Fat 'n Happy the Rooster Blah, Blah, Blah

Just Another Jim

Just Another Essay



The Heresy of Populism

or "Why James Madison Opposed Democracy"

Weekly Essay for September 28, 2004 by James E. Nelson

The United States is properly described as a democratic republic. It is often referred to as a democracy although this is historically inaccurate. There is a significant difference between the two although the distinction is frequently blurred in our modern discourse. The Hyperdictionary offers the following definitions for the word “democracy”:

  1. [n] the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group.

  2. [n] the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives.

  3. [n] a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

Only the first definition should be properly applied to a democracy. The other two describe a democratic republic. Compare the above definition with the definition of republic (also from the Hyperdictionary) that follows:

  1. [n] a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

  2. [n] a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president."

Notice that definition 1 of “republic” is the same as definition 3 of “democracy” in the Hyperdictionary. Another, more proper, description of a republic (as follows) explains what makes certain republics democratic:

A form of government in which the head of state is usually elected by the citizens. (Not to be confused with "democracy" because many republics, past and present, have heads of state who came into power by military force, or were elected by a small minority of the population.) www.saburchill.com/history/hist003.html

Why is this distinction between democracy and democratic republic important? Because the founding fathers never intended the United States to be a democracy; in fact they weren't, by and large, fond of democracy. James Madison described it as follows:

Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. (http://madison.thefreelibrary.com/)

The same contention made by Madison is also made by the Scottish historian, Alexander Tyler:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, [which is] always followed by a dictatorship.

But what is it about a republic that makes it superior to a democracy? Democracies essentially are about service to self while republics are about service to others. Consider the contention of Alexander Tyler (above). Democracies will fail when “voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” The decision process in a republic is not based on the voter but rather on a representative the voter elects. This difference is crucial. The theory is that the self-interest of the representative is different than the self-interest of the voter. The representative is not only interested in the welfare of the voter but also of the republic, because it is not in the self-interest of the representative for the republic to fail.

There are a number of problems with this political theory of a democratic republic. While it is a far superior to most political systems, the seeds of its own failure can be found within it. (This, by the way, is true of any political system.) It is my own opinion that this theory of the self-interest of the representative could not stand up to the pressures of the media culture ushered in by television. When representatives were cloistered away in Washington D.C., away from the prying eyes of the voter, the representatives could act as they were expected to act. But when television brought the voter to Washington, the dynamics of representative government changed. Excellent communication allowed the voter to become more intimate with the decision making process. Increasing ease of travel made it possible, and thus necessary, for the representatives to return to their districts in the midst of the decision making process. Along with changes in communication and travel, more accurate means of polling public opinion meant that it was possible for the representative to know the voter's opinion on any one issue, allowing them to rely on public opinion rather than their own wisdom. These processes changed the dynamic of representative government, essentially removing the distance between the representative and the voter, and thus removing the objectivity of the representative. This was the beginning of the end of the democratic republic as envisioned by the American founding fathers.

The two terms, democratic and republican, are problematic because in our modern discourse they imply the two main political parties rather than the meaning of the terms themselves, so at this point I will change the terminology slightly and say that we have become increasingly populist and decreasingly representative in our means of governance. This combined with the fact that Alexander Tyler's prediction has come true (that is, that the voters have discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury), has resulted in a dire state of affairs. Whether measured by balance of trade, national debt, government expenditures, or other more esoteric measures (such as the remarkable explosion of illegal activities in the nation resulting from the multiplication of laws in recent years), the United States is in a state of “turbulence and contention” much like James Madison described.

But at the same time that our form of government has been changing from a democratic republic to a populist democracy, our language has grown sloppy so that we no longer distinguish between a republic and a democracy (as demonstrated by the definitions at the beginning of this essay). Democracy has thus become the watchword of the new populism and it is defended as if it is our true heritage, although the founding fathers were mostly opposed to it.

It was the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who is primarily responsible for this sort of populism. Rousseau's philosophy of Romanticism celebrated primitivism and the essential goodness of humans (ie, the noble savage). For Rousseau and his followers, the ills of the world should be blamed on the social constructs that we built that suffocate the primitive natural human goodness. This sort of thinking naturally leads to populism. And in spite of the attractiveness of such thinking, it is blatantly wrong. Rousseau's Romantic philosophy was translated into the visual arts by Paul Gauguin. Gauguin, in his search for the noble savage, finally settled in Tahiti. His paintings of beautiful and carefree Tahitian natives are well known. The actual squalor of Tahiti during that time is not as well documented. But Gauguin was able to ignore the squalor and see something that simply didn't exist (idyllic primitive culture) because of his commitment to Romanticism.

