It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically–is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy–a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government–needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature–the elective body there being the House of Commons–and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled “Constitutions.” Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts–next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his “Notes On The State of Virginia” written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . .” (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called “Constitution”–in reality a mere Act of that body:

“All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice.”

This topic–the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority–is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the “excesses of democracy” The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America–the people at large of that period–who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the “excesses of democracy,” were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards–in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)–for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

“The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period.” (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

“Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.”

It is correct to say that in any Democracy–either a Direct or a Representative type–as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949–indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

“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.”

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to–is the very antithesis of–the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only “just powers” (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution–adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment–with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention–especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose–to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government–of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ “Autobiography” commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

“By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act.”

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the “Essex Result” (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called “Constitutions” adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully – it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only “just powers,” limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the “snob-rule” of a governing Elite and the “mob-rule” of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights–to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here–as follows:

“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label “Republic” has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused–for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling–having essential characteristics of–a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to “the ancient republics,” but in any such connection the term was used loosely–by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy–often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his “Thoughts on Government” and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

Actually, Farrakhan has some history and logic on his side. John Winthrop (1588–1649), first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, declared direct democracy to be “the meanest and worst of all forms of government.”[1] John Cotton (1584–1652), seventeenth-century Puritan minister in Massachusetts, wrote in 1636: “Democracy, I do not conceive that ever God did ordain as a fit government either for church or commonwealth. If the people be governors, who shall be governed?”[2] In the Federalist Papers (No. 10), James Madison (1751-1836), fourth president of the United States and recognized as the “father of the Constitution,” writes that democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention.” Pure democracies are “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. . . . In general [they] have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”[3] These more realistic descriptions of the effects of direct democracy are a far cry from today’s modern appraisal.

So, contrary to what is widely taught in the schools of the United States and bruited about in the news media and expressions of politicians, the United States is not— in the opinion of one its principle founders and interpreters—a democracy. The Constitution itself, Article IV, Section 4, says: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government. . . .” Taken simply literally it is a guarantee of a republican government in the states and a republican government outside and above the states. There is no mention of the word democracy in the Constitution.[4]

What should we think of this? Did these men oppose the democratic process? Winthrop certainly did not. Although voting was restricted at Charlestown compared to our nation’s universal suffrage, assistants were chosen “by the general vote of the people” through the raising of hands.[5] Certainly Madison, as one of the architects of the Constitution, cannot be accused of rebuffing the democratic process since the Constitution mandates the representatives from the states be elected by popular vote.

These men feared that the whims of the majority cut off from an ethical base would prevail if direct democracy were ever accepted as a legitimate form of civil government. On the other hand, these men knew that only “the people” could keep a civil government in check. There was no divine right of kings (or a divine right of representatives or judges), and there must be no divine right of the people. A checking and balancing civil government was the ideal our founders worked for. But if at any time the character of the people changed, the effort would have been for nought.

There must be some consensus of opinion of what democracy is and what makes it work before it will function as an effective and stable aspect of government. Just to say the word does not make it a reality. As Christians there is one thing we should all agree upon, Vox populari est non vox dei (the voice of the people is not the voice of God), for we know that with a simply majority, evil as well as good can be implemented into law.

One of the last accurate definitions of democracy was published in 1928 in a training manual developed by the U.S. War Department. Democracy was described as “a government of the masses.” Authority was said to be “derived through mass meeting or any other form of ‘direct’ expression.” Direct democracy, according to the manual, would result in “mobocracy.” The “attitude toward property is communistic—negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.”[6] In a word, direct democracy makes “we the people” the immediate sovereigns without any guarantee of external moral restraint. C. Gregg Singer, echoing this opinion, writes that “Modern political theory has replaced the doctrine of the sovereignty of God with that of the sovereignty of man.”[7]

Is it any wonder, therefore, that John Adams, the second president of the United States, declared that “the voice of the people is ‘sometimes the voice of Mahomet, of Caesar, of Catiline, the Pope, and the Devil.’”[8] The results can be devastating. Francis Schaeffer describes law by majority opinion, certainly a definition of direct democracy, as “the dictatorship of the 51%, with no controls and nothing with which to challenge the majority.”[9] Schaeffer deduces a simple result of this definition of democracy: “It means that if Hitler was able to get a 51% vote of the Germans, he had a right to kill the Jews.”[10] Winthrop understood that a standard had to be found to direct the life and morals of governors and the governed.

