Is Democracy a Dirty Word - Once it Was

Important Announcement:   There are some changes taking place in the way this blog operates.  I will continue to post new “editions” periodically (probably weekly) of which this is one, but as new items come up, rather than start a fresh posting every few days, I plan on adding them to the most recent posted version, showing the date the item was added.  They will appear at the bottom of that posting.  Scroll down right now to read the ones already added to this particular posting, if any.  (And see recent prior postings as well.)

When "Democracy" was Almost a Dirty Word 

Years ago, when my local library up north had a book sale to clean out its overcrowded shelves, I bought a copy of Saul Padover’s 1963 masterpiece, “The Meaning of Democracy,” for twenty cents.  What a bargain!  And look at this bit of history that I found on pages 18 through 20 and the insight it provides into how ‘democracy’ was viewed by the nation’s founders. 

Frequently today, one hears those on the right state that we are a republic and not a democracy.  They are correct if democracy is defined as it was by those who wrote the Constitution.  But today, the definition of democracy has expeanded to encompass the idea of a democratic republic, which is what we have.  Over the years, Hamilton’s “Consent of the People” has increasingly grown to be derived directly from the people, but even now, it is still derived through republican representation in lingering undemocratic institutions like the Electoral College and was in the Senate until 1913, when Senators first became popularly elected.  But getting back to Padover,

“Americans of the latter part of the eighteenth century, including those who created the U.S. Government, believed in self-government but retained skepticism in regard to ‘democracy.’  To them, self-government meant representative government, a republic, guided by carefully chosen representatives.  When they referred to ‘democracy,’ it was usually as ‘pure democracy’ or ‘pure republic’ – meaning unrestrained popular majorities – which they rejected on the traditional ground that it could be nothing but a nursery of chaos.

‘Democracy,’ John Adams wrote in his Defense of the Constitution of the United States of America  (1787), ‘never has been and never can be so desirable as aristocracy or monarchy, but while it lasts, is more bloody than either … It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

Padover points out that even Alexander Hamilton, who believed that our government was based on ‘the consent of the people, had his doubts when he bluntly attacked the ‘turbulent and uncontrolling’ passions of the people and advocated a Senate elected for life in order to serve as a check on the ‘imprudence of democracy.’ Hamilton is quoted as saying that ‘the ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government.  Their very character was tyranny, their figure, deformity. When they assembled, the field of debate presented an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity.’

Madison

Padover continued: “The general attitude of liberals and moderates toward ‘democracy’ was perhaps best reflected in James Madison, whose influence on the shaping of the Federal Constitution was unrivaled.  Madison’s prime concern was with political freedom and social stability.  He dreaded equally aristocracy and democracy, the former as the tyranny of the few and the latter as the despotism of the many.  Madison was not opposed to democracy as we understand it today, as manifested by our democratic republic.  He was a dedicated republican, an eloquent champion of freedom and self-government.  He preferred the term ‘republic’ to ‘democracy,’ because he thought that the latter applied strictly to what he called ‘pure democracy,’ meaning direct rule by all the people which he regarded as unrestrained mischief.” 

Madison would have considered the January 6 assault on the Capitol as an example of ‘unrestrained mischief,’ democracy at its worst, "the despotism of the many."  The invasion of the Capitol that day by insurrectionists should serve as an example of why the Constitution’s framers feared what they called ‘pure democracy.’ 

When a president like Donald Trump, with autocratic ambitions takes advantage of such a ‘nursery of chaos’ to further his own ends under the guise of democracy, it seems to justify the framers’ fear of the dangers of democracy as a form of government.   Thus, they were very cautious in adopting some of its features in the Constitution of the new nation.

 JL

 (More from Padover at a later date.  I am still re-reading it.)

 

                                       *    *    *   *

Excerpts from my postings on "Letters to an American."

Next insurrection? On its way! Of course, Trump will be acquited and the 14th Amendment's Sec. 3 ignored as well. Former FBI agent and Ass't Director Frank Figliuzzi (on MSNBC) says that self-regulation by social media isn't enough to police the messaging and promulgation of lies on which the insurrectionists depend. It will remain a continuing threat which only Congressional legislation can deal. The First Amendment was never intended to justify the acts of criminals.

