Honestly, I don’t even think misapperception is a real word. But it sure hits the point. There is a misapperception of democracy out there, and there is no end to its usage. Often when someone is pushing for a particular policy or responding to a particular event, they will say something like “Are you forgetting that we live in a DEMOCRACY? Therefore, ________....” It is used quite a bit by liberal and conservative Townhall posters alike, political candidates, news media, etc. This is perception that must be refuted quickly and constantly. First, it demonstrates a core conservative principle, and enlightening others should always be a conservative goal. Secondly it makes those espousing such an argument sound ill informed, and it is always really fun to point out that your opponent has their facts wrong in an argument.

Anytime you hear the word “democracy” the red flags should start flying. It doesn’t matter if the word comes from the lips of the President or the pen of the pundit, it should cause alarm. Why is this? Why be uneasy when democracy is one of our cherished values? So much so, that we say that spreading democracy to the middle east will the most pivotal issue of our time? What is the problem if democracy is the panacea to life’s ills?

Simply: because we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Both have bases in representation by the people, but there is a subtle difference between the two systems that we forget at our own peril. The difference is what should be emphasized, and it the difference that has been disregarded in recent times, up to the point where many don’t know what the difference between the two systems of government is.

Do you know the difference? Could you explain it to someone else? Perhaps someone purporting the merits of democracy?

Simply put, democracies are majority rule. Even with checks and balances built into the system, and a Bill of Rights that is supposed to limit the government despite the will of the majority, there is no guarantee of good government with a simple majority rule.

Republics, on the other hand take a lesson from Plato. In his utopian republic, the class of rulers was not those who were the strongest, nor those who garnered the most public support. The rulers were the philosophers. They would be people who would make decisions after carefully examining alternatives, and using their wisdom to come to the best result. The principle he espoused in making such a choice was that those who would rule the wisest would rule. See the difference?

Because we live in a republic we elect men and women to run the government in our stead. We DON’T elect people to represent us. Rather than having those in power simply make decisions based on what a majority of their constituents want, we are to elect people who are wise and will do the best job at keeping the government to its original intended purpose of protection our freedoms. That is a fine distinction that most people do not understand. The purpose of a democracy is majority rule. The purpose of a republic is to seek the wisest leaders, at the approval of the populace.

Socrates argued something like what follows:
Democracy allows each citizen equal voice.
If each citizen has equal voice, each citizen has equally valuable political views.
If each citizen has equally valuable political views, no citizen is better equipped to lead.
If all citizens are equally equipped to lead, there is no need to elect a leader-one can be randomly appointed merely to rubber stamp the will of the populace.

The Founders of our country were well aware of the view that Democracies are the best form of government, and like Socrates, they did not agree with that view. This is because very often the choice of the electorate can be made by ill-informed people who make decisions based on the latest headlines they read, rather than making a decision after careful consideration of the issue at hand and weighing of the consequences. The electorate is generally not principled in their selection of candidates. Why else would we have continually changing opinion polls daily running up each election? It never ceases to astound me that mere days before a presidential election, polls are still revealing numbers of “likely voters” who are “undecided.” Either they are not making their decisions based on sound principles, or they do not follow the issue closely enough to have made up their mind. Both of which merely validates the viewpoint that the electorate as a whole is prone to rash, emotional decisions.

An elected candidate in a democracy would do that which the electorate desires, even if it is at the expense of sound government. This is what has given us such wonderful achievements such as Social Security, the US income tax code, the Department of Education, The Department of Agriculture, etc… In a republic, the candidate would do that which is constructive of good government in spite of what the electorate may think. That today’s politicians repeatedly claim to be representing their constituents rather than claiming to govern well is quite revealing.

Thus, there are two conditions that any candidate should meet before getting your vote. First, they must hold the same political beliefs. Secondly, you should trust them as honest men. If a man has your basic political beliefs but is a scoundrel, putting him in office will not keep good government. Scandals abound in Washington because this test is sacrificed simply to get candidates in line with the party platform into power. Does anyone trust politicians more than a used car salesman?

Yet, if a man is honest but the equivalent of your philosophical Lenin, electing him will not keep good government. Even though he would act honestly, he would undermine the principles you hold to be essential to maintaining your freedoms.

Honesty and Wisdom. The two tests of statesmanship. Are there any who could pass both? Do the voters ever put candidates to this test? Or, as Ben Franklin warned at the close of the constitutional convention, have we lost our republic?