The United States – Democracy vs. Republic What Are We?

Democracy vs. Republic. WHAT ARE WE?
In his article titled Too Much of a Good Thing – Why We need less democracy, Economist and the former Director of the office of Budget and Management for President Obama, Peter Orszag stated, “In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, John Adams wrote that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” That may read today like an overstatement, but it is certainly true that our democracy finds itself facing a deep challenge: During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result. We need less Democracy.”i Regardless of how he intended this statement to read, the words have a lot of meaning in and of themselves among the American people. Clearly there is some confusion about the word democracy and its place as it relates to American understanding of it.

We constantly hear commentaries suggesting we are a democracy, for that reason it would seem prudent to repeat it over and over again that we are not. But of equal importance is the understanding of what we are (were meant to be) and the sippery slope we traveling on. Modern America in its haste for tolerance and understanding for all has drifted away from our core beliefs and our individual liberties as protected by the Constitution. Individual freedom and liberty were at the forfront of the founders mindset, these rights were put into place in an effort to protect our individual rights and freedoms, they did not intend to dictate rights and liberties for the masses as a whole.

As a free people we need to formulate our own opinions, thus, it is crutial for us to have a clear and precise understanding regarding the differences between a democracy and a republic as stated in the Constitution of the United States of America. The vast majority of American’s have no idea that the United States is a Republic. How many people do you hear saying, “We are a democracy. We are a democratic nation?” They have no idea we undergoing a change that will have an adverse effect on generations of the future. Our rights as we have believed them to be, are being taken away one by one, as government continues to grow and inform us of what is in our best interest. Can you name an area where the government has not intruded? You can’t, because our governement has infiltrated all aspects of daily life – banking, auto, finance, health care, the family, what we eat where we go what we drive, and so on. What does that mean? If we contiue to travel down the road of discourse and turn a blind eye on the disemination of our Constitution, then the rights we presume to have will continue to become non-exsistant. In the event the people decide to wake up and see the big picture it may be to late. Our founders never intended to create an entitlement society whereby the governement continues to grow and interfer with rights and liberties of individuals as it is currently doing.

4 USC § 4 – Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery:

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government. Article IV, Sec. 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Applicaions of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

The United States is moving down a dangerous path toward a global democracy. This was never the intent of the Founders and for good reason. Gary McLeod wrote and interesting piece on the subject Republic vs. Democracy. Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman’s inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Not only have we failed to keep it, most don’t even know what it is. A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good). Our constitution was written with the focus on approval from our three branches of government with regard to making laws. The process was meant to be a slow because illegal democracy occurs on a regular basis by “requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums.

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship (McLeod).

Although many politicians, teachers, journalists and citizens all believes our Founders created a democracy, that simply isn’t accurate. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a republic. So I repeat, Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution “guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government”…. Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words, “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…”, “We may define a republic to be a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.” James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787). Time and time again we warned about the dangers of a democracy, yet the business of our daily lives perpetuates the depletion of the Constitution as we know it. “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men.” Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

In the past, our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world.

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation’s wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.’s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said, “Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference” (Mcleod).

As everyone knows this is an election year. But this year is more important than ever before because our Constitution and all it stands for is at stake. Polititians will continue with the status quo as they always do, but regardless of who you are, Republican or Democrat you owe it your children, grand-children, etc., to truly know what is at stake and what is happening because their future is in your hands. The attitude, “I am not really into politics” or saying, “I don’t care” does not relieve you from the responsibility nor the outcome of future events.


1 Orszag, Peter.(2011)Too Much of a Good Thing Why we need less democracy.

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Gina Aveni

Gina is a Journalist, Constitutional Rights Activist, Conservative Commentator.

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. How true! Now, let me ask you guys a few questions. How many of your readers would agree with me in opposing Marxist/Humanist Global Government? How many would say we need to replace Congressmen, not just Obama, who support and serve such government efforts to undermine our Constitution? How many of you on the staff of this site and the readers would agree with me that we need to oppose this, not just by blogs and protests, but by actually taking back those seats of power and replacing them with those of us, as imperfect as we may be, but are willing to pursue righteous rule in line with our Founders’ Original Intents?