The Fundamentals which God gave, to the [Commonwealth] of Israel, were a sufficient Rule to them, to guide all their affairs: We having the same, with all the Additions, explanations and deductions, which have followed: it is not possible, we should want a Rule in any case: if God give wisdom to discern it.[11]

Winthrop believed rightly that God gave us His law to check the totalitarian inclinations of the minority and the majority. There is nothing magical or holy about giving people the right to vote. In fact, political power in the hands of the wrong people with the wrong worldview is demonic.
Endnotes:

[1] Quoted in A. Marvyn Davies, Foundation of American Freedom: Calvinism in the Development of Democratic Thought and Action (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1955), 11.
[2] Letter to Lord Say and Seal, quoted by Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson, eds., The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings, 2 vols. (New York: Harper and Row, [1938) 1963), 1:209–210. Also see Edwin Powers, Crime and Punishment in Early Massachusetts: 1620–1692 (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1966), 55.
[3] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, Jacob E. Cooke, ed. (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 61.
[4] Ferdinand Lundberg, The Myth of Democracy (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1989), 12.
[5] Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1958), 90.
[6] Training Manual, No. 2000–25 (Washington, DC: War Department, 1928), 91.
[7] C. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 43.
[8] John Adams, quoted by Gilbert Chinard, Honest John Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co., [1933] 1961), 241 in John Eidsmoe, “The Christian America Response to National Confessionalism,” in Gary Scott Smith, ed., God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989), 227–228. C. Gregg Singer writes: “The coming of democracy, some fifty years [after the drafting of the Constitution], began a process of secularization of American political thought, and that equality implied in the Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of the believers was transformed into the democratic concept of equalitarianism which came to America as a result of the French Revolution. It is pertinent to note that this secularized version of Presbyterianism must logically lead to a democratic despotism because its doctrine of ‘the priesthood of the voter’ is devoid of any Biblical foundation and denies that man is a sinner by nature” (John Calvin, 43).
[9] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century (1970) in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, 5 vols. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 4:27.
[10] Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, 4:27.
[11] Winthrop, “Discourse on Arbitrary Government,” Winthrop Papers, 5:473. Quoted in Powers, Crime and Punishment in Early Massachusetts, 253.

Current students and graduates of the program include members of parliament, ministerial policy advisers, media advisers, public servants, parliamentary and electorate office staff, and community organisation workers. They have come from Commonwealth, State and Local government working in areas of public health, indigenous affairs, education, immigration, taxation, crime control, environmental protection, resource management, community services, human rights and local government. From the private sector, MPP students have come from the areas of finance, health, publishing, insurance, the media, public relations, and the law.

International students have come from Japan, Thailand, China, Tonga, Colombia, East Timor, the USA and the UK.

Students have come straight from an undergraduate degree or from several years out from either study or paid employment. Students whose undergraduate study has not included politics are eligible to enrol in the program. They may be required to complete an additional unit at the commencement of the program for which no fees are charged but for which no credit points are awarded. The unit consists primarily of auditing the undergraduate unit on the Australian political system and regular meetings with the Convenor of the MPP. Students who have some familiarity with the Australian political system but wish to brush up their knowledge are welcome to audit the unit as well.

While an undergraduate degree is the normal entry requirement students who can demonstrate relevant work or professional experience in lieu of that degree are eligible for enrolment in the program. One student without an undergraduate degree has successfully completed the program and another is well on the way to completion.

Mode of Tuition

The MPP is offered both externally and internally.

Internal students will normally be required to attend a one hour lecture and a two hour seminar once a week for each unit they are enrolled in. These classes are held in the evening, commencing at 6pm.

External students will receive a recording of the lectures and be required to attend two weekend schools at Macquarie University per unit. In exceptional circumstances a student who is unable to attend a weekend school may be allowed to substitute additional written work.

Each unit will have a designated website with a public page and access to additional material for enrolled, registered students. The website will have a private email facility and discussion board so that internal and external students can engage with each other and the unit convenor.

Discipline Resources

All graduate students have access to the graduate students room, computers, printers and some photocopying. The facilities of the University generally are available to graduate students, especially the library and its associated network of information retrieval facilities. Computer stations are available in the library.

Before attempting to discuss democracy, let me first ask, do we know what democracy is? Or do we just take it for granted that democracy is a public voice and it does not matter who is speaking?

A discovery was made after the 2000 election and written down in book form (a book that has yet to be published aside from this open letter and person to person discussions ). The discovery is that democracy is, no doubt, more than some in Congress and the country believe it too be, and less!

