« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Representative Republic is not a Democracy

Barack Obama recently said, speaking of Occupy Wall St.,  “The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles, and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded,” Obama recently told ABC News.  President Obama, we already had that system in place long before you came along with your intent to bring down capitalism, I would add.  Capitalism rewards those who generate the most value for  others.

Obama added, “And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”  Only in our President’s perspective could he have been describing the so-called “greedy rich” who are the backbone of American cities, providing jobs, working hard, and investing in our future.  The reckless irresponsible ones are those occupying Wall St, not those who are working their way up in businesses around the country.  By impeding hard-working Americans from getting to their jobs, shutting down entire seaports, occupying Black Friday shoppers, threatening conservative gatherings and occupying public and private spaces, it is the occupiers who are irresponsible.  They certainly feel no obligation to their communities.  They are actively and purposely making a failing economy worse and should not be rewarded.

Contrary to frequent descriptions, America is still a representative Republic, not a Democracy.  In a Democracy, majority or mob rule prevails, so whenever 51% of voters want something, they get it.  Occupiers actually don’t comprise 51% of voters, but that does not keep them from trying to make demands as if they do.  They certainly are not the 99% they claim to be, as 53% of Americans are paying the taxes which provide the money which government spends. These clearly uninformed participants call for taxing the “greedy rich” at 100%, free college education, an end to corporate personhood, government-provided jobs for all, an end to all fossil fuels, equal distribution of income, and open borders, for instance. Occupy has no unified message, refusing to list formal demands, but allowing anyone to post their radical ideas on their website for inspiration.

A group such as this, if in power in a Democracy, rules by mob action in its own interests.  The unions and radical organizations which have attached themselves to the movement and used the initial demonstrators for their own purposes would have free rein to impose their agenda.  This of course couldn’t last forever, as the money paying for all their demands runs out and chaos eventually ensues, as any good revolutionary knows.  As a frightened and weary citizenry begs for relief, government can then step in, promising to save the day and make the chaos go away through government intervention.  This scenario comes right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the how-to handbook for collapsing capitalism.

A Representative Republic on the other hand protects the rights of all citizens, not just the majority, and is founded on  the principle of elected individuals representing the people, with elections providing the opportunity for change.  Using this election process, the Tea Party angrily but peacefully protested a government which has grown too large, which increases our debt to the detriment of our future, which sometimes doesn’t honor our Constitution, which honors entitlement and equal outcome more than it honors opportunity.  Using the election process, it has been able to effect change in government representation and legislation.

I believe the time has come for original Occupy members to condemn the radicals which have attached themselves to Occupy, to meet with Tea Party members to discuss what it is they have in common. There has been at least one such meeting in Memphis.  Certainly the two groups can find at least a few points in which there would be agreement.  Perhaps together they can do what our Congress seems incapable of doing – coming together for the betterment of America.

Follow me on conservativecorner-karen.blogspot.com

 

 

 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Pingback: Re-Defining Personal Freedom and our National Identity « blogsense-by-barb

  • boonerdan

    The so-called “smart people” know very well that America is a representative republic. The reason they drone on about “democracy” is because mob rule is the only way they can enact their socialist agenda.

    The Founders formed a representative republic because they knew a true democracy would lead to chaos and tyrannical oppression. A representative republic was designed to protect the minority from losing their basic rights at the hands of a runaway, simple majority.

    Excellent post.

  • dajeeps

    If this is a little off topic, I apologize. I was reading some literature that was more then 150 years old the other day. It had in it some guidance from a state legislature to their senators, directing them to take a certain position, and not waiver. From what I understand, this used to go on all the time.

    I don’t know if it was an effective way to manage an outcome because of the legislatures electing the senators, or if there was some state law or tradition that demanded the wishes of the legislature be respected. I sure have not seen anything like that going on today.

    Without the state influence in the Federal government, however it was lost, the Senate is really just a House of Representatives on steroids and the nature of the Republic is greatly diminished, more toward democracy.

  • bendoublecrossed

    Restoring the 1st would be a satisfying solution.

    Amendment 1
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Political campaigns assemble people and coordinate their money and talents to communicate, thru speech and the press, demands for redress of grievances. The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are corruption of the 1st Amendment!

    Flesh and blood people should be equally exempt and equally free from unconstitutional restraints. But only the corporate voice has been unregulated since the passage of the Federal Campaign Act.

    2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term “expenditure” does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

    This exemption created a

  • bendoublecrossed

    If you want elections to matter, then you need to be able to fire your elected representatives. This is nearly impossible because of the campaign finance laws. These laws are really incumbent protection laws. They make it almost impossible for challengers to raise competitive funding, while doing almost nothing to control the true causes of government corruption.

    We were told that the campaign finance laws