Understanding the difference can illuminate America’s political past and help secure its future.
Image Courtesy of National Archives
In October 2020, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah penned an op-ed asserting, “[T]he United States is not a democracy, but a republic.” In March of this year, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders posted a video in which he stressed the importance of November’s presidential contest: “Democracy is at stake.” As this year’s election approaches, it is worth an explanation of how these seemingly mutually exclusive statements can be made by two occupants of high office in the United States. While Sens. Lee and Sanders come from opposing parties, the debate over what to call America’s system of government has a long and more complex history than the common Republican-Democrat squabble of modern politics.
America’s founders and the Constitution’s framers were men of letters who prided themselves on being students of history. The revolutionary aims of their new nation cannot be considered independent of the situation with the British Crown from which it emerged. Eager to detach from a state that refused the colonists representation, the Declaration of Independence proclaims, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
On its face, this would seem to endorse a society based upon popular sovereignty, or, the will of the people - democracy. However, a closer look at the story of America’s founding reveals more nuance. The words of some of the most significant actors at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia warn against “pure democracy.” Hamilton argued for a system that tempered the “passions of men,” which he believed led to tribalism. Adams wrote that there had never been a democracy that did not “commit suicide.” Franklin famously admonished a woman upon the Convention’s conclusion that it had delivered, “a Republic, if you can keep it.”
What these factoids suggest, together with the real operation and evolution of the United States and its government, is that it’s complicated. And with many political figures jettisoning nuance in this present moment, it is important to be intentional in acknowledging this reality, for such debates require subtlety to be had in the first place.
Often conflated or used interchangeably, a democracy and a republic are manifestations of different principles. Although bound in deriving their legitimacy from the people through elections, in their purest forms, a democracy’s concern lies in ensuring the voice of the voters is heard as clearly as possible. Whereas republics throughout history have defined their pursuit as balancing the protection of institutions with the will of the citizens whom they are meant to serve.
The governmental system of the United States was designed to care both about the means and ends of the political process. A process that encourages the airing of disparate voices may not make for the most efficient finished product, but it does make for one that holds legitimacy. As James Madison biographer and American Enterprise Institute fellow Jay Cost has written, “Our Constitution has done such a fantastic job of reducing the threat created by overbearing…majorities.” One can cite a myriad of examples where this seemed contrary to common sense, with slavery and civil rights being at the forefront. The vital point often missed is that it allowed for these necessary societal changes to occur without a loss of faith in the government and the collapse of its authority. There is a reason the United States’ charter is the oldest still in existence. It makes possible what Martin Luther King, Jr. once said: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” As Cost puts it: “[The Constitution] increases the chances that the final products of public policy will be broadly in keeping with the public interest.”
The United States is a republic whose history demonstrates a gradual yet consistent embrace of democratic values. The institutions of government enumerated in the Constitution have not only provided the means for that to happen but for countries throughout the globe to experience the same. As Americans head to the polls over the next month and beyond, those perhaps restless about what is to come can find solace and inspiration in how those who came before balanced the competing interests inherent in representative government with respect for the rights of all.
Related Posts