The discovery, that our politics is moving to the “left-of-center” (due in part to a little known (law) of democracy). Poverty and backwardness always surround more successful nations. There are always large numbers of persons who understate democracy, who are undemocratic themselves owing to, in the last analysis, their lack of a balanced political point of view. DEMOCRACY IS BALANCE so it does not matter what reason people have for holding a political bias, all significant political biases are undemocratic.

Both points can be proven 1) our national politics is moving farther and farther to the left and 2) the farther off-center you move the less democracy there is! The second point is self-evident!

It so happens that the truth about democracy (i.e. the Constitution) has never been fixed and thus set down and proven. It can be proven and it is not far left or far right. It is our failure to prove what democracy is and is not that has put us in the situation that we are in. For every Greater person who loses confidence, position or advantage by following the course we are on as a nation, the way is made clear for one Lesser person to gain confidence. This can be understood quite simply. It is a very old — lesson of history. The perspective set out here on the impact that decadence and “new values” place on a nation may be innovative but it is not radically different. John Adams and James Madison both had great respect for the weak points of democracy and none is greater than its capacity to unravel into political chaos and ruin. My words are intended to unravel the mystery of the larger political processes that detail and explain what makes democracy, democracy and what about democracy makes it open to attack and failure. In a democracy, I can think of no more worthy endeavor!

ONE WAY TO SIMPLIFY AND VIEW THE UNDERLYING CHARACTER OF DEMOCRACY
IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVERY GOVERNMENT ON EARTH IS GOVERNED BY A RULING MAJORITY

IF THE RULING MAJORITY (INTEREST) IS SMALL
EXCLUSION AND USE OF FORCE KEEP ORDER

A LARGE MAJORITY (RULING INTEREST) CAN INCLUDE EVERYONE
BECAUSE NO ONE UNDER ITS CONTROL IS ALLOWED TO DIFFER IN ANY WAY WITH ITS POLITICS

No greater insight is called for to explain how large and small political philosophies work. They OPPRESS. One, on the right, oppresses by exclusion. The other, on the left, oppresses by inclusion. Those open to change cannot survive politically without limits on power. It is solely the way the limits are expressed that distinguishes oppression on the left from oppression on the right. Both, left and right, govern by oppressing opposition. They simply define opposition differently. On the right, opposition is material difference. On the left, opposition is spiritual difference. Religion without materialism is unquestionably left of center and vice versa. Hence, a clear understanding of the left comes from observing and respecting that it has a fundamentally religious nature. It is about conversion of the unfaithful to the fold of the faithful. Being a-material, the faithful are sympathetic toward anything that is not material; and that means open opposition to religion that is material, even half or partially material in nature. Thus the conflict that we see between national mores handed down to us and the national mores that are forming on the left, under a new religious order, getting its imprimatur from the left, not the mainstream.

If you will permit this writer to express a point of view, good religion like democracy, requires a balance between material and spiritual consciousness — in the same way that the inherent nature of large and small majorities — form a counterbalance in a stable social order. As a result, the left is drawn to what this writer calls underclass values, or too little culture. It is content in this state of affairs and does not seek to modify or improve them. On the right, people are drawn to upper class values, or too much culture. Nor does the right seek to modify or improve anything it approves of. AMERICA HAS ALWAYS STOOD FOR MIDDLE-CLASS VALUES, neither too much nor too little culture.

To be “middle class” your values have to balance material and spiritual (human) natures. So equality and inequality, one left and the other right, are both wrong if taken literally, i.e. too far. Equality tends to liberalize a political order that possesses a worthwhile measure of material interest and inequality strives to do just the opposite. Since our national politics is turning to the left under the equality banner, let me add this. The left is not interested in protecting “political liberties,” “government by law with the consent of the governed,” and “protection from arbitrary authority.” ^{Footnote 1} The extreme left abhors or mistrusts these verities as much as the far right does. When you are not leading from the center you are being lead from the extremes as there either is no anchor for power between the extremes and the center, or if such a position ever exists, it is inherently unstable and readily yields power either to the extreme point of view nearest it or back to the center.

In the most extreme case, power passes to means (off center) and then on to the extremes on the left and the right more or less at the same time. In this case, DEMOCRACY is truly imperiled as it is repulsed on both the right and left at the same time; one aiming for heredity orders (the right) and the other (the left) primitive societies, the worst possible case for democracy. That is, if power is totally radicalized, as in the manner suggested, there is no ground on which to establish democracy. If one nation falls to the left and another falls to the right, these nations will at least oppose each other. This in turn maintains a kind of political balance between the extremes. In a world where no one can be wrong no one can be right either. Under the model evolving at the United Nations this is precisely what is coming about in geopolitics. The law of nations is being abandoned by a new order, the so-called “New World Order.” There is great risk here. Natural checks and balances are being discarded in the name of unity but there is only unity in a mindless pursuit of political order.

