Actually, many people have taken to proclaiming the U.S. is "a republic, not a democracy". The line has been heavily pushed by Pat Buchanan and Glenn Beck, as well as libertarians. Ron Paul, in an online essay, says "The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy". This is particularly convenient with the current alignment of ideologies, and naming of parties. Convenient, that is, for those who want to demonize the Democratic party and make if effectively disappear.
The "party of Jefferson", however, were for the first few decades referred to sometimes as "democrats", sometimes as "republicans", and sometimes as "democratic republicans".
Around the time that Andrew Jackson was elected, they seemed to settle on calling themselves Democrats, and they were distinctly the party of small government and states rights.
I'd like to set aside history for a moment, and just examine the terms used by Ron Paul, "democracy" and "freedom". My impression is that most Americans would have little to say if asked to explain the difference between democracy and freedom, so they miss the tensions that sometimes exist between democracy and freedom, and also miss how they support each other.
Democracy means "people rule", and has come to mean some form of majority control over ... what? If the people rule it, then it is something held in common. And that is just what the Latin root of republic, res publica means. In the 17th century, when much of the American founders' political thinking was formulated, it was anglicized to "commonwealth". Perhaps res publica (public thing or public matter) suggests the possibility, at least, of rule by the best, or wisest men rather than universal democracy; it suggests the possibility of property requirements for voting, which many of the founders believed in. But I don't see how republic has any more to do with liberty or freedom than democracy does.
Samuel Johnson asked
"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" (meaning, of course, slaves).
Edmund Burke said, more sympathetically of the slave-owning south
"Those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of their freedom. [It] is to them ... a kind of rank and privilege ... In such a people, the hautiness of dominion combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifies it, and renders it invincible."
Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina quoted the Burke statement, framing it with these words:
"I will acknowledge the fatal effects of slavery upon character, if any one can say, that for noble disinterestedness, ardent love of country, exalted virtue, and a pure and holy devotion to liberty, the people of the Southern States have ever been surpassed by any in the world."I.e. slave holders are the greatest defenders of liberty, according to Hayne, and to many other Southerners of his time (Quotes are from the Hayne-Webster debate; the relevant paragraph is HERE(LINK).)
Over the last few years, I have seen quite a few hints and suggestions from movement conservatives and libertarians that "too much democracy" is a threat to liberty (I apologize for having none of these references at my fingertips).
While that really can, in extreme cases, occur, it is also true that democracy is the only plausible guarantee of (universal) liberty, and (as I just illustrated) that a self-absorbed obsession with (ones own) liberty has often posed the gravest threat to (universal) liberty. So, I would feel less anxious about the future of our country, if those who speak so often of liberty, and how it is threatened by Democrats, would add the word universal in front of liberty.
No comments:
Post a Comment