Trump's latest lawyer, in his slick $2.000 suit, was the perfect example of why many people dislike lawyers. Attorney van der Veen did everthing possible to make his client look good. That's what any client who knows he is guilty wants in his lawyer. He even said that what he personally thought of the issues didn't matter! If I were suing an insurance company for a personal injury (which was van der Veen's firm's stock in trade for years), I would want him pleading my case.

                                                  * * * * *

(Items added Feb. 14, 2021)

Hypocrisy Defined Anew

As I predicted in the additional item added to this blog’s prior posting on February 11, the 45^th president was indeed acquitted by the Senate of the impeachment charges brought against him by the House.  Oddly, after the vote, GOP Senate leader McConnell said that Trump was indeed guilty as charged, but for some questionable legalistic and procedural reasons, he voted not to impeach.  He was the one, incidentally, who prevented the impeachment from coming before the Senate during those last few days of Trump’s presidency, which would have significantly weakened his questionable justification for his ‘no’ vote.  But Mitch had his reasons.

1.    If Trump is to be punished for what he was impeached for, with which all but 43 GOP Senators agreed, (the vote to impeach was 57-43, well short of the required 2/3), it will be the Democratic administration which would carry that out through the legal system in regular courts.  Opposing their doing so would give some meat to the pro-Trumpers still in the party’s base, blind to the fact that Mitch was convinced of Trump’s guilt, but not willing to impeach him.  Ignorance and gullibility survived the impeachment hearings among Republican voters and that party does not hesitate to use both.

2.   Many big donors to the GOP  (personal, PACs, organizations and corporate) will only start donating again if the party has rid itself of Trump.  Most consider him a cancer on the party.  They want his base’s votes but not him. Whether Mitch’s hypocrisy is enough to convince them, and whether the rest of the GOP buys it, is still uncertain.  Separating Trump’s base from him will not be easy.

This is a clear demonstration that 43 Republican Senators, many of whom like McConnell knew Trump was guilty as charged but who nonetheless voted to acquit him, put party before country. For years, McConnell’s behavior will be the best answer when a teacher asks a student for an example of hypocrisy. 

But justice will triumph.  I believe that someday, somewhere, DJT will spend time behind bars for his crimes against the Constitution, the nation, New York State and the hundreds of people and companies to whom he owed money but never paid, preferring to walk away saying "So sue me."  The nation will have learned that no matter how successful a businessman appears to be and no matter how great his ability to get around laws are, these “skills” do not qualify him or her for public office.  Ever! 

JL

Quote from George Will

In a column written last week, George Will wrote that "the Republican Party will wither if the ascendant "Lout" Caucus (which he earlier defined as Senators Cruz, Hawley, Graham, Johnson and others of that ilk) is the face it presents to this nation of decent, congenial people."  

In my opinion, the Republican Party which rose from the ashes of the Whig Party primarily over the expansion of slavery westward, has switched its allegiances and it is that same issue in today's terms (voter suppression, minimum wages, immigration, economic safety nets) which will cause it to wither and return it to ashes sooner than anyone expects.

                                                *   *   *   *

(Item added Feb. 15, 2021)

Vaccine Information

In a “sponsored content” (I suppose that’s a fancy word for an ad that isn’t selling anything) full page in today’s Palm Beach Post about two Scripps Research employees well known as “Coronavirus Fighters,” the following important information appeared and is excerpted from the full page’s content:

“They know the more the pandemic virus spreads, the more likely it is to mutate and eventually resist the vaccine.  Work to design next-generation vaccines, ones that protect against many coronavirus strains, is underway.”

Scripps scientists are quoted as saying:  “The rate at which the virus changes is dependent on the number of people infected, and we have an awful lot of people infected around the world.”

“These new strains are going to be an ongoing problem.”

“We’re not protected until the entire world is protected.”