Majorities can be large or small. Majorities not only can err but can err greatly, and their errors can persist. What explains anything so fundamentally un-American in nature?

Majorities Rule And Those Who Rule Govern

It is not, and never has been an absolute (under the Constitution), that majorities are always right. This idea surprises no one. What may surprise some is that majorities can be dead wrong. This is not a part of popular culture, facing as it is, more and more to the left.

As stated above, “democracy is balance,” without balance you do not have democracy. Therefore, the more diverse people are –in the sense of– not sharing large, in between and small values the more likely it is that they are incompatible and that undemocratic forces exist. The “Melting-Pot” once united America’s diverse peoples. Today “Diversity” argues against assimilation, even when the assimilation amounts to agreement on only the most crucial aspects of political order, what language do people speak, what boundaries are maintained, and what is the dominant religious order or cultural heritage. If people have genuine differences that are too great to bridge then the world we live in and know offers only large and small majorities as a solution, such differences will produce discord at the earliest possible opportunity; if and when, significant differences surface. There is no magic formula for political success. Political systems work because they are fundamentally sound, or lacking fundamental soundness, because the left or the right has established a political order that cannot be reshaped or changed in any ordinary or usual manner or process. In such a world, trusting solely to politics to secure anything of great value is extremely misquided.

Anger is undemocratic per se. So it makes little or no sense, political or otherwise, to organize people who are angry. While progress has resulted from the over-throw of governments, it rarely occurs. Either the attempt fails as the prevailing order defends itself or those making-change lack the wisdom and fortitude (a sense of cultural balance) to secure a form of government as good or better than the one they rebelled against. There are few American Revolutions to turn to for guidance or comfort. Most revolutions are dismal failures.

Politics Ends Where Truth Begins

In general it may be said with some assurance that, encouraging people to feel as “other” if they are not or to be “other” if they are, makes for bad politics and bad politics makes for great error (and trouble). People living in poverty and relative obscurity are neither disposed to democracy nor readily motivated by reasonable political rhetoric. They are political fodder for a demagog. Which is anyone who will promise more than is possible or what is unwarranted in any event to enlist their support. Poverty cannot be addressed without real progress and this requires great leaders and good government over a period of time. You know when these two conditions are being met and when they are not. When they are not, the promises political leaders make to special interests to get their backing are at best cynical and at worst dangerous. It is a matter of record that a recent president pursued minorities and among minorities, black leaders in particular, in what might be seen as a heavy handed manner. For the president to deny or disparage the values of the prevailing order of society — in light the the foregoing contribution to our understanding of democracy — is troubling. The issue is that blacks are Americans and all Americans share or should share common values. When the president, elected by all the people, turns to show favoritism for a minority interest he has cast dispersions upon the majority will of the nation. The “majority will,” if democratic, and we are addressing only the American electorate^{Footnote 2}, stands for something of great value, DEMOCRACY. Democracy can be subverted (in the manner explained above) and the surest way to subvert it is to organize or see to it that its politics is organized “off-center.” When the president engages in undemocratic activity, all bets are off! DEMOCRACY HAS FAILED to the extent of the resulting political imbalance! Only in a society without legitimate interests could you claim to do good by upstaging or dismissing the prevailing order and its values. America has a legitimate interest DEMOCRACY and it is democratic only so long as its electorate is! What a past president did, and we know who that was, following this explanation, was wrong if it sought out difference for the sake of difference, and if this is true, quite possibly, was un-American. The greatest dictators have been very popular within a given segment of society. The more you know about democracy the less likely it is that you will be easily fooled by liars and cheats who profess truth without anything greater than politics to back it up. There is evidence that America has democracy but it is centered in the white electorate (see footnote 2 below). Time will tell how much damage a president can do who willfully violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Does this mean that a president cannot look out for minority interests without being un-American? There is nothing whatsoever in common between upholding law and the Constitution and discriminating against or contemptuously ignoring mainstream values. One act is presidential, while the other is contemptible. If blacks in America are identifying with middle-class values they are not or should not be in a distinct minority. If their condition, as a voting bloc, is such that they respond to undemocratic appeals by national leaders, such as purely “liberal” and therefore unbalanced politics or policies, no one should doubt that a problem exists and that it poses a genuine threat to American democracy.^{Footnote 3} The next time you see a black W.W. II. veteran in a news story take note of his civility and demeanor. 50 years ago blacks were openly discriminated against but their culture and upbringing did not take them out of the mainstream of American life. They were mainstream even without rights. This was the power of democracy at work. People had positive social values even when they had negative economic incentives. If it made sense for blacks to be raised as civic minded persons 70 years, why is it such a stretch and compromise to promote normalcy today? Why, because black leadership has a substantial, if not profound, liberal bias. Black leaders are taking their people to the left. The conditions that exist in too many black communities, as explained, make it possible to sell people bad ideas. Ideas that were not promoted in the past because they held no general or lasting value. Democratic values are “general and lasting” in principle if not in fact. The fact is it is very difficult to negotiate truth overtime in a world that throws up many obstacles to progress. A few black leaders are outstanding, but too many are radical or readily support radicals. In the context of democracy, this is undemocratic.

