If you ask around, a lot of people will tell you it's great to live in a democracy.
The correct answer is the United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.
The "federal" part is one of three basic types of organization of power — unitary, confederal, and federal.
The "republic" implies that we have a strong head of state (the President) and elected officials representing the people.
The "constitutional" part means that we have a constitution.
In 1992, Marvin Simkin wrote in Los Angeles Times, "Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote."
The key difference between a true democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights.
A democracy, in the true sense of the word, does not protect the minority — majority rules.
In majority rules, you can refer to the most likely outcome to the wolves and the lamb scenario. It's often reflected in when a president wins the popular vote but not the electoral college.
Just the fact a nation has a constitution, is a federation, or is a republic, does not imply that minorities are fairly treated. It is the content of that constitution, and the values of that federation and/or republic that protects the rights of minorities.
You hear a lot about what the founding fathers would want when it comes to political issues these days, how about words from Thomas Jefferson: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
Sometimes, minority groups don't reflect the values of the majority, but let's remember it's in the very fabric of our country that we acknowledge the minority view. That doesn't mean you have to agree to it or give in to egregious demands by any minority group affecting everyone, but just to protect their right not to suffer because of them.
That's where the line should be drawn in my opinion, violence by or against a minority group for expressing their opinions. Have we lost the power to make rational decisions when it comes to evaluating a group's rhetoric and taking personal responsibility to say, "I hear you, but it's not for me."
Instead, if we hear of a group's plan to gather we don't like, we immediately launch a counter-protest as if to say the group assembling to get its message out there has some kind of mind-control powers that's going to somehow sway over a bunch of people to join in on its agenda.
If we adopted this tactic, and a group peacefully assembled turns into a violent mob, there's not too much debate as to who started it. Then, the government can exercise its responsibilities to protect the people from violence and not worry about collateral damage.
Contact Steve Warner at
news@smithvillereview.com