Democrats are now talking about “saving democracy.”
“Democracy” technically means that if we’re all in a room together and we want to make a decision, we all vote on that specific decision. A republic means you have representatives, which means you don’t vote directly on many of the decisions that are being made. Instead, you delegate the power to vote on those decisions to a representative government. Typically, that representative government has a series of checks and balances.
The United States is a republic. It is not a direct democracy. It’s a democracy in the broader sense, which is that we vote. But it’s not a democracy in the technical sense in which you vote on every issue or in which a pure majoritarian popular will decides every single issue.
In fact, the founders decried exactly such a system. They saw that as what they would call a mobocracy. They didn’t want just a series of referenda on every single issue to go to the popular vote, which is why intervening institutions in the government exist.
It’s why Congress is represented on a popular level, but the Senate was originally supposed to be represented at the state level by the state legislatures. Originally, state legislatures were supposed to pick their senators. It’s why the Senate itself is not proportional; Montana and California have the same number of senators. It is why a series of checks and balances between the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judiciary exist. It is why an electoral college exists.
There are all sorts of institutions in our republic that are designed to check excesses of the mob. That was very much at the forefront of the founders’ concerns, as is evidenced by the Federalist Papers.
WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show
Why is that important? Because a shift in the way people thought of democracy in the United States took place, which started in the late 19th century as a take-away from German progressivism. Much of modern American government, our structures, particularly the administrative state, are drawn from it.
Woodrow Wilson, who was the dean of Princeton University before he became the President of the United States, greatly admired that system. He wrote extensively about German progressivism and his vision for what democracy should look like. He believed that the Constitution of the United States had outlived its sell-by date, that the Constitution’s checks and balances were useless.
Wilson, a Democrat, wanted something that was both more democratic and less democratic: He wanted a popular vote for one man who would make all the decisions with the help of administrative bureaucrats who were experts on the issues.
In other words, he wanted a government of expertise. He believed all the checks and balances thwarted that government. In 1908, he famously wrote, “The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit; and if Congress be overborne by him, it will be no fault of the makers of the Constitution, it will be from no lack of constitutional powers on its part, but only because the President has the nation behind him, and Congress has not.”
In other words, the president is elected by the public, effectively speaking, which means he should have as much power as humanly possible. That was important to Woodrow Wilson because he believed in the setup of the administrative state, an entire branch of the government that was effectively independent of the popular will.
When Democrats say democracy, this is what they mean. They do not mean that they respect the institutions of the Republic. They don’t respect the Supreme Court of the United States except when it is giving them precisely what they want.
The Democrats like to say the word “democracy” because they want to portray Donald Trump as an incipient fascist. But it is actually Joe Biden who is hell-bent on undermining the actual democratic republic.
CNN, which is hosting the first presidential debate, interviewed several Trump supporters and asked about him undermining democracy. The Trump supporters correctly responded that we don’t live in a democracy; we live in a republic, which is true. We live in a representative democracy with a series of checks and balances that thwart the popular will on a regular basis.
CNN tried to say it’s very bad to say that we live in a republic, not a democracy. They interviewed author Anne Applebaum, who said:
These words were used in different ways in the 18th century. And it’s true, the Founders didn’t want direct democracy, by which they meant people gathering on the town square. They wanted representative democracy. But I think the reason why this conversation about language has risen now is because there is a part of the Republican Party that would like to rule as a minority, and they need an excuse for why that’s okay. And so they have begun to say, we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic. It’s not 100% clear what that means, but I think they mean, we want Donald Trump to be able to do whatever he wants.
This is truly Orwellian because it’s total projection. The people who want the president of the United States to do whatever he wants without any checks and balances are typically Democrats.
So with the polls indicating Trump is winning, Democrats are already preparing to do what they want to do: subvert the institutions of the Republic.
They are looking to subvert the democratic institutions of the Republic. They are looking to subvert the legislature. They’re looking to subvert the presidency. They’re looking to subvert the courts.
