Notwithstanding the sage-sounding prescriptive advice to the Democrats given by such stentorian voices as Joe Scarborough about how the Democrats can rebuild after a crippling defeat at the polls, nobody-but-nobody has gotten to the heart of the matter.
The Democrats did not lose because they failed to campaign in Middle America. They did not lose because their candidate was dismally bad at delivering the message (she actually delivered the message of putting coal miners out of business very articulately). It wasn’t even that their message failed to resonate with working people.
It is simply that the Democrats’ message is not the problem. The problem is that the guts of that message, the entire philosophy upon which their party is built, represents something that NO American wants, needs or can actually use. That is because the Democratic Party is based on a fundamentally flawed paradigm which contests the basic doctrine upon which our American nation was founded: Democracy itself.
Democracy is flailed about as a system in which freedom flourishes. But pure democracy is anything but free. It is based on the simple principle that the majority decide every issue. Thus, if a majority decides to jail everybody with a certain skin color, a certain religion or a certain personal lifestyle, that decision prevails as law. A pure democracy means rule by majority, and restraint of the minority.
But the US is not a Democracy. It is a Republic. The differences between the two are in opposition to each other. The founders knew this. Franklin’s famous reply when asked what kind of government had been given to the people, explained it perfectly: “A republic… if you can keep it.” He did not say, “a democracy,” because he knew that was NOT what he and his colleagues had created. In a Republic – especially one designed as ours was, to enable and secure the protection of individual rights for every American – a Constitution guaranteeing those rights is in place to protect each individual citizen.
That said, the term “democracy” has been mistakenly used so often that now, it has more or less come to mean a republic with democratic processes – specifically, the vote.
Voting is a process of electing members of government whose mission is to represent each and every citizen, to advocate for those individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Their job is to protect those rights against incursion by the very government of which those representatives are a part on all levels from local to national government.
Indeed, all elected representatives must take an oath to uphold the Constitution and thereby defend and protect every individual citizen’s rights regardless of what the majority of citizens want, like or feel. It used to be quite common to hear this fact repeated by people in phrases like, “This is a free country” and “I have my rights.” Even, “I am an American” was taken to encompass a fundamental understanding, once long ago taught in civics classes in elementary schools, of the entire concept of what America was.
Republicanism is designed to protect people from the overreaches of government; Democracy, in its purest form, is designed to protect people from republicanism.
This is what’s wrong with the Democrats. Their party doesn’t need to refine or retool its message so that it “resonates” with anybody. The Democrats need to recognize that the closer they get to pure democracy the more precarious their existence becomes, because Americans like freedom.
And, notwithstanding the miserable educations people are getting these days, from public school indoctrination to the horribly skewed leftism driven by Political Correctness on college campuses, no American who knows what this country is supposed to be wants to be swallowed up in the collectivist nightmare into which we have been drawn by the Democrats.
This presents a curious conundrum for the Democrats. If they go farther leftward, as they appear to be doing with choices of leadership like Keith Ellison and Elizabeth Warren, they will be laughed off the planet by the end of Trump’s first term. Yet, if they move rightward, they will simply be doing in watered-down fashion what the Republicans, especially under Trump, are already doing. And, as Harry Truman once asserted, if given the choice between a fake Republican and a real one the people will vote for the real one every time. Thus the Democrats will be neutralized, ineffective and lost.
A better solution for all might be just to dispense with the concept of “party” once and for all. There is only one standard that ought to prevail in politics: the promise by every politician running for office to be a greater champion of the fundamentals of Americanism than the other guy running for the same office. This is not so far-fetched as it might seem.
Our founders were not partial to what they called “factions” and what we now call “parties.” While individuals — sadly fewer than there used to be — may say, “We will uphold all aspects of these precious founding documents,” in fact, no party ever says that. That is because a party platform is built of planks, every one of which supposedly addresses an issue that requires legislation that “reinterprets” thus, in effect, interferes in some way with the very nature of those precious founding documents.
A party platform that encompasses everything stated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is simply unnecessary, because the planks in their platform are already spelled out in those very documents. Any change, however subtle, that causes the reinterpretation of the principles in those documents, is a corrupting influence.
If anyone has offered such corruption by way of legislation it has been the Democrats, whose shift away from the origins of our founding began with its inception.
And, no, Jefferson did not found the party. In fact, the supporters of Thomas Jefferson called themselves Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, in order to reinforce their attitude against the aristocratic policies of wealthy land owners. In fact, the party did not adopt name “Democrat” until the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. The notion that Thomas Jefferson would have allied in any way with the likes of Charles Schumer or the egregious Harry Reid , is not merely farcical but verging on criminal distortion.
The gradual leftward trend of the Democrats away from Americanism became more pronounced with Woodrow Wilson whose globalist aspirations were made possible by the First World War, and resulted in his attempt at creating a League of Nations, with which he sought to diminish the importance of American individualism.
Franklin Roosevelt, still myopically deified for his creation of Social Security – a miscreant Ponzi scheme improperly conceived and destined eventually to be robbed repeatedly and ultimately bankrupt – also created a precedent with his election to more than the customary two terms, a practice that had to be curbed by a Constitutional Amendment. In the course of his administration, Roosevelt increased the power of the Presidency to nearly dictatorial levels, interfering with private enterprise and attempting to “stack” the Supreme Court to enable him the certification of even more executive overreach.
Political parties are based on the principle that there is strength in numbers. But that strength is not intended to band together independent individuals of like mind. Instead, it is intended to create a collective to which its members will adhere. This is good evidence of how pure democracy eventually leads to oligarchy if not outright dictatorship.
The cancer of Political Correctness is a Democratic Party creation, a leftist weapon against not merely those who refuse to recognize its maxims, but against all individual thinking and action.
Democracy in its purest form destroys individualism and any compromise of the philosophic principles upon which the American ethos depends amounts to the disintegration of all the benefits that proceed from those principles.
This point is made of the Republican Party as well. The difference is that as a party, the Republicans at least seem to be leading back to first American principles, at least those who do not prescribe compromise with the Democrats.
If as a party the Republicans continue moving back toward those purest principles that define America, they will eventually dissolve as a party apart, simply because eventually, everyone will realize the true value of those founding principles, thus, there will be no need to form platforms that articulate them. It may even lead to the happy circumstance that politicians no longer have careers in government that enable corrupt personal gain.
To some, the notion that we must have no parties, but only honest individuals sworn to uphold American principles, may seem naïve or untenable. But the point of all of this is that if we are to regain our momentum as a nation, we must stop reinterpreting and once again reassert the philosophy upon which our nation was built. In so doing, we will not only save our country but its culture as well.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com