[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 130 (Friday, September 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10979-S10982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE UNITED STATES IS A REPUBLIC
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Americans, commonly speaking, refer to our
form of government as a ``democracy.'' I often try to talk with our
little pages--both Republican and Democratic pages--out in the lobby
from time to time. I tell them the story, ``Acres of Diamonds,''
Tolstoy wrote, ``How Much Land Does a Man Need,'' and I tell them the
story, that Russell Conwell, one of the early chautauqua speakers, said
he had given 5,000 times. I tell them various other stories, and I
always try to help them to learn some things about the Senate, about
our Constitution, and about our form of government. Recently, I said to
the little pages, ``Now, is this a democracy? What form of government
is ours?'' And I said to them about the same things that I am going to
say here with reference to a democracy versus a republic.
Again, Americans, commonly speaking, refer to our form of government
as a ``democracy.'' One reason for this is because politicians of all
political parties generally refer to our government as a democracy.
Politicians generally do that. Glib references are constantly being
made anent our democracy. But our form of government, strictly
speaking, is not a democracy. It may more properly be called a
representative democracy, but, strictly speaking, ours is a republic.
``We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and
to the Republic for which it stands''--not to the democracy for which
it stands.
Incidentally, I was a Member of the other body when the House passed
the law on June 5, 1954, inserting the words ``under God'' into the
Pledge of Allegiance. Exactly 1 year from that day, on June 5, 1955, we
passed a law requiring the words ``In God We Trust'' to appear on our
currency and coins. There are the words on the wall in this Senate
Chamber just below the clock, ``In God We Trust.'' We passed that law
in the House on June 5, 1955. I will always be proud that I was a
Member of the House of Representatives when we passed those two pieces
of legislation.
So we pledge allegiance ``to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic''--not to the democracy, but to the Republic--``for
which it stands.'' We operate by democratic processes. Ours is a
democratic society--I have no quarrel with that--but we do not live in
a pure democracy. This is a Republic. We ought to get it straight. High
rhetorical phrases referring to our form of government as a democracy
constitute somewhat idle talk, and we politicians especially ought to
know better.
I sent over to the Library and got a civics textbook by R.O. Hughes,
vintage 1927. I studied civics in 1927. That was the year Lindbergh
flew across the Atlantic and Jack Dempsey fought Gene Tunney to regain
the heavyweight title, but he didn't regain it.
[[Page S10980]]
That was the year when Babe Ruth, the Sultan of Swat, hit his 60th
home run. So this civics textbook was vintage 1927, and it was right on
the mark. Here is what it said: ``We call the United States a federal
republic.'' The textbook also defined a republic as ``a government in
which the sovereign power is in the hands of the people, but is
exercised through officials whom they elect.'' Now, there it is. The
textbook also defined a democracy: ``A democracy is a government in
which all power is exercised directly by the people. It is next to
impossible for this to be done except in small communities, but the
spirit of democracy prevails in many republics and some monarchies.''
That 1927 civics textbook had it right. In my hometown of Sophia, WV,
1,186 souls--as of the last census--could very well operate as a pure
democracy.
All of the people could gather together, and they could pass laws;
that would not be difficult at all--like the early city-states of
Greece.
The 1927 civics textbook also defined a ``monarchy'' as well as an
``oligarchy'' and an ``aristocracy.''
Curious as to what a modern textbook on civics would have to say on
this subject, I picked up a book, copyright 1990 by Prentice-Hall,
Inc., and found no reference--none--to republics and monarchies.
Instead, the book referred only to dictatorships and democracies. The
1990 civics textbook states that one way to describe government ``is by
saying whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy.'' The book defined
a democracy as follows: ``Democracies are quite different from
dictatorships. In a democracy the final authority rests with the
people. Those who govern do so by permission of the people. Government
is run, in other words, with the people's consent. The United States of
America is an example of a democracy.''
That is really inaccurate, ``The United States of America is an
example of a democracy.'' It is not.
Let me quote what I would consider to be the ultimate authority. This
definition does not square with Madison's definition. If Senators want
an argument about this, don't argue with me, argue with Madison. This
definition does not square with Madison's definition, yet this is what
students who study from this 1990 civics textbook are being taught.
The same textbook goes on to state: ``Democracies may be either
direct or indirect. A direct democracy is one in which the people
themselves, usually in a group meeting, make decisions about what the
government will do. Direct democracies do not work very well in large
communities. It is almost impossible to get all the people together in
one place.''
That is what the book says.
Then the book proceeds. It says: ``An indirect democracy is one in
which a few people are elected to represent everyone else in the
community. For this reason, indirect democracies are also called
representative democracies.''
It is kind of a convoluted way of getting around to saying the right
thing, referring to a representative democracy.
Continuing to quote from the book: ``These representatives are held
responsible by the people for the day-to-day operation of the
government. If the people are unhappy with the performance of their
representatives, they may vote them out of office during the next
election.''