In contrast to this feel-good Romantic philosophy that swept the nation through the influence of Whitman, Thoreau, and the like, the Scottish realism that shaped Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and other framers of the original American political ideology was really quite bleak. Neither the individual nor the state could be trusted and they had to be played off of each other in order to avoid tyranny. This bleak social and political outlook, often called “Calvinism” by its detractors, should not be attached to either the great theologian John Calvin, nor the Reformed theology which followed his lead. Reformed theology did indeed paint a bleak picture of both the state and the individual, but offered great hope and comfort through God's offer of salvation. The founding fathers, being mostly deists, if not in name, at least in practice, embraced the bleak picture of humanity and social structures but did not incorporate the “blessed hope” into their thinking. As a result, the democratic republicanism that resulted is indeed a rather cold and pessimistic political philosophy. It is no wonder that Romanticism, and its resultant political populism, has been such an attractive alternative.

To add to the woes of the American political system, popular democracy has taken on near religious overtones, and Christians have largely confused it with Christian principles. Look inside nearly any church building in America and one will likely observe the politics of popular democracy. One expects this of Baptists because being the philosophical children of American Romanticism, a radical distrust of organizations and a naive belief in the ability of the individual to do the right thing have led them to build this into their polity from the very beginning. We ought to be a bit more surprised at the populism rampant in groups such as the Presbyterian communion (historically having a representative form of governance) and the Methodist and Roman Catholic communions (historically being hierarchical in governance). A shockingly high percentage of American Catholics think they have the right to overthrow the Pope's decisions because a majority of American Catholics disagree with him. This sort of populist political activism spills over into the secular political arena and as a result politicians have come to think it is their job to follow the political opinions of their constituency (in contrast to doing the right, but possibly unpopular, thing).

Is there a solution to the current political malaise? That is doubtful. Populism is like the genie let out of the proverbial bottle. Once out it is notoriously difficult to get back in. But there are some specific (albeit limited) measures that thoughtful people can participate in. First, we need to guard our language. The word democracy flows from our tongue as easily as Christianity these days. And like Christianity, because it's so easy to say, we think it would be good for everyone. The catch is that democracy is not Christian. (Nor is it anti-Christian; it is simply a religiously neutral political idea.) For that matter, populist democracy is not even historically American. Because of the ambiguity of the word, we need to stop saying “democracy” when we are actually referring to populism, on the one hand, or republicanism, on the other. We also need to quit trying to export our own form of government overseas to every other country. Given the religious overtones of our use of the word “democracy” it is easy to get democracy and the kingdom of God confused. The American Christians who are also resolutely populist will no-doubt be utterly shocked when they arrive in the kingdom and discover that it is a ..., well ... um ... a “kingdom,” a monarchy, and that their silly suggestions will change neither the mind of the monarch nor the direction of the universe. Although it would be inappropriate to apply the text to this circumstance, I am reminded of what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Mt. 7:13f).

We also need to be aware of politicians who cloak their decisions in the rhetoric of popular support. This is particularly true of military decisions. The correct military decisions are frequently not popular decisions. There is a high probability that a politician who appeals to the popularity of a particular military decision or doctrine is leading us astray.

There was a day when one could rely on the character of a politician to a certain extent, being somewhat confident that we could get a straight answer from a person of good character. This is no longer necessarily the case given the subtle nature of populism. Populists do not seek a leader who will do the right thing but rather the popular thing. (Or more accurately, in a nation of populists the right thing and the popular thing are often considered the same thing.) In a nation of populists, leaders seeking to do the right thing naturally cast it in terms of the popular thing in order to maintain a certain level of support. Political expediency in this media drenched society demands this of any successful politician. This does not bode well for the unvarnished truth.

There is an arrogance to populism that is very similar to the philosophy of “might makes right.” In a world where we are more aware of deep differences caused by religion, culture, and political systems, the one remaining superpower can ill-afford to be arrogant in its policies. In a nation where desire is confused with truth, the one remaining superpower can ill-afford to impose its desires on the rest of the world, even though our military supremacy would allow us to do just that. In a nation that no longer knows the difference between a democratic republic and a popular democracy, thoughtful citizens can ill-afford to support attempts to export our current popular democracy to other countries.

It sounds so shocking in today's context to say that James Madison opposed democracy. And Madison himself understood that this would one day be the case. That is no doubt why he also said, “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”