By Douglas V. Gibbs
The FOX News “Gutfeld” show featured a video of attorney and Trump critic George Conway emotionally stating he was willing to spend his children’s inheritance to fund efforts to “save democracy,” specifically highlighting his financial support for Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign. He said in the video, “I thought to myself: I want my kids to inherit a democracy. And so, I wiped the tears away and I drove to the fundraiser and I gave them the check.” Conway’s donation was $929,600 to the Biden Victory Fund – the legal maximum. Conway called it a bargain to support the “rule of law.” Once a Republican, Conway had become a prominent “Never Trump” figure and ran as a Democrat for Congress in 2026, focusing on opposing Donald Trump.
Greg Gutfield asked his guests about the idea of saving democracy, with only one noting the country is not a democracy, but then mistakenly calling our system a “Democratic Republic.”
This exchange reveals a fundamental misunderstanding that has plagued American discourse for over two centuries. American society has been convinced we live in a democracy, with little understanding of the crucial difference between a republic and a democracy. This confusion began early, despite James Madison explaining the difference five times in his Federalist Essays. The Founding Fathers consistently warned about the dangers of democracy, and even Old Europe at the time recognized these dangers, though they believed an oligarchy under royalty and an established church was preferable.
As I explain in my book, “Repeal Democracy,” majority rule through democracy historically always ends in tyranny. In a democracy, population centers control the vote, establishing a system where cities dictate policy to the rest of society. This is precisely why the Founding Fathers were careful not to create a democracy.
A democratic-republic is a representative system where officeholders are directly elected by the people, and today’s America closely resembles that. But, it was never designed as such. The Pledge of Allegiance isn’t to the “democratic-republic for which it stands.”
A republic, while incorporating some democratic principles, contains checks and balances designed to guard against the excesses of democracy. It prevents any part of government from becoming too strong or centralized. A republic ensures proper distribution of power. In a democracy, the vote controls everything. In a dictatorship or monarchy, a single leader rules, and while some rulers may be benevolent, history shows that tyrants eventually seize power. In theocracies, religious leaders hold all power, and in other oligarchies, some group always rules with an iron fist.
In a republic, nobody rules completely. Factions are set against each other so that none can dominate. Minority voices are amplified, and the democratic voices of population centers are challenged by other groups. Our Senate was designed with only two senators per state to ensure that states with large populations couldn’t rule over less-populated states. Originally, Senators were chosen by state legislatures (a method eliminated by the Seventeenth Amendment) to ensure that states held a voice in Congress and to provide a rural perspective in the federal government.
The House of Representatives and State Houses are populated by members democratically elected, so larger cities tend to have a stronger voice in those chambers. But at the state senate level, as with the U.S. Senate, representatives were historically not chosen based on population but by geography. In many cases, this meant one state senator per county – a method disallowed after the 1964 Reynolds v. Sims Supreme Court ruling. The original method ensured representatives having a rural perspective also had a seat at the table – a natural check against the voice of population centers in the other chamber.
Even the President was not originally elected democratically. He was chosen by electors selected by congressional districts and state legislative houses. The method of choosing electors belonged to state legislatures (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2) – removing pure democracy from the equation. We know this system as the Electoral College, and while it still avoids a direct national popular vote (which would enable the largest cities to dominate), it has changed from its original form. The Electoral College evolved from electors voted by the people to electors established by parties who vote according to the popular vote of each district. Even the winner-take-all method that exists in all but two states was not originally followed. Each elector was applied based on their individual vote to the number of electors the candidate received.
Constitutional amendments require ratification by states – another method that moves away from pure democracy. In most countries, constitutional changes can be achieved through legislative votes or direct democratic vote. Consequently, the average age of constitutions worldwide is seventeen years, compared to our Constitution’s endurance of more than two hundred years.
The key to the Founders’ design was checks and balances and separation of powers – not just between branches, but between levels of government. The states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 to establish a written constitution, and part of the agreement was that states would remain involved in governmental processes. During the Philadelphia debates, delegates considered state approval. The states were viewed as members of the union with rights similar to individual citizens, with the aim