What a profound statement. That is the civics textbook of 1990. Until
I opened up that textbook, I had never heard, I have to say, of
``direct'' democracies and ``indirect'' democracies. So now, my Pledge
of Allegiance would have to be stated as follows: ``I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America and to the indirect
democracy for which it stands,'' and so forth.
Are you confused?
James Madison, one of the principal framers of the Constitution,
alluded to ``the confounding of a republic with a democracy'' in the
Federalist #14, written on November 30, 1787. He proceeds to delineate
a true distinction between these forms: ``. . . in a democracy, the
people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they
assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A
democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A republic may
be extended over a large region.''
Madison was confronting the critics of the Constitution, some of whom
sought, by the artifice of confusing the terms democracy and republic,
to maintain that a republic could never be established except among a
small number of people, living within a small territory. As Madison so
ably pointed out, this observation was applicable to a democracy only.
Madison describes the territorial limitations of democracies such as
the ``turbulent democracies of ancient Greece,'' saying: ``. . . the
natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central point,
which would just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often
as their public functions demand; and will include no greater number
than can join in those functions; . . .'' He proceeds to say that the
natural limit of a republic ``is that distance from the center, which
will barely allow the representatives of the people to meet as often as
may be necessary for the administration of public affairs.''
Madison argues that the territorial limits of the United States do
not exceed the limit within which a republic can operate and
effectively administer the affairs of the people. Again, in the
Federalist #10, where Madison discusses the sources and causes and
dangers of faction, he defines a ``pure'' democracy as being ``a
society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and
administer the government in person.''
Let me say that again.
Madison defines a ``pure'' democracy as being ``a society, consisting
of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the
government in person.'' And Madison indicates that such a form of
government ``can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.''
Listen to this--Madison again--stating that, ``democracies have ever
been spectacles of turbulence and contention,'' Madison proceeds to add
that they ``have ever been found incompatible with personal security,
or the rights of property.'' He adds: ``Theoretic politicians, who have
patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that
by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights,
they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in
their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.''
It is quite different with a republic, however. Listen to Madison as
he extols this form as a better approach to dealing with faction: ``A
republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of
representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises
the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which
it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature
of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the union.''
Again, Madison clearly distinguishes between a democracy and a
republic: ``The two great points of difference between a democracy and
a republic are, first, the delegation of the government, in the latter,
``--meaning in the republic--'' to a small number of citizens elected
by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater
sphere of country, over which the latter ``--meaning the republic--''
may be extended.''
Madison in the Federalist #10 then examines whether the public voice
pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonant
to the public good in a small rather than in a large republic, and he
comes down in favor of a more extensive republic as being ``most
favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal.''
Madison clearly decides in favor of the larger territory. But let's let
him speak for himself: ``The greater number of citizens and extent of
territory which may be brought within the compass of republican, than
of democratic government'' is a ``circumstance principally which
renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former ``--the
republic--'' than in the latter.''
In summation, Madison said, ``Hence it clearly appears, that the same
advantage, which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the
effects of faction''--George Washington, we will remember, warned us
about faction in his farewell address. Madison said, ``Hence it clearly
appears, that the same advantage, which a republic has over a
democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large
[[Page S10981]]
over a small republic--is enjoyed by the Union over the States
composing it.''
Hamilton, in Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention,
referred to the ``amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic
spirit.'' Madison himself, in his notes, referred to the dangers of a
``leveling spirit,'' when he said: ``No agrarian attempts have yet been
made in this country, but symptoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have
understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarter to give
notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded against
on republican principles?''
Madison was probably referring to the Shays' Rebellion which had
occurred just the year before the convention, in 1786, when he spoke of
the symptoms of a ``leveling spirit.''
Madison was espousing the establishment of a Senate as ``a body in
the government sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and virtue, to
aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its
weight into that scale.''
Madison went on to observe ``That as it was more than probable we
were now digesting a plan which in its operations would decide forever
the fate of republican government--talking about the constitution--we
ought not only to provide every guard to liberty that its preservation
could require, but be equally careful to supply the defects which our
own experience had particularly pointed out.''
What a wise, wise man, Madison. What wise men who gathered there in
Philadelphia during those hot summer days between May 25, 1787 and
September 17 of that year and hammered out the Constitution of the
United States. What a document!
In the discussions concerning the mode of selection of members of the
first branch of the national legislature, Mr. Sherman opposed election
by the people.
We hear a lot about this ``democracy'' of ours. Many of the framers
were concerned about democracy. Some of them didn't want any part of
it. They didn't want a democracy.
Mr. Sherman opposed election by the people, insisting that it ought
to be by the State legislatures. According to Madison's notes, Mr.
Sherman expressed himself accordingly: ``The people, he said,
immediately should have as little to do as may be about the Government.
They want information and are constantly liable to be misled.''
Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut, was joined in this
feeling by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts who, as Madison explained,
averred: ``The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. .
. . He . . . had been taught by experience the danger of the leveling
[sic] spirit.''