It is logic not politics that makes a significant political bias negative. Politics is indifferent to bias. Politics understands only acceptance and rejection. Which is why politics cannot resolve a problem that is this pervasive and logic is needed to see us through this difficulty. There is more on logic in the paragraphs that follow.

People living in poverty will be angry if they believe things will not get better and the political system they are part of lacks moral integrity. Inclining the nation to underclass values is not going to improve the status of those in the underclass, it will only exacerbate their plight. This is why you cannot lead the nation from well left-of-center or with less than adequate cultural values. This is why it is a measure of bad leadership that a candidate or official of government favors those who have the least to offer a political process if only because the condition they are in mitigates against it. Anger can be raised or lowered. Loyalty may increase or decrease. The president should always show loyalty for the nation and it legitimate values first and all other matters second. Nothing else will work in the end. Nothing else is democratic. Being underclass might distinguish persons in a negative light but people have survived this and more in the past. There are many poor white Americans who live with hardships. No one tells them daily that they are being discriminated against and that it is wrong. It is a fact of life that only real economic progress can address. It is MAINSTREAM to “work hard and not to complain.” This must be a prevailing attitude for the people of a nation if the nation is to succeed in the world. This attitude conflicts with the radical liberal agenda that is unfolding across American society these days. The “victimized person” ethic is becoming commonplace in American life and it is an ethic of defeat. Defeat of those values that are essential to the construction of civilization, mainstream values.

Erode public morality with a “victims rights” persuasion (and little else) and people will exhibit less character in direct proportion to its lack in the leaders of the nation around them. If a majority of people are sufficiently angry (or ignorant a distinct corollary of anger), they will not, they cannot, be democratic. This is too important to ignore. It may well be that the mainstream is more accepting of the world as it is, there is some truth in this, but there is no alternative to mainstream values for the long run. Any value, even little or no value, can stand its ground for a moment or two. The test is one of endurance. The truth cannot endure on the extreme right or left even though civilization appears to be able to move off center and normalize to and accommodate its new environs. But there is a cost: the meaning (or value) of democracy is lost. There is less balance in direct proportion to the distance civilization moves off center.

The nation also has to confront a larger world, the nations of the world that it must deal with. Consistent with what has been written here on this subject, it follows that taken as a whole, you might expect the nations of the third world to be undemocratic in nature given the widespread poverty that exists and, too often, the lack of integrity and virtue in those governments.^{Footnote 4}

Place This Perspective Alongside The Facts

Only twenty years ago no one would have even suggested that the United Nations would take a direct role in governing nations. It was unthinkable. Why? People being sensible back then, knew the U.N. had no basis in fact for assuming such authority or exercising such power over nations. In the intervening twenty years a lot has changed. American leaders invited and even encouraged U.N. plans to intervene in the internal affairs of nations in matters that had always been understood to be out-of-bounds. Nations addressed the wrongdoing of other nations through alliances and agreements and took whatever actions the laws of nations dictated. THIS IS NO LONGER TRUE! Today, the United Nations is more and more so assuming the position of a Nation of Nations (the N.N.) not the United Nations (or U.N.) that was chartered at the end of W.W. II to arbitrate between and among nations. It’s arbitrations are NOT binding. The world is indeed becoming more liberal! If true, AND TO THE EXTENT OF IT, this new found liberality stands between it and the U.S. Constitution, which being democratic, always looks to the highest possible center.

