United States is a republic, not a democracy.
First, don’t loose sight of what I’m trying to convey. I’m not suggesting I agree with the Supreme Courts decision. I might even be convinced that the decision itself is not the best for the people as a whole. What I am concerned about is the way dissenters approach the fix to the disagreement. To amend the constitution is a radical approach that could prove disastrous to the republic the founders built, instead of a democracy, which has failings they were avoiding (again, you need to understand the difference between the two). The approach of amending the constitution can be like shooting yourself in the foot trying to rid an annoying fly. There are better (not necessarily easier or faster) ways to achieve your goal. The Supreme Court was protecting the republic, as good constitutional layers should. Even though they may have agreed with the dissenters goals (not sure, would need to interview them) the decision was based on a higher goal of re-enforcing a republic government. Whether corporations should have the same rights as each individual is another argument entirely and it should not be the business of the judiciary branch. I hope that helps you understand why I believe what I do. Believe me, you want the republic we have and not a democracy some think we need.
If amending the constitution is something needed to achieve goals in supporting our republic government it can be done but is not easy. A more lofty and aligned goal would be the one in “Amend the Constitution” where the supporters believe that Congress needs to be reigned in closer to their original purpose and give the people back power the government branch has been bleeding from them in recent history. This movement is more indicative in keeping and strengthening our republic, possibly because what Mr. Franklin has to say below. Whatever we do remember it’s the republic were are trying to keep and not a democracy.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin
3 comments:
Hi, Rick. I’ve been chewing on your last post while dealing with life. It gave me a different perspective from the one I’m used to. I’ve checked out your reference on the difference between a democracy and a republic and found this:
“Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s ..., the people elect representatives to the national legislature... and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.”
I’ve also checked Merriam-Webster’s definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
According to them, we’re both a democracy and a republic.
Our legislative branch decides by majority rule except in the case of a filibuster, when it requires a supermajority. Both the majority and minority have protections; at least when things work well. At least in the pure model that was set up by the Founders.
Things aren’t working well, though. Our “representatives” spend half of their working day having to raise money to run in their next campaign. That makes them susceptible to anyone with deep pockets. Those with deep pockets try to lasso politicians on both sides of the aisle so no matter who wins an election, they’ve got folks in government who are beholden to them. To keep the money rolling in, our “reps” have to vote to satisfy their backers instead of us. In that sense, no, we’re not a democracy. We’re not a republic. When business runs the government, it’s called Fascism. If we want our reps to actually represent us, we have to be constantly in their faces, without let up, and we may still be ignored.
With the Supreme Court decision taking the last brake off of the corrupting influence of the corporations and PACs, pretending that they’re the same as living, breathing human beings, Fascism rules, the Military-Industrial Complex enforces and controls, and the Media indoctrinates. The Supreme Court didn’t protect the republic: it opened the gates to a new feudalism, with us as the serfs. That’s why I support Move To Amend.
Thanks for the discussion. You and I have our own sets of assumptions, probably get our information from different sources, therefore come to different conclusions. We are similar, though, in that we want the best for our families, our communities, our country. Diversity is a wonderful thing. I have to back up my assumptions and double-check my sources when I cross swords with you. It makes me a more critical thinker, and hopefully a better whetstone to your wit.
Engarde,
Gaia
Gaia - touché. You prove to be a worthy opponent; a critical thinker and still chivalrous. And whatever “dealing with life” is for you, I pray it works out as needed and becomes another wisdom building path. I like the fencing analogy you finish with so I will reply likewise.
I don’t think we are far apart on what a republic verse democracy means. You would be correct in referring us to a democratic republic. You touched on one idea that differenced a republic from a parliamentary democracy so I leave that point as one we could easily find common ground and begin a bout.
Feint left. I agree that our representatives are out of step with our founding fathers vision of representation. For one thing, the founders never expected our politicians to make their service a career. It was meant to be a season, a time to make points and policy that others following would strengthen, uphold or change as public opinion held them accountable to our constitution and bill of rights. After a relative brief time, they were expected to return to their true profession. They were to represent their direct constituency and no others. Our congress has moved beyond that simple scope and given themselves more power than we should allow and as a side note, it is something “we the people” can remedy if we see the need and act. Yup, our republic is in trouble, but we differ on why.
Riposte right. Your understanding of a corporation, leads me to deduce your “sources” of information giving a sympathetic but focal point to address. There is an element of corruption within corporate America but that can be said about most rudiments of the nation. Corporations are a form of American capitalism, which is an economic element. It needs to stay an economic element and not gravitate to a political entity. With that, I agree that corporations need to be held to that scope and not be allowed to direct government policies. Business should not run government, as of yet, does not run government and needs checks to insure it will not replace “we the people”. So your concern is understood. But we must remember that part of the reason our nation built the government we have was to protect and allow capitalism. Bill Gates might take umbrage to the wide sweeping generalization that all (or even most) corporations are evil. Much more could be said and qualified about this but what really intrigues me was the statement, “When business runs the government, it’s called Fascism”.
Redouble. Interesting that you use the term fascism instead of, oh maybe, communism; the difference between the two is basically understood as far right verses far left politics. Another indicator of sources of information. It may be surprising but I understand both concepts as opposing poles, both bad, but on the left end of right/left line indicating complete anarchy to total complete government control. But I digress. Let us use the term fascism.
Fascism – Encarta Dictionary, “any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism”.
Yes, this would a bad thing and a complete destruction of the democratic republic we now enjoy. The people need to watch for this movement (and any others similar whether right or left) and make sure to protect ourselves from such a movement. We need to keep an eye on those corrupt corporations but maybe we should also be watching what the left hand is doing while focusing on the right. Look at that definition of fascism again. Now convince me that the present administration is not leaning more toward “fascism” than our corporations. The people have overwhelmingly indicated that they do not want the healthcare currently being forced upon us. That is not to say something needs to be done with it but no matter, the people have spoken and said not this one. Every method or trick is being explored and massaged to bypass normal constitutional procedures to ignore what the people want from their government. I understand Republicans have used similar tactics in the past and is still wrong but the current administration is exponentially using them with a much more “fascism” vigor.
Plastron. Now, I know you have much to chew on here but before you swallow, choke or spit it out I want to reveal my philosophical world view related to this so any rebuttal will be worth your time. There are things we can agree upon and others we may never. My view is based upon what our founding fathers used and the reason I quote them and reveal any related information supporting it.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …”.
At the very least the framers were deist but after much research I believe they based our government on Christian principals including love, faith and charity but so many others ingrained in our supporting documents. History proves that even Thomas Paine, an avowed agnostic who influenced much of the founding fathers’ writings, later admitted that his father’s faith and where he garnered his principals was probably truth and he died in prison for that admission. I have come to believe what Jesus said about Himself and digest all my philosophy through His teachings. That is not to say I have all the correct answers and can be moved to re-evaluate my stands and have. But it will always be within the confines of the most simplistic, basic truths that can be derived and tested from Jesus’ teaching. Not necessarily “Christian” because much damage has been done in His name, which I would not condone.
Lunge. Here is a challenge. Who does Jesus say He is? Is He crazy or the Creator? Read closely the Gospel of John.
Disengage. You are may be correct, “We are similar . . . in that we want the best for our families, our communities, our country.” And yes, “Diversity is a wonderful thing.” Jesus worked in it and His teachings thrived on it. But His goal was always to draw others onto Himself and I must ultimately point to Him as the answer to all questions and discussions. Thank you for the opportunity of your whetstone to hone a version of “the Sword of Truth”.
Post a Comment