    Well, let’s find out who believes that my “Republican” incumbent should be replaced. Let’s find out who would support such an effort to replace him, not just with prayers and pats on the back, but with cash and elbow grease. This is not an appeal for money yet, just an appeal for those reading this to judge for yourselves and cast your votes on the webpolls on the following website.

    Does the incumbent need to be replaced? Should the working man on this website run against him? Will you support him if he does? Look and vote for yourself.

    If you like what you see, share with all you know. 10x10x10… Less than 2 months until filing date. If few sound off and rally to the call for help, the challenger will not bother with it.

    Good article. Let’s see who actually believes in doing something productive, like taking back our Congress.

    Thank you for allowing me to post.

    1. Hello Jeff and thank you for your reply. I appreciate the comments and so on. I would hope that mainstream American is waking up in lew of what is at stake. Yes, this is not just an Obama issue it is a party issue as well, both sides. I do hope Americans are becoming more engaged and understanding about what is truly at risk, rather than remaining distracted and too involved in other things.

      Regards and good luck to you,

  2. Read and buy one for a friend, Mark Levin’s new book “Ameritopia”, and you will understand why our forefathers created a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. There is a big difference between the two. Democracies fail, Constitutional Republic’s don’t. Of course America is the first time a country was ever formed based on all the good things about government from all the great writers about truth and freedom and liberty. America is based on being a nation made up of sovereign individuals who have rights given to them by God, the right to life, the right to freedom and liberty, and the right to pursue happiness without any man taxing him, regulating him, or taking from him any of those things mentioned beforehand like freedom, liberty, and the desire to pursue happiness.

    Obama is doing exactly that by using fancy words that are full of twisted up terms and phrases that were taught to him way back when he was young when he sat at the knee of his mother, a card carrying Socialist, her parents who were card carrying Socialist/Communists, and when he was in college at the knee of Saul Alinsky and Communist, Franklin Marshall Davis a Communist, and when Obama started his political career he became life long friends with Bill Ayers a Socialist/Communist/domestic terrorist/radical militant leftist. So Barry Obama has had most of his formative years learning how to apply the Communist Manafesto, Cloward-Piven to America in order to destroy it’s economic system, remove it’s Christian foundation from affecting it’s society, and eliminate the Constitution from it’s law making processes, take all state rights away by making a centralized government the ultimate law giver. And Obama is very educated in how to do all those things. Obama is seeing to it that the “Dreams of his father”, who by the way was a Socialist/Communist in Kenya come true here.

    1. Yes, indeed Willofla, it is a state of affairs. I don’t think anyone would argue that President Obama is quite the eloquent speaker. Take a look on his latest statements while campaigning re: Boeing — he is the reason Boeing did not open a plant in GA – he relies on people forgetting or not knowing; that is how he got into office in the first place: HOPE and CHANGE.
      Thank you for your posting. Regards, g

  3. I spoke to an elderly lady one time about when Roosevelt put out the call for everyone to turn in all their gold. She said he pleaded with the people of America to send him their gold, “…because” he said, “your government is about to run out of money.” She said that during the Depression everyone knew what it meant to be almost out of money, as many were experiencing. She said he acted like the government was going through the same kind of suffering as the people. That turned out to be a lie. She said the government was never out of money, “…and now they had all our gold that took us years to save up for just for times like these (the Depression). And now we were the only one’s broke, because we believed he was telling us the truth.”

    So there you are folks. Right from the mouth of a woman who sent Roosevelt her gold. She said that,” There was something about it that didn’t seem right.” And she said that, “People hid their gold and only sent in some of it.” The rest they kept because without a job that’s all they had. She said they would only sell one coin, but only if they had to and there was no other way around it. She said, “It was against the law to have them (the coins) and the police would arrest you if they found out you had any gold”

    Oh yeah, people. I can see this happening right now with Obama, except it will be something else very valuable to us, and may very well be gold again. Just like the Socialist Democrats want to get their greedy hands on our 401K’s to put them into the Social Security “Fund” and when we retire a certain amount is added to our Social Security monthly check at a formulated amount, a percentage. Oh yeah. And like they stole our mothers S.S. and made her pick her’s or her husbands which ever was greater, and of course the husbands was greater because he made more than his wife. And didn’t it take both of their checks to take care of them while they worked, why would it take less just because they aren’t working anymore? With prices going up all the time, that little check she got every month was smaller and smaller for what it could buy.