George Mason of Virginia favored the election of the larger branch by
the people. According to Madison, Mason ``admitted that we had been too
Democratic but was afraid we should incautiously run into the opposite
extreme.'' They didn't want to go to the extreme on either edge.
Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia, who had offered the resolves,
around which the debates would swirl throughout the Convention. These
are Madison notes from which I am quoting Governor Edmund Randolph of
Virginia who had presented the resolves on the 29th day of May, 1787.
It is so easy for me to remember that day because the 29th day of May
is my wedding anniversary. It happens to be my wife's wedding
anniversary also, naturally, May 29. We have seen 61 anniversaries
already in our lifetime. And so here is the quote of Governor Randolph.
He ``observed that the general object was to provide a cure for the
evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these
evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and
follies of democracy.'' He was of the opinion, therefore, that a check
``was to be sought for against this tendency of our government,'' and
he believed that a Senate--a Senate would achieve this end.
In speaking of the Senate of Maryland, and the length of Senatorial
terms in that State, Hamilton said: ``They suppose seven years a
sufficient period to give the Senate an adequate firmness, from not
duly considering the amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic
spirit. When a great object of government is pursued, which seizes the
popular passions, they spread like wildfire, and become irresistible.''
This was Hamilton speaking, referring to the Senate of Maryland.
It is evident from Madison's notes on the Convention that a pure
democracy, as a form of government, did not appeal to the delegates at
the Convention, and that a fear of the ``leveling spirit'' of democracy
was prevalent at the time and leading members of the Convention were
aware of this concern.
Therefore, as Alexis de Tocqueville stated in ``Democracy in
America,'' ``the Americans have a democratic state of society'', we
should be more careful than to allude to our form of government as a
``democracy.'' If we want to say it's a representative democracy, that
is one thing. But it is not a ``democracy''. To do so is to use our
language loosely. And we all use our language loosely from time to
time. I do. But I never refer to this government as a ``democracy.'' I
prefer to stick to the strict definition as explained by Madison and
refer to ours as a republic--which I proudly do.
The framers were wise men. As Butler of South Carolina said ``We must
follow the example of Solon, who gave the Athenians not the best
government he could devise, but the best [government that] they would
receive.''
Our founding fathers gave us a republic. As Dale Bumpers reminded me
a moment ago--a few minutes ago, when a lady approached Benjamin
Franklin at the conclusion of the convention's proceedings on September
17, 1987, she said, ``Dr. Franklin, what form of government have you
given us?''
Franklin didn't answer saying, ``A democracy, Madam.'' His answer
was, ``A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.''
Our Founding Fathers gave us a republic, and we public officials,
politicians and other molders of opinion should formulate our spoken
and written language accordingly.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank Senators for their
courtesy in listening. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have enjoyed being here and listening
to the senior Senator of West Virginia on a subject about which I have
had some opinions and to which I have given some thought, and I would
like to engage with him at another time about these issues. But I would
just share with him and with the Senate this personal experience.
When I lived in California, I discovered that many governmental
reformers had put into place in California, initiative, referendum, and
recall. This was the cry of political reformers, I think, in the 1920s,
and it was supposed to be a demonstration of how forward-looking you
were if you were in favor of initiative, referendum and recall. I voted
against every single initiative that came in California, whether I
agreed with it or not, for precisely the reasons that the Senator from
West Virginia has given us. Because, I said, the people should not be
legislating directly in the ballot box. We have a republic to do that.
The Constitution guarantees every State a republican form of
government. And I felt that California was going down the road, away
from that constitutional requirement.
I have discovered, since I left California, that whenever the
politicians there have a problem now that they find too difficult for
them to deal with in the State assembly, they simply say: Well, let's
put it on the ballot. And you have legislation going on the ballot that
should be fought out in the legislative process of a republic.
Another problem that you have in California, I would say to the
Senator from West Virginia, if it passes in an initiative, it becomes
part of the State constitution and therefore cannot be amended. And we
have seen examples of legislation that could not get through the State
assembly being put on the ballot by factions--to use Madison's term;
today we would call them special interests--and therefore being
embedded in the California State Constitution so that a future
legislature cannot repair the mischief that is created by this attempt
at pure democracy.
So we have a laboratory here in our own Union of States that
demonstrates the wisdom of Madison and his counterparts in creating the
Constitution.
[[Page S10982]]
As I say, I am proud to say that when I lived in California, as a
citizen, as a matter of constitutional conscience, I voted against
every single initiative, even those with which I agreed, because I
wanted to preserve the concept of a representative republic that is the
foundation of our liberties.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia for this most scholarly
presentation. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to be here to
hear it.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his
observations. I am grateful for his presence at this time and grateful
for the perceptions that he has expressed to us based on his
experiences in living in the great State of California.
I thank him. I think he is a scholar, a real scholar of our form of
government and interested in keeping this republic as Benjamin Franklin
so wisely admonished the lady. I thank him very much.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator for his kind words.
____________________