We Are A Republic, Not A Democracy

In honor of James Madison’s birthday, I thought that I’d share something very important that he wrote.

This is a topic that is still very pertinent today, and deserves discussion in light of the continual bombardment of misinformation from our media, government and elected officials.

It seems like a silly semantic argument to many, but the distinction between a republic and a democracy is profound.

Madison, Jay and Hamilton all went to great lengths to make their case for our republican form of government and the need for a new constitution to both empower and restrict it. They wrote what we now call the Federalist Papers in order to make their case and sell their ideas to the American public.

Here are some excerpts (in Italics) from Federalist #10 where Madison explains why America’s government needed to be established as a Republic and not as a Democracy. In fact, Madison argued that we must be a Republic of Republics (see Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution).

BTW: The Federalist Papers are readily available for anyone who is interested in reading more, and I highly recommend that you do.

Enjoy!

The Same Subject Continued
(The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection)
From the New York Packet.
Friday, November 23, 1787.

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction...

...By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community...

...The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society...

...It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm...

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

...From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and 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 spectacles of turbulence and contention; 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people...

...The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary...

...The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS.

Seeking Excellence, Truth & Honor

⁸Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right,whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. ⁹The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things,and the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:8-9 NASB)


I'm honestly not sure that I can add anything to this, but I had to post it because it is so profound.


Prayers & Blessings!

Red Skelton - The Pledge of Allegiance

What makes a good life?

"A good life makes a man wise according to God and gives him experience in many things, for the more humble he is and the more subject to God, the wiser and the more at peace he will be in all things." - Thomas A Kempis


What is it that makes a good life?  We often use the term to refer to the attainment of great wealth that enables a life of leisure.  But so often the people who are idolized for attaining that "good life" seem to lead desperate and unhappy lives without peace or joy.  Is life good without peace or joy?  Can misery be assuaged with money or does your soul long for a higher purpose?  I am convinced that many of us are missing the true good life because we are pursuing a false one.  


Wealth is not bad or evil; the problem is that many of us lose ourselves in the pursuit of it.  The wealth becomes the goal, rather than the opportunities that come with it.  Why do we seek wealth?  The most common answer is that we want to spend more time with our family and friends.  But most of us spend so much time pursuing wealth that we don't take any time for our family and friends.  


The purpose of wealth is to share it, not by a mandate from authority, but joyfully and with a spirit of giving.  That is why our greatest wealth is found in giving of ourselves.  It brings us great joy and real peace to share ourselves because it is what God calls us to do.  That is what makes a good life.