I really do think we should start calling it that.
Democracy is at its root the people governing themselves. We simply use a representative system of agents to go to our seats of government and make laws and administer things we cannot do ourselves. The very essence of our parties’ names was supposed to reflect the basic intent behind their philosophy. Republicans were supposed to be the group that believed the republic could best protect the rights of the nation’s citizens through strict adherence to both the limitations on government and the need to physically protect them from harm. The Democratic Party was supposed to be the party that most closely adhered to the will of the people to form and shape their destiny. If that sometimes ran afoul of constitutional limits, then the will of the people should outweigh structural and legal limits.
At least, that’s what it used to be.
Democrats are now simply thumbing their noses at the will of the people and ignoring their voices. A perfect example is Robert Gibbs’ reaction to the Missouri overwhelming adoption of Proposition C which denies the federal government’s ability to force people to buy health insurance. Gibbs said the law was of, “no legal significance.” Though it may have trouble passing constitutional muster given the pathetic, power-grabbing tendency of the federal bench, it certainly speaks loudly on moral grounds. If 71% of the electorate in Missouri don’t have a say in their governance, why have elections at all. Why not just have an appointed panel of collectivists tell us what’s good for us and what’s not? (Oh, I’m sorry, we do.) But, what it really does is undermine the essence of the Democratic Party principles. To say the loud voice of the people means nothing is a bit, well autocratic, certainly not democratic.
Arizona is another perfect example of the Democratic Party attempting to circumvent the will of the people through judicial fiat. Arizona’s elected officials and governor passed a law that follows the federal law. It doesn’t even speak against the federal law in a single part, simply copies it but allows for state enforcement. The Democratic Party apparatus went into full activist mode to strike down the law and suppress the will of the state’s elected officials. Now, if the law were unpopular in Arizona, that would at least hold them nearer to their principles. Instead, it is not only popular in Arizona but nationwide. The population of the entire nation supports the idea that a state must protect itself from illegal invaders. The Party has instead went against it and supported the idea that the people don’t have a say in their own law enforcement officials’ duties and priorities. Instead, the Democratic Party is defying the will of the people and stopping its use through an unelected federal judge. Unbelievable.
If these two examples were not enough, our news outlets are certainly filled with stories about the party’s policies flying directly against the will of the very people who are supposed to be in charge, us. So, what is the use of the party calling themselves Democratic when they are so very against letting the people decide their own laws. Since they cannot trust the people to make their own decisions, and they believe only they can make wise choices, perhaps they should be called the Autocratic Party or the Oligarchic Party or even the Bureaucratic Party since it seems they only trust their friends in government. Whatever name they decide on, it most certainly should not be the Democratic Party since that doesn’t reflect any of their values at all.
Even ‘truth in advertising’ laws are being stretched beyond their limits with this blatant misuse of the word. In the mean time, I think the Undemocratic Party works just as well. Since they distrust us so much and refuse to heed our voice, we can just let them know we’re onto their ridiculous abandonment of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian principles. The philosophy they are exercising is more akin to that of a tyrant or an aristocrat. Maybe the Aristocratic Party. That has a nice ring to it.