The perils of democracy: most Americans believe that we live in a democracy, but they are wrong. In fact, the closer America moves toward democracy, the less free we become.

Suppose you confronted your congressman or one of your two senators with the statement, "You are not in office simply to please the majority. You are there to do what's right and what's right for you is to adhere to the law." Unfortunately, in most cases, you will receive either an angry challenge, a lame excuse for an abominable voting record, or even a blank stare.

However, what you have offered your elected official, in simple terms, amounts to the essential difference between the democracy our nation's Founders abhorred and the republic they created. That any elected official might not grasp this--or might not want to grasp it--is the predictable consequence of America being led away from her glorious past into ever more intrusive government. And not only is America breaking away from our re public's carefully delineated constitutional limitations, current leaders are forcing the ravages of democracy on other lands.

A companion article to this piece (see "Democracy and Tyranny," page 18) indicates that democracy is a dangerous form of government where the majority rules. It is dangerous because history repeatedly shows that the majority's attitude can be bought, pressured, or deceived into approving the designs of sinister leaders. Ruthlessly ambitious men have regularly promoted themselves as "the champions of the people" while leading the people into slavery.

Checks and Balances

The inestimable Marcus Tullius Cicero, who lived during the century immediately before Christ, explained that "without checks and balances ... democracy becomes mob rule, chaos and dictatorship." He further maintained that the individual customarily chosen to lead in a democracy is "someone bold and scrupulous ... who curries favor with the people by giving them other men's property." If his words remind you of someone holding office in our nation today, we can hardly be surprised.

When Cicero pointed to the need for "checks and balances," he was arguing for what we know as a republic, which is based on the rule of law. Our nation's Founders repeatedly stated their detestation of democracy and their desire to limit power by establishing a body of law to which all who served in government would be solemnly pledged, and they produced a written Constitution that strictly regulated the actions of the federal government. When Benjamin Franklin exited the 1787 Philadelphia convention, an eager onlooker asked him what kind of government "we have got." Franklin famously replied: "A republic, if you can keep it." Under the republic, America prospered and became the envy of the entire world.

For as long as the wisdom of the Founders prevailed, there was no place for communism or socialism in America. But these twin scourges could be introduced if majority rule triumphed over the rule of law. Karl Marx clearly understood this, for in his Communist Manifesto he proclaimed that "the first step in the revolution is to raise the proletariat [the common people] to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy." As the self-appointed champions of the common man, communists and socialists have always labored to exalt the attitude of the majority, and then to employ it to propel themselves to ultimate power. Marx wrote that the people could then be persuaded to destroy private property, centralize production in the hands of the State, and establish total rule.

On his way to ultimate rule in China, Mao Tse-tung explained in 1939 that "the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces two stages, i.e., the democratic and socialist revolutions." He added: "The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution." Paralleling what Marx had written, Mao understood the importance of gaining power via appeals made to the majority as the prelude to establishing total rule.

Founders vs. Democracy

As has been presented in these pages in the past, America's Founders made plain both their loathing of democracy and their reverence for a true republic's limitations on both majorities and government. Men such as Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Randolph, Ames, and Gerry referred to "democracy" only to warn against the tyranny they knew it would ultimately bring. They understood that government had to be limited if the people were to be free.

In 1939, historians Charles and Mary Beard confirmed what the Founders had done. In their America in Midpassage, they stated: "At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it.... When the Constitution was framed no respectable person called himself or herself a democrat." And John Birch Society founder Robert Welch correctly labeled absurd the "idea that the vote of a people, no matter how nearly unanimous, makes or creates or determines what is right or wrong."

In sadness, we note that the preponderant opinion of today's Americans is that the words "democracy" and "freedom" are interchangeable. Our elected leaders use them in such a way, as do vast numbers of influential individuals in the mass media, education, clergy, etc. In promoting that horrible distortion, majority rule has been awarded a place almost as high as the Ten Commandments.

Agreeing with America's Founders, England's Lord Acton wrote, "The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority...." And as Robert Welch more recently summarized, "This is a republic, not a democracy, let's keep it that way." One way to keep our republic is to remind office holders that their goal must never be to please the majority, unless the majority's attitude is consistent with a constitutional rule of law.