In an article titled, “The Resistance to a New Trump Administration Has Already Started,” the New York Times stated:
Opponents of Donald J. Trump are drafting potential lawsuits in case he is elected in November and carries out mass deportations, as he has vowed. One group has hired a new auditor to withstand any attempt by a second Trump administration to unleash the Internal Revenue Service against them. Democratic-run state governments are even stockpiling abortion medication.
A sprawling network of Democratic officials, progressive activists, watchdog groups and ex-Republicans has been taking extraordinary steps to prepare for a potential second Trump presidency, drawn together by the fear that Mr. Trump’s return to power would pose a grave threat not just to their agenda but to American democracy itself.
Understand how Orwellian that is. They are saying they need to do non-democratic things to save democracy. They need to burn down the village in order to save the village. One of the actions they are going to take is to stack the administrative state. The Times continued, writing:
Interviews with more than 30 officials and leaders of organizations about their plans revealed a combination of acute exhaustion and acute anxiety. Activist groups that spent the four years of Mr. Trump’s presidency organizing mass protests and pursuing legal challenges, ultimately helping channel that energy into persuading voters to oust him from power in 2020, are now realizing with great dread they may have to resist him all over again. … The Biden administration pushed through a flurry of regulations in the spring, meeting a deadline to ensure that those rules could not be summarily overturned next year under a 1996 law if Mr. Trump wins the election and Republicans take total control of Congress.
This is a thwarting of democracy. It is hilarious to watch all the same people who are shouting to the rafters about the evils of Trump and his attacks on democracy now attempting all the same measures that they say Republicans should never attempt.
This is how the Left thinks of our institutions, that they own these institutions. Any outside threat to these institutions, including the future boss of the institution, must be destroyed.
This is stealing democracy: actively setting up structures that prevent the fundamental working order of the government, so long as the Republican is the person who is running the government.
[#item_full_content]
[[{“value”:”
Democrats are now talking about “saving democracy.”
“Democracy” technically means that if we’re all in a room together and we want to make a decision, we all vote on that specific decision. A republic means you have representatives, which means you don’t vote directly on many of the decisions that are being made. Instead, you delegate the power to vote on those decisions to a representative government. Typically, that representative government has a series of checks and balances.
The United States is a republic. It is not a direct democracy. It’s a democracy in the broader sense, which is that we vote. But it’s not a democracy in the technical sense in which you vote on every issue or in which a pure majoritarian popular will decides every single issue.
In fact, the founders decried exactly such a system. They saw that as what they would call a mobocracy. They didn’t want just a series of referenda on every single issue to go to the popular vote, which is why intervening institutions in the government exist.
It’s why Congress is represented on a popular level, but the Senate was originally supposed to be represented at the state level by the state legislatures. Originally, state legislatures were supposed to pick their senators. It’s why the Senate itself is not proportional; Montana and California have the same number of senators. It is why a series of checks and balances between the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judiciary exist. It is why an electoral college exists.
There are all sorts of institutions in our republic that are designed to check excesses of the mob. That was very much at the forefront of the founders’ concerns, as is evidenced by the Federalist Papers.
WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show
Why is that important? Because a shift in the way people thought of democracy in the United States took place, which started in the late 19th century as a take-away from German progressivism. Much of modern American government, our structures, particularly the administrative state, are drawn from it.
Woodrow Wilson, who was the dean of Princeton University before he became the President of the United States, greatly admired that system. He wrote extensively about German progressivism and his vision for what democracy should look like. He believed that the Constitution of the United States had outlived its sell-by date, that the Constitution’s checks and balances were useless.
Wilson, a Democrat, wanted something that was both more democratic and less democratic: He wanted a popular vote for one man who would make all the decisions with the help of administrative bureaucrats who were experts on the issues.