    I say wipe out both political parties and only elect men who are conservative who have good ideas about whatever it would be. Also to, wipe out the debt. We don’t owe a single penny of that money anyway, it’s all unConstitutional. And spending was already paid for because they already had the money to pay for some program. Otherwise how could they institute it until they collected the money. So when ever you hear them say a bill has to be paid for but it’s going to take affect right now is a lie. Either they are paying for it now with money from somewhere, or they can’t act on it and it’s activation would have to wait until they had the money.

    Besides why does a bill cost money to institute if there is nothing physical being bought and used. If it’s just words as most laws are, a different way to do something from the way it was done before, then all they should have to do is put the word out that from now on so-in-so is being done this way now. Why does that cost billions of dollars to do? I say it’s a lie. They are lieing to us just so they can raise taxes and claim it’s paying for something that the money can’t pay for. What the money is paying for is just words about some law change from one way to another. Nothing is being bought or paid for so how can words cost money to the tune of billions of dollars? It doesn’t, that’s just it, we’re being lied to.

    We don’t owe this money they claim we owe. Write it off!! There would be no loss because there isn’t anything to loose when nothing was done with the money other than paying for a law to be reworded and done differently from the way it was done before. We don’t owe the money!!

    1. Thank you again for the comment. The woman was right about Roosevelt and calling for everyone to turn in their gold; there is a huge demand for gold now (same as then) driving the price of gold up to around 2k along with silver and other precious metals — since our govt keeps printing money for problem to spend, which in turn deflates the value of the dollar, and is driving up the price of gold and other metals. If the dollar is worthless (like during the depression) then gold and silver become the currency.

      With regard to pension and social security that entitlement program began years ago as well, but was also not something intended by founders. That being said the real problem began with the Clinton administration with Bill taking money from Social Security to spend on what he wanted and putting in IOU’s (treasury bonds) where the money was suppose to be. The problem is government spending year after year after year…many of the these bills they are passing do not have the consent of the average American, the president is bi-passing congress and doing whatever he wants. The bills themselves do not cost money it is the implementation of them that costs e.g. all the bailouts. Thank you again, next time leave a name. lol.


  4. In answer to the articles question we are now a democracy and have been since ratification of the 17th Amendment.
    When this amendment was ratified the Senators were no longer chosen by their states legislatures, the states lost their advocacy in Federal government.

    What we have now are two houses of representatives with one of them limited to two reps per state.

    This not only limits the states rights, but makes it possible for one party to gain complete control of the federal government.
    I am sure most of you would agree that given recent history, ie. Pelosi and Reids Congress that, that is a VERY bad idea.

    1. Yes indeed Horizon. 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators (1913)
      The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, made the Senate an assembly where the states would have equal representation. Each state legislature would elect two senators to 6-year terms. Late in the 19th century, some state legislatures deadlocked over the election of a senator when different parties controlled different houses, and Senate vacancies could last months or years. In other cases, special interests or political machines gained control over the state legislature. Progressive reformers dismissed individuals elected by such legislatures as puppets and the Senate as a “millionaire’s club” serving powerful private interests.

      One Progressive response to these concerns was the “Oregon system,” which utilized a state primary election to identify the voters’ choice for Senator while pledging all candidates for the state legislature to honor the primary’s result. Over half of the states adopted the “Oregon system,” but the 1912 Senate investigation of bribery and corruption in the election of Illinois Senator William Lorimer indicated that only a constitutional amendment mandating the direct election of Senators by a state’s citizenry would allay public demands for reform.

      When the House passed proposed amendments for the direct election of Senators in 1910 and 1911, they included a “race rider” meant to bar Federal intervention in cases of racial discrimination among voters. This would be done by vesting complete control of Senate elections in state governments. A substitute amendment by Senator Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas provided for the direct election of Senators without the “race rider.” It was adopted by the Senate on a close vote before the proposed constitutional amendment itself passed the Senate. Over a year later, the House accepted the change, and on April 8, 1913, the resolution became the 17th amendment. (

      And so the progressive movement begins…again

      Thank you Horizon.

Back to top button