THE MORE WE SHIFT TO THE LEFT THE LESS AMERICAN WE BECOME

Set out above in some detail, it is reasonable to reassert the idea here that the larger a majority is the less democratic it is. This is true both within and without a nation. It is almost certainly true for the United States that both domestic and foreign politics are turning to the left. And in each case, the key is the number of persons directly included in political decision-making today, and looking forward, versus the number that were similarly involved in governing in the past. BALANCE is not a given in the world of politics. It is rather difficult to come by and even more difficult to sustain over long periods of time, being a prerequisite of good government, the distinction matters.

AS THE WORLD ORGANIZES AND MOVES TO THE LEFT IT IS INCREASINGLY ANTI-AMERICAN

Further U.S. integration in world bodies that oversee the Constitution and the American people is a very bad idea if the argument can be justified that “bigger means less democratic” in real world politics. The rush that is on to democratize the world will have just the opposite effect if more care is not taken because the world is not ready for democracy. It is undemocratic and will only recognize what it is comfortable with, liberality emanating from spiritualism, becoming more spiritual and less material if left to its own devices and allowed to make its own decisions. This is where a left-thinking political bias will lead; one that has little in common with democracy or the United States Constitution. Given this explanation of these facts, in most instances, the objections to this perspective on democracy will come from persons who have dubious leaders to turn to for information, or else common sense has to be stood on its head and another explanation found.

What Is The Alternative?

Maintaining the Constitution and the RULE OF LAW is an imperative not an alternative. It is the prize in and of itself! The United States and its citizens have a duty to the Constitution to uphold TRUTH not to support those who will first erode and evade it and later destroy the TRUTH, replacing it with their own, another and lesser truth.

What Is Truth?

There are arguments to support even the most flagrant assault and attack upon the Constitution. One goes that too few consume too much of the world’s resources. This argument appears valid on its face except for the fact that but for the United States, the great consumer, no one would have sufficient democratic rule to achieve this or anything remotely approaching this level of prosperity. So what is so sound about the argument that you are at fault for doing what no one else could or would do, but for your doing it?

It is not necessarily a wining argument to oppose someone for being in a position to do something and doing it better than you can. America knows how to create wealth. What about global warming? In fact more environmentally friendly technologies should be found to replace the unfriendly ones. On this point, a case can be made that free trade, which some people believe benefits underdeveloped nations, only puts off developing better environmental technologies as under-developed countries compete to get the polluting first world industries encouraging the first world to put off developing the next generation, minimally polluting, technologies. The United States may play a role in the failure to move ahead environmentally, but were the United States to concentrate on better environmental technologies it would not need the third world to prosper and the gap between rich and poor nations would, in this view, be even greater than it already is.

Truth is often simple to articulate and difficult to apply.^{Footnote 5}

The net result is that resentment exists between the haves and the have-nots. This resentment grows rather than diminishes when others look at our politics and society and see that it stands for less and less with each passing day. Americans, through their new masters on the left and far left, setting aside considerations of the right for the moment, are living, ever more so, for the moment and themselves when sacrifice to a greater cause, be it God, Nation, or Community, has always been the measure of greatness in the world of nations. Those who view our CONSUMPTION see a people consumed with and full of themselves. This is precisely what you might expect as a by-product of the equality standard. An idea that is not new to politics or historicity. The equality standard is opposed to a standard of excellence, or so it has been written.^{Footnote 6} Excellence requires conditions, tests, grades and measures of what good is and is not. The left uses “the measureless society” or the “equality standard” to undermine the virtue on the right and right of center that counterbalances the virtue on the left. The virtue of each stands in direct opposition to the other. The left and the right are diametrically opposed. So too much of either is a bad thing which is why the swing-to-the-left in America is a threat to the American Dream. The new leftward America will surrender its material virtue without a fight in the name of progress in a world that is too open to spiritualism in its present state, an impoverished and politically backward world: THE WORLD OF THE LEFT. The longer Americans listen to and follow their new masters on the left (i.e. its leadership) the more certain it is that the nation’s enemies on the left will draw strength form it, get aid and comfort, and pose a threat to the Constitution.

