A Republic, Not a Democracy

(Yes, we are ashamed at paraphrasing Pat Buchanan for today's title, but it's apropos.)

This may come as a shock, but the United States of America is not a democracy.  That's not some snide comment on the depredations of President W. and others throughout American history; it's simple fact.

A democracy is defined as a system of government whereby the people rule--directly and unequivocally.  In a democracy, decisions are made by popular vote, and, if there is a representative body (e.g., Congress), then democratically elected members are expected to follow the will of their constituents without fail.

By contrast, the United States is a republic.  This is similar to a democracy in certain ways, but with at least one key difference.  In a republic, the (democratically elected) representatives are allowed to follow their own beliefs and vote however they want on issues.  Thus, a politically unpopular measure, like raising taxes, even if opposed by the majority of a particular representative's consitutents, can still succeed if the representative feels, deep down, that it is in the best interest of society as a whole.  Certainly, the representative then faces negative personal repercussions (i.e., being voted out of office), but he has ultimately done nothing wrong.

The reason for this civics lesson is recent events in California, current homeland of the Solipsist.  If you've been following the news, you know that California is essentially broke: The state nickname, in fact, has been changed to the Dross State.  This is largely a result of the nationwide financial crisis.  In California, however, things are complicated by the fact that the powers-that-be at some point in history forgot the fact that California, like other states, is supposed to be a republic.

California, you see, is ballot happy.  When it comes to budgetary measures, the state constitution provides that any major initiatives must be approved by statewide referenda (this after passing the legislature with a 2/3 majority--a herculean task in and of itself).  So, instead of acting with all deliberate haste in dealing with a financial crisis, the state first has to come up with suggestions, submit them to the popular will, and then, IF they are approved, put them into effect.

Ah, but what if they're not approved?

Well, that's what we're dealing with now.  The governor proposed a series of measures, including tax increases, service cuts, and reshuffling of funds, in order to close a  20-something billion dollar budget gap.  These measures all failed (the sole measure that passed was one prohibiting pay increases for legislators during times of financial exigency--whoo-hoo!).  But were we really surprised?  In the history of ever, how many times have people DIRECTLY voted to have their own taxes raised?

And there's the problem with democracy.  One person, a representative, no matter how much he or she may personally dislike a policy, may ultimately be convinced to take action for the public good.  But how do you convince several million people to vote against their own immediate interest?

The democratic model takes the heat off the representatives to a certain extent, but at what cost?  Interestingly, people may vote for a candidate who levels with them and tells them that he or she will raise taxes in order to pay for essential services (see Bill Clinton and, indeed, Barack Obama).  They just won't pull the lever themselves for the actual policies.

The good news is that California's mess is prompting near-unprecedented calls for a new constitutional convention to straighten out this mess.  The bad news?  Before any new convention could be convened, it would have to be approved by a referendum.  

Since we started with a Pat Buchanan paraphrase, we'll end with one by a perhaps more palatable American: "The masses," according to Alexander Hamilton, "are asses."