Faced with so many people using the term, it is important to remember that this country is not a democracy.
In the last few years, Democrats and the media have been able to hold on to the idea of protecting our democracy.
Although this line of argument was born out of the Capitol riots, it was in existence for some time. The Washington Post adopted “Democracy Dies in Darkness”, a catchphrase in 2017 in response to Donald Trump’s inauguration. It continues this week as Margaret Sullivan rests on this tired idea. Many left-leaning people saw Trump’s rise as the moment to start calling for necessary changes in government because of our inability to govern.
Take a look at the calls for the revocation of the Electoral College. It is unfair that anyone could be elected to the White House, while technically being outvoted. This is where the irony begins. The response to Trump’s rise to the presidency as a populist prompts us to call for the popular vote. According to the argument, the EC is an outdated model that dates back to Colonial times and doesn’t have any practical application today. The argument goes that while the Founders may have been fine in spirit, they didn’t know what they were doing.
This same thinking can be applied to the Senate’s call to end the filibuster. This argument is again unjust because the Democrats cannot reach a majority on policy issues. However, it must be ignored realities. The Senate is currently an even split. There is no minority party. This centuries-old practice was never considered a problem prior to Joe Biden’s arrival.
Take a look at all the arguments against filibustering. It is antiquated and unfair, unconstitutional, racist, and anti-democratic. Remember that the filibuster was loved by the Democrats all the way to 2020. Their party used the Senatorial tool an unprecedented number of times that year. In a matter of months, it was eliminated.
This thinking extends to the entire Senate body. More voices are calling for a restructuring of this limb of government because of the frustration inherent in a divided chamber. It is unfair that smaller, less populous states get equal votes. It is difficult to see which is more important in these talks: ignorance or short-sightedness. This is because the people who make these ignorant arguments don’t realize that the restructured government they are creating will eventually be in the hands of the other party.
These Democrats are clearly desperate to call for these measures. They feel that they are at the edge of a broad mandate, and can push through their agenda while still facing an expiration. The Democrats are well aware that there will be a change in the next months, as the mid-terms represent the historic opposition party swing. However, polls suggest it could be more like “The Pit and the Pendulum swing”. This has led to a reliance on the claimed need for democracy preservation.
Let’s take a look at the picture. These same voices, which claim to be concerned about the integrity and security of our nation as well as maintaining the sanctity of our government, are also calling for a total overhaul of our governmental system. How is it possible to intellectually argue that our institutions need to be preserved by revoking a centuries-old practice and expunging a core idea in the Constitution and razing one of our arms of government? It is an emotional response that is undiluted and is rooted in our ignorance of the fact that we are supposedly democratic nations.
Many people have heard the argument that social media is a representative republic and not a democracy. Although it may sound cliché, this is a fact. People who are pushing for change will respond with a “Yeah but …” rebuttal. They want to claim that the federalist structure is simply a modification of democracy and that it is obsolete today. We must return to democratic intentions. Their ignorance is evident here. The Founders didn’t accidentally drift away from democracy. They also did not attempt to reform it with new governance.
Alexander Hamilton, the Broadway star, is my first source of evidence to draw their attention. Alexander Hamilton, a Broadway star, spoke out at the Constitutional Convention to support the view of many Founders, that the intention was to create a republic in order to avoid falling prey to the pitfalls of a true democracy.
“We are currently forming a Republican form of government. Moderate governments are the only way to real liberty. Not in extreme democracies. We will soon be ruled by a monarchy or another form of dictatorship if we are too inclined to democracy.
This is a possible scenario for the popular vote. Californians suggest a bizarre environmental policy that should be implemented at the national level. The party idea is accepted by people in Democratic urban centers who are not familiar with agrarian realities. The party idea is rejected by those states that have too many farms and fewer people who see the impact this policy has on agriculture. However, they are outvoted in a democratic alliance. The popular will can then start to influence the national food supply. A balanced Senate can be a necessary check against such situations.
This type of issue was the focus of Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural address in 1801.
The will of the majority prevails in all cases, and that will must be reasonable. That the minority has equal rights must be protected by equal law. To oppress would be oppression.
Federalist Papers No. This thought was also held by James Madison, before the ratification.
It is clear that democracies like these have always been spectacles of contention and turbulence; have never been found incompatible or incompatible with the rights to property and personal security, and have generally been as violent in their deaths as they were in their lives.
Madison was correct within a short time. For a direct comparison, France experienced its revolution at the same time that ours. This country, which adhered to democratic rule, went through at most a dozen changes to its governance structure, including three monarchies. The United States has maintained its same government for hundreds of years.
This order has been maintained by the modulation of a representative government. The founders didn’t stumble upon an archaic point order. It was an intentional framework to avoid imbalanced governance and give equal voices. The Senate serves as a check against the rule of majority rule. While the House is home to the will of the people, the Senate is the voice and control of the republic.
What they really mean is that they are frustrated at not being able to force their will on the nation. They are trying to make a problem happen, rather than try to influence the collective mind. Today, we hear many voices calling for the preservation of democracy. Their solution is to remove the centuries-old frames.
It is striking that they call their opponent extremists for making such a rash and massive call to renovate our core principles.