How did we get in this predicament? By not upholding the Constitution and opposing its enemies both foreign and domestic. We have not done all that can be done to support the Constitution. We, as all people, are caught up in politics and refuse to budge on that point. EQUALITY AND THE EQUALITY STANDARD are just another way of talking about and organizing a “large majority,” which means, “MOVE OFF CENTER.” The EQUALITY MOVEMENT in America has played a key role in placing the United States in an increasingly vulnerable and uncertain position. In the real world partial, not complete, as it is, equality is NOT truth. Far from it, equality is at best a HALF-TRUTH like INEQUALITY. Both are factors in a larger picture but equality and inequality are all or none propositions–unless reason is fully applied to them. The former leads to large majorities through inclusion, and the latter produces small majorities through exclusion. Politics swings back and forth between these extreme positions, left and right, never coming to rest for long in between the two where it belongs. The center, drawing from both the left and the right, is the genesis of good government.^{Footnote 7}

 
IS THE CONSTITUTION TRUTH “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”

“Democracy and Totalitarianism”

by Felix Gorelik

In the counter-revolutionary changes in the USSR and other countries that were building socialism, the last elections in the Ukraine again confirmed the correctness of the thoughts of V.I. Lenin regarding socialist and bourgeois democracy. All the former and present lies and propaganda about this “democracy” begs the answer as to the actual difference between the two. Dialectical analyses and logic, points to one or the other conclusion. Bourgeois ideology, in order to hide its real meaning, uses only formal logic. These “ideologues” are putting on the same level the Soviet state and its democracy and counterposing it to fascist Germany, “communism” and “fascism”. They point out that in Germany and in the USSR there was only one party in power. Thus this kind of system is called “totalitarian” and is opposed to “democracy”, which embellishes itself with many political parties, elections, changes of parties and their government with another party and government, “rights of man”, “pluralism” in the countless newspaper and media.

Where are the lies in this presentation? Lenin taught that every question is based on the question of the classes, making this fact known to the people. Only a simple question needs to be asked: Which class is in power in the country? In whose interests is the political system geared? To which class does the means of production belong? Then the answer becomes very clear. Marx, Engels, Lenin wrote volumes on this question. The class which rules in the economy, to which belongs the means of production, shall utilize all mass production means, shall grab all power politically in order to rule. Capitalism utilizes all forms of rule, fascist rule, and “democratic” rule, but having one thing in common – it’s the dictatorship of the financial oligarchy. The role of the government that is led by the Communist Party is to guarantee the rule of the working class, and that is why the composition of the Communist Party in its majority should be composed of the working class – workers, farmers and peoples intelligentsia – thus they shall guarantee that the interests of the workers are looked after and defended.

The meaning of the word “democracy” and “people’s rule” is synonymous. Most countries or peoples are composed of over 95% workers. That is why only workers rule can be classified as democratic! That is why V.I. Lenin always stated that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the highest form of democracy, as people’s rule!

I, as a teacher by profession, saw with my own eyes how the party organized around our school, the building of all necessary components utilizing all workers, teachers together to build what is and what was needed by our school, district, region – and it was done.

Because of the imperialistic encirclement and constant danger of war, we could not have built and manufactured everything that was needed or that we could have accomplished.

We are always asked and derided as to why did we only have one candidate in the elections – there was no choice! But these elements fail to tell the people that each candidate was discussed by the trade union organizations and workers councils. Those that were nominated as candidates to Parliament were worthy candidates, having procured the majority of votes at countless meetings, believed in by their peers and workmates who grilled all candidates and elected the best and the most honest and dedicated ones. I do not see the necessity of many parties and many candidates. This process is just demagogy, to struggle for power in one’s personal interests thus giving the opportunity for anti-peoples candidates through demagogy, vote buying influence… and we see this now in front of our eyes and the consequent results.

Interests of the one party system is saved only until such time that the communist party is the party of the workers. History now gave us a bitter lesson. Under the weight of bureaucracy, when the top leadership of the party is out of the control of the working class, of the majority of party members, it then becomes a closed knit “nomenklatura” system and loses contact with the masses… thus giving credence to personal rule. That is why socialist democracy is only possible when there is internal party democracy, struggle against “personal leadership”, basing itself on the masses, which are united around the Soviet of Deputies, organized in the shop levels.

Is it possible to have “people’s rule” when capitalism rules the country? This is shown by the “Independent” Ukraine where the workers have the choice to elect this or that person who represents the capitalist class or the capitalist oriented party. The opportunity to elect a genuine representative of the working class or the left parties is at a minimum. The last results of the elections in Lugansk Ukraine should serve as an example. For the third time the rich capitalist industrialist Kolomoytsev in Lugansk was elected plus Borzykh. Kolomoytsev was a consultant to president Kuchma, rabid “reformist” anti- communist. Borzykh, formally a Director of a “State Farm”, but in actuality the owner of this “state farm”, member of the parliamentary group “Reform”, voted for all anti-people laws in parliament. And only one Communist – secretary of the City Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, F. Maramazin was able to win from the Lugansk district.

