The following article is definitely
nonconventional in nature. It challenges a lot of orthodoxy, but it is based
upon the basics of political thought and introduces an entirely new perspective
on Marxism. Of course, it is not the only perspective possible.
What
is the difference between a democracy and a republic? Americans today have
gotten sloppy in referring to them as synonyms. They are definitely not, and
the distinction is very important. As James Madison warned in Federalists #10:
Hence
it is, that such 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.[1]
In
other words, democracies do nothing to guarantee liberty or safety. In this
article we will explain why democracies are incompatible with personal security
and rights of property. Republics are not perfect, but they are superior. To understand
why, we need to understand what the difference is.
Students
are taught in United States’ civics classes that whereas democracy is direct
involvement of the citizens, a republic is “representative government”. This
statement is only partially true. It describes the implementation of the republic that the framers designed. What a
republic really is requires understanding the abstract concept laid out by Aristotle over two millennia ago. In
short, a republic is a form of government that enables the middle class to rule.[2]
The key component to this definition is that what defines the middle class has nothing to do with wealth.[3]
Within
society, there have always been the poor and the rich. Aristotle chronicled
that as societies flourished a third, middle class grew.[4]
Unlike our view today where these classes are defined by an artificial number
based upon wealth, Aristotle’s categorization was based upon attitude.[5]
The poor defined themselves by being envious. The rich were greedy. The middle
class was neither greedy nor envious. As such, they would defend the poor from
the power of the rich. In so doing, they ensure personal security. Conversely,
they would defend the rich from the numbers of the poor; thus, ensuring the
rights of property. Therefore, the “best” form of government is one where the
middle class rules. That is what we call a republic.
On
the other hand, we know that democracy is rule
of the many (majority). The distinction with democracy is that the middle
class is not large enough to buffer the enmity between rich and poor. Since the
middle class is too weak to defend the rich from the numbers of the poor, democracy
is rule by the poor – who are the
majority. The rights of property become insecure because of the poor’s envy.
With no security in one’s property, personal security becomes a casualty
shortly thereafter.
Republics
are inclined toward meritocracy. The
pursuit of happiness is a natural phenomenon in a society that lacks greed
or envy. Society profits as a by-product. A democracy is different. The envy of
the ruling class (the poor) discourages personal improvement.
When
I was a cadet at the Air Force Academy in the early 70’s, we all had to go
through a simulated Prisoner of Was (POW) camp as a part of the Survival Escape
Resistance and Evasion (SERE - pronounced “SEER-EE”, not “SEER”) program.
(NOTE: with the change in enemies over the years the program has swapped the
two E’s and the need for the POW training has diminished). The year after being
an “object of the exercise”, I returned to the SERE program to be an
“aggressor” (specifically an interrogator). We wore black-dyed fatigues and
funky communist beanies with a red star. We called ourselves “The People’s
Democratic Republic” (PDR). While we were trucked to Jacks Valley one day, I
can remember reflecting how cynical it was that all the communist countries
inserted “Democratic” into the title of their nation. Some also abused
“Republic”.
Recently
I began to realize that the communist use of the term “democracy” may in fact not be cynical. What I have come to
realize is that Marx did not really create a new form of government. What he
actually did was figure out how to stabilize democracy – sort of. If we look at
the socialist/communist revolutions like the Bolshevik Revolution and Mao’s
Cultural Revolution, what do we see? Ignoring Marx’s terminology, the masses
(poor) rise up against the powerful (rich). After great turmoil (and death),
the established traditions are replaced with new traditions to program the
society to accept what is really an oligarchy in disguise. The transition from
democracy to oligarchy is seamlessly done through coercion, but the social upheaval
destroys any resistance to the new order. The poor are the enforcers because
they are true believers. Subsequent generations are indoctrinated into the “traditions”
of the new social order.
We
tend to think that socialism only replaces tyranny, but that is not necessarily
the case. Consider the following passage from Madison’s Federalist 10, which Madison wrote long before Marx.
So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual
animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most
frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their
unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most
common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal
distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property
have ever formed distinct interests in society[6]
All
that is required to take down a republic is to move enough of the population
from the middle class to the poor in order to enable Marxist dogma to activate.
This can be done without taking a dime from anyone. All that must happen is to
convince members of the middle class that they are being taken advantage of by
“the rich” to amplify envy. The effect is to shrink the middle class and grow
the poor, thereby creating a democracy where a republic had existed. The transition
to a socialist/communist state is but a heartbeat away. All that is required is
for the majority to focus on sharing
over opportunity. That transition is
Marx’s legacy.
The
key distinction between a democracy in antiquity and a Marxist state is the
programming of the poor. In antiquity the outcome was unpredictable. Socrates
and Plato thought there was a cycle of government; Aristotle did not. Once
Marxism is introduced and embraced, a totalitarian oligarchy prevails that is
reinforced by the poor. Indoctrination of the young entrenches the system for
potentially lifetimes.
Unlike
during the Cold War, many Americans have embraced the notion that “socialism
isn’t that bad” with the belief that an American version would be kinder and
gentler than others. They are kidding themselves. F. A. Hayek grew up in the
heart of socialist Europe prior to World War II. He was inculcated into
socialism at a young age but witnessed the horrors begot by socialism first
hand. As he writes in The Road to Serfdom,
Hitler’s rise would have been inconceivable 15 years earlier. It took socialism
to prepare the country.[7]
Per Marxist doctrine, socialism is a transient state to communism.[8]
The holocaust in World War II left six million dead in its wake, but the
numbers of dead due to communism are staggering and dwarf the holocaust. A more
complete compilation of the death toll can be found on http://victimsofcommunism.org/, but
just consider three examples:[9]
·
Stalin
was responsible for at least 60 million deaths
·
Mao’s
Cultural Revolution killed 70 million
·
Pol
Pot was responsible for killing 20% of the population of Cambodia
All
deaths were within national boundaries and committed by fellow citizens. They
do not include the loss of life during the Bolshevik Revolution, or a number of
other communist purges. Our casualties during the Cold War were but a pin prick
by comparison. To put it into perspective, our bloodiest war, the Civil War
cost 620,000 lives over four years.
Does
the government the founders laid out in the Constitution protect us from such a
transition? The founders themselves didn’t think so. In his closing speech at
the Constitutional Convention , Ben Franklin stated clearly that he thought the
government would be well administered for
a course of years but would eventually devolve to despotism.[10]
Likewise, John Adams did not consider the Republic bulletproof:
We
have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions
unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and
licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our
Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate
for the government of any other.[11]
Franklin’s
retort to Mrs. Powel when she asked him what kind of government the Convention
had developed, “A republic, if you can keep it” further demonstrates that the
founders well understood the vulnerability of the republic.[12]
How
did the founders create a republic? They didn’t directly; they did it
indirectly by enabling a population with a dominant middle class to rule itself
by limiting government. An unlimited government will eventually become either a
tyranny (like Franklin projected) or an oligarchy (as Marx designed).
The
theory of a written constitution is to stabilize and restrict government for
the good of society. The enumeration of powers and restrictions on powers are
the key elements in the U.S. Constitution. The familiar separation of powers at the national level has actually been around
since antiquity. Classically the three branches provided a way for the three
classes of society to check each other’s power. Such a scheme is less effective
in our “classless society”. This is why the innovation of a federal system of
opposing governments was so important in limiting the power and the size of
both state and national governments. It is no accident that the growth of the
national government takes off in 1913, the year the 16th and 17th
amendments were ratified. Coupled with the long-term effects of McCulloch v. Maryland, state government
power has declined precipitously since. We will explore how federal the U.S.
constitutional system is in the next article.
[5]http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0058:book=2:section=1265b&highlight=republic;
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0058:book=4:section=1292a&highlight=rule%2Cbest;
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0058:book=4:section=1295b&highlight=class%2Cbest%2Cmiddle
[10] Political Vertigo, Appendix A
No comments:
Post a Comment