In other words, he wanted a government of expertise. He believed all the checks and balances thwarted that government. In 1908, he famously wrote, “The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit; and if Congress be overborne by him, it will be no fault of the makers of the Constitution, it will be from no lack of constitutional powers on its part, but only because the President has the nation behind him, and Congress has not.”
In other words, the president is elected by the public, effectively speaking, which means he should have as much power as humanly possible. That was important to Woodrow Wilson because he believed in the setup of the administrative state, an entire branch of the government that was effectively independent of the popular will.
When Democrats say democracy, this is what they mean. They do not mean that they respect the institutions of the Republic. They don’t respect the Supreme Court of the United States except when it is giving them precisely what they want.
The Democrats like to say the word “democracy” because they want to portray Donald Trump as an incipient fascist. But it is actually Joe Biden who is hell-bent on undermining the actual democratic republic.
CNN, which is hosting the first presidential debate, interviewed several Trump supporters and asked about him undermining democracy. The Trump supporters correctly responded that we don’t live in a democracy; we live in a republic, which is true. We live in a representative democracy with a series of checks and balances that thwart the popular will on a regular basis.
CNN tried to say it’s very bad to say that we live in a republic, not a democracy. They interviewed author Anne Applebaum, who said:
These words were used in different ways in the 18th century. And it’s true, the Founders didn’t want direct democracy, by which they meant people gathering on the town square. They wanted representative democracy. But I think the reason why this conversation about language has risen now is because there is a part of the Republican Party that would like to rule as a minority, and they need an excuse for why that’s okay. And so they have begun to say, we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic. It’s not 100% clear what that means, but I think they mean, we want Donald Trump to be able to do whatever he wants.
This is truly Orwellian because it’s total projection. The people who want the president of the United States to do whatever he wants without any checks and balances are typically Democrats.
So with the polls indicating Trump is winning, Democrats are already preparing to do what they want to do: subvert the institutions of the Republic.
They are looking to subvert the democratic institutions of the Republic. They are looking to subvert the legislature. They’re looking to subvert the presidency. They’re looking to subvert the courts.
In an article titled, “The Resistance to a New Trump Administration Has Already Started,” the New York Times stated:
Opponents of Donald J. Trump are drafting potential lawsuits in case he is elected in November and carries out mass deportations, as he has vowed. One group has hired a new auditor to withstand any attempt by a second Trump administration to unleash the Internal Revenue Service against them. Democratic-run state governments are even stockpiling abortion medication.
A sprawling network of Democratic officials, progressive activists, watchdog groups and ex-Republicans has been taking extraordinary steps to prepare for a potential second Trump presidency, drawn together by the fear that Mr. Trump’s return to power would pose a grave threat not just to their agenda but to American democracy itself.
Understand how Orwellian that is. They are saying they need to do non-democratic things to save democracy. They need to burn down the village in order to save the village. One of the actions they are going to take is to stack the administrative state. The Times continued, writing:
Interviews with more than 30 officials and leaders of organizations about their plans revealed a combination of acute exhaustion and acute anxiety. Activist groups that spent the four years of Mr. Trump’s presidency organizing mass protests and pursuing legal challenges, ultimately helping channel that energy into persuading voters to oust him from power in 2020, are now realizing with great dread they may have to resist him all over again. … The Biden administration pushed through a flurry of regulations in the spring, meeting a deadline to ensure that those rules could not be summarily overturned next year under a 1996 law if Mr. Trump wins the election and Republicans take total control of Congress.
This is a thwarting of democracy. It is hilarious to watch all the same people who are shouting to the rafters about the evils of Trump and his attacks on democracy now attempting all the same measures that they say Republicans should never attempt.
This is how the Left thinks of our institutions, that they own these institutions. Any outside threat to these institutions, including the future boss of the institution, must be destroyed.
This is stealing democracy: actively setting up structures that prevent the fundamental working order of the government, so long as the Republican is the person who is running the government.
“}]]