How was it possible that the workers voted for this their own class enemy, responsible for their present plight? Well here is the “democracy” which raises its ugly head. Before the actual elections, the state paid out the unpaid wages, gave money to where they felt would produce the best publicity propaganda. According to one member of RUKH (an organization not known for sympathy towards communists) it cost $3 million dollars to be able to be elected to the Parliament of the Ukraine on average. This money buys constant TV ads, radio, press, posters, leaflets, parties. These “candidates”, sometimes for 1 or 2 hours, were on TV telling all sorts of lies about their deeds for the people, etc., etc. Wherever a person turned you could not get away from this constant barrage.

But there was another secret weapon that these candidates used. This owner of the “State Farm” was sending into the cities gallons of milk, selling it at 35 kopeks, but not at 50 kopeks as other farms were doing. He told people that this is how he cares about the misery of the people, plus giving free milk to needy children.

Unfortunately the people voted for this “good Samaritan” not understanding that this same “benefactor” voted for all anti-people laws that are being enacted on behalf of the transnational corporations and the International Monetary Fund. His main propaganda was against the pensioners, who always voted for the Communist candidates. He opened up a special store only for pensioners, veterans, where he sold goods during the election time for very low prices. He also published his own newspaper called the “Veteran” which were given out free, plus medicines for older people. On every holiday, he gave a bottle of “brandy”, “chocolates” to veterans. He also sent 300 pensioners to a Sanatorium but it was found out that the money came from the top echelons of the government), with a special convoy which was headed by scores of priests, leading a procession, like sheep to slaughter… all this was constantly on TV day and night.

Of course he won the elections for the third time!

These “candidates” are supported by both internal and external enemies. Such “candidates” all over the Ukraine are needed by the present regime in order to hide the underlying sell-out that is going on. These elements, getting in under such circumstances, are now in the majority in Parliament and thus the IMF and Kuchma can rely on them to vote for its policies, for NATO, etc., etc.

Against them were running a Socialist and a Communist, no finances and no unity, thus they split the votes and the reactionary nationalists got in!

Other methods of running candidates supported by the present regime is to have these candidates run as “independents” thus trying and sometimes succeeding in fooling the voters that they are anti-reform “candidates”. Here are some figures that will show you that people are beginning to see through all this fog of lies. In Lugansk district, the candidates of the CPU received 46% of the votes while the bloc of Socialists and Village parties received 50% of the votes! The Party of Kuchma received only 2.8%. Nationalists and RUKH and others did not receive even 1%. In Western Ukraine, the hotbed of Ukrainian nationalism, the Communists were not able to reach any significant percentage of votes. Because of the lack of finances for leaflets, newspapers, radio or TV ads, plus the blackout imposed by Kuchma authorities, it is no wonder that the results were so low.

Even though overall the Communists did gain in seats, everything remains the same. The capitalist system is intact. This is guaranteed by the present Constitution, which is only possible to change by the President… parliament is impotent to change anything.

What kind of “democracy” is this when the voice of the President has the sole right and not the Parliament? This means that Kuchma alone has more rights than the 400 members of the Ukrainian Parliament! President Kuchma (as does President Yeltsin) has the right to disband parliament if the Communists should win a majority of deputies in the Parliament. Where lies and money do not buy votes, there is always the dictatorship of the president and the army, militia and the courts!

Another example which I’m certain the world does not know is the fact that the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine – N. Vitrenko who was elected had her mandate as Deputy revoked because she dared criticize President Kuchma in pre-election meetings. The reason given by the judge in handing her this sentence was that “she influenced the electorate…”! Also another example of “democracy” in action – the Editor of the newspaper “Soviet Luganshina”, a Communist newspaper, was severely beaten up. V. Steletskij had to be hospitalized. The Chairman of the Election Commission of the City of Popasnaya threw himself out of a window and left a note saying: “I know what’s going on now in the elections.” The head of Lugansk District Committee of the government was fired from his post because the governmental party received only 2.8% of the votes.

The lesson is clear: You cannot by “parliamentary”, “constitutional” methods change the bourgeois system. This is guaranteed by the adopted Constitution which unfortunately even some “communists” voted for. The only method is to organize all the people for revolutionary activity and struggle, utilizing all forms of struggle and tested in battles of history.

Bourgeois “democracy” is masked always but it is “totalitarian” – dictatorship of mighty Capital!

Mises Daily: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe