Answering ⤵️
"We were founded as a republic, not a democracy. We are a republic, not a democracy," are like a libertarian manifestos.
There is truth to the statement that we were not founded as a democracy: In 1789, only white men were citizens permitted to vote.
1/
"We were founded as a republic, not a democracy. We are a republic, not a democracy," are like a libertarian manifestos.
There is truth to the statement that we were not founded as a democracy: In 1789, only white men were citizens permitted to vote.
1/
That obviously wasn't very democratic.
While we were not founded as a democracy, we were founded on democratic principles: All "men" are created equal. The source of authority for the US government would be rule of law instead of a king's divine right to rule.
2/
While we were not founded as a democracy, we were founded on democratic principles: All "men" are created equal. The source of authority for the US government would be rule of law instead of a king's divine right to rule.
2/
The second problem is one of semantics: What is a democracy?
The "we are not a democracy" people seem to define "democracy" as "majority rule on everything."
Our Constitution is not majority rule on everything. The third branch of government is not at all democratic.
3/
The "we are not a democracy" people seem to define "democracy" as "majority rule on everything."
Our Constitution is not majority rule on everything. The third branch of government is not at all democratic.
3/
Federal judges are appointed for life. The electoral college isn't democratic. Originally Senators were selected by state legislatures. That wasn't democratic.
But there's a thing called "liberal democracy" using "liberal" in the classic sense ⤵️
4/
But there's a thing called "liberal democracy" using "liberal" in the classic sense ⤵️
4/
There are two ways of looking at American history.
The progressive view goes like this: Our founders started out with some pretty good ideas, but the founding of the founding of the nation fell short of its ideals.
The idea of all people created equal was a good one.
5/
The progressive view goes like this: Our founders started out with some pretty good ideas, but the founding of the founding of the nation fell short of its ideals.
The idea of all people created equal was a good one.
5/
The problem was that only white men were "people."
The progressive view is that as liberal democracy in America has expanded and improved, more people have come to be included.
Progressives imagine a graph like this⤵️
Reactionaries have the opposite idea.
6/
The progressive view is that as liberal democracy in America has expanded and improved, more people have come to be included.
Progressives imagine a graph like this⤵️
Reactionaries have the opposite idea.
6/
Reactionaries think the graph looks like this ⤵️
We started off great and now we're losing something, so we pine for the good old days.
So I'm not very sympathetic to the argument that America was not founded as a democracy and we need to reclaim our roots.
7/
We started off great and now we're losing something, so we pine for the good old days.
So I'm not very sympathetic to the argument that America was not founded as a democracy and we need to reclaim our roots.
7/
I'm not very sympathetic because kinda like being able to vote and being considered a "person" under the Constitution. (Just makes me feel good).
The only time anyone has ever told me that "America is NOT a democracy, we were founded as a Republic," has been on Twitter.
8/
The only time anyone has ever told me that "America is NOT a democracy, we were founded as a Republic," has been on Twitter.
8/
Maybe it's a Twitter thing, or maybe I live a sheltered life on the beautiful central California coast.
I answer by saying:
"We are a liberal democracy in the classic sense of the word ‘liberal.’”
Then I flash a definition of "liberal democracy.”
That usually does it.
I answer by saying:
"We are a liberal democracy in the classic sense of the word ‘liberal.’”
Then I flash a definition of "liberal democracy.”
That usually does it.
Some of them thought this. Alexander Hamilton, for one.
Others did not think this. Thomas Jefferson, for one.
Hamilton and Jefferson clashed on how the constitution should be interpreted.
We're still having the same argument today.
Others did not think this. Thomas Jefferson, for one.
Hamilton and Jefferson clashed on how the constitution should be interpreted.
We're still having the same argument today.
Thomas Jefferson was what today we'd call an originalist.
When people interpreted the Constitution, Jefferson wanted them to imagine themselves back in 1789 and do what was intended then—which strikes many of us as problematic, given that slavery was legal . . .
When people interpreted the Constitution, Jefferson wanted them to imagine themselves back in 1789 and do what was intended then—which strikes many of us as problematic, given that slavery was legal . . .
Conservatives and libertarians argue for a form of originalism. They talk about what was intended when the nation was formed.
If your evening will not be complete without reading more about originialism, this looks solid (I just glanced at it):
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projec…
If your evening will not be complete without reading more about originialism, this looks solid (I just glanced at it):
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projec…
Basically, this is it.
By the way if I answer a legal question this late I am not responsible for any typing errors.
I don't know how they get into my Tweets! They just appear! They sneak in uninvited.
By the way if I answer a legal question this late I am not responsible for any typing errors.
I don't know how they get into my Tweets! They just appear! They sneak in uninvited.
