The difference between a Democracy and a Republic and that the US is a Republic has been hashed out so many times over the years it is hard to find a new angle on the discussion. But there is a new angle that coverage of Congress has forced us all to recognize.
Of course the United States in all places save for those with the town meeting tradition is a representative democracy which is referred to as a Republic. There are many reasons advanced to promote a Republic over a Democracy.
We are also a Constitutional Republic meaning that there are fundamental of our government embodied in the our Constitution that take more than a simple majority of Congress and Presidential concurrance to change. But as Constitutional limitations can apply to both a pure democracy and to a republic that is hardly a relevent consideration to determine which is better if either.
Thus the great fear of a pure democracy vanishes under the imposition of a Constitution. Majority limits such as we have now with 2/3 and 3/4 majorities required on major issues would keep volitile changes to the constitution in check much as they do now.
So what do we gain from a republican form of government? There are several minor arguments in its favor but the major one is that we get professionals who can spend full time carefully considering the issues involved with legislation and vote accordingly. The argument is made that the average citizen does not have the time to do that.
Pardon me but is this not the same Congress that just last month was voting on a health reform that no one had read? Have we not been seeing examples of this every time a bill comes up for a vote? Not one of them has read it but they are voting on it.
Under these circumstances I fail to see how a yeah or ney vote differs from a coin toss. Perhaps I am missing something. Perhaps there are thousands of paid staffers reading every word and advising our representatives? But then when there were votes of the Health reform bill there is clearly NO WAY anyone, staffer or no, could have read every revised small type word on 1400+ pages in a few days much less present an informed opinion on it.
It appears we are not getting informed representation and as such I do not see the difference between what we are getting and what a pure democracy would give us.
Perhaps our representatives are voting based upon a political philosophy rather than upon the facts. Although a case can be made for that being a good idea they never campaign upon the philosophy upon which they vote so, even if true, it is of no value in casting a vote. So again, what we get is no different than a direct vote by the people on laws.
I could suggest, but not with a straight face, that our representatives keep their fingers upon the pulse of their constituency and vote accordingly. On almost every major vote in the last five years the vote of the representative has been contrary to the phone calls, faxes, and letters of their constituency. So we are certainly not getting a proxy vote out of them.
It appears in our government all of the theoretical advantages of a Republic over a Democracy have remained theoretical. We appear to get none of them.
We do not get reasoned consideration of the proposed laws. We do not get proxy representation. We do not get a political philosophy implemented.
Is it any wonder people are so disgusted that a squeeky voiced millionaire from Texas can draw such a large fraction of the vote simply by sounding different? People have realized they have no the process of selection of representatives has absolutely no connection to what happens in government in any manner whatsoever. That people are frustrated is an understatement.
And of course the reason is they are not getting what they were told they would get by voting. Those who voted for George Bush and those on his coattails voted for no new taxes. Two years later they got new taxes. Those who voted for Clinton and his supporters voted for a laundry list of things and, in a list too long to present, got just the opposite, the middle class tax cut perhaps leads the list.
Those are easy examples. For the rest of the 535 elected officials you will need to compare the reasons you voted for the person against their voting record and make up your own list. Are you getting what you voted for? If you have contacted him did you get what you wanted? If you have access to the number of calls pro and con a subject he received compare that to his vote. Most likely his vote was exactly the opposite.
And on top of that we have the blatant hypocrisy and lies by our representatives. Can individuals in a Democracy do any worse than that?
Our founding fathers were abhorant of the idea of a pure democracy. We now have everything they feared about a pure democracy save it is being done by a small number of people rather than by the population at large.
They also warned a pure democracy would lead to tyranny. I can not imagine anyone viewing our government's attacks upon the Bill of Rights as seeing it on any road other than toward tyranny.
Welcome to the limited democracy of the United States where we democratically choose our a few to be the tyrants amongst us.