Quotes of the day

Fourth, the Founding Fathers only used the term “democracy” to refer to mob rule. They saw “democracy,” as Madison phrased it, as a “tyranny of the majority.” Madison, by the way, wrote about this in the Federalist Papers and he was the author of the U.S. Constitution.

eanax on January 21, 2009 at 6:24 AM

I agree with your post, except that I wouldn’t say that the Founders looked at Democracy as mob-rule. They did look at Democracies as the voters (and their majorities) having essentially unlimited power. The difference is that mob rule does not require a majority, but just a mob. 10% of a population forming into mobs is more than enough to move any nation that is ruled by the mob – as we see in our own nation, now, where our SCOTUS was scared to even hear any of the legitimate cases concerning BHO’s eligibility. They were in fear of the potential mob reaction (certainly not more than a few percent of our population, but able to wreak a huge amount of damage), let alone a real mob, if they had to find against the idiot messiah. I know that you probably meant the “political mob”, but since we have to contend with real mobs in today’s politics (Yay!), we might as well be a bit more exact.

Euro-style parliamentary systems are essentially democracies, since they have very little separation of powers, with the legislative and executive branches necessarily intertwined (as governments can’t even really form until a majority coalition has been built in the parliament). The parliaments are populated by democratic processes, and strong majorities are given very free hands to do just about anything they want.

Bush used to drive me crazy every time he called for “democracy”. What he really wanted was individualism and individual freedom, but he got that confused with voting. McCain did no help with his moronic League of Democracies. Neither of them seem to understand that most of those parliamentary systems are not individualistic, in the least, but party-oriented, with the party being the fundamental political entity. The US system still stands in a unique position in that we have the individual as the fundamental political entity, with parties not even receiving any Constitutional acknowledgement, at all.

progressoverpeace on January 21, 2009 at 7:18 AM

Party in US elections, while not receiving Constitutional acknowledgment–remember Washington and others spoke vehemently against political parties–did play a very important–really decisive role as political entities until the Australian (secret) ballot became common practice towards the end of the nineteenth century. While ballots were open, party bosses could make sure that tenant farmers, workers belonging to unions, poor ward residents, etc. stuck to the party line in voting.

Matt Helm on January 21, 2009 at 7:33 AM

Very interesting, and I agree with you on card check and the importance of the secret ballot. Card check would be a major nail in the coffin of the US, if it passed.

I would just explain my point a bit further, though. The US government is built on individuals, with permanent individual positions in a permanently existing government. This is completely different from parliamentary systems where there are only virtual governments that rise and fall with majorities in the legislative branch. Individualism is the actual basis of our Constitution, while tribalism lies at the base of party-oriented parliamentary systems. I believe that this stress on individualism in our governmental structure led to more individualism in our society and is what unleashed the great creativity/productiveness/opportunity that we have seen in American society – far beyond that seen in any other. We were very individualistic before, but to have it formalized in our government kept it as a deep part of our society, even if many were not aware of its effects. That is, until today, when we have been broken and elected a collectivist as Precedent …

Oh well. It was a nice run while it lasted.

progressoverpeace on January 21, 2009 at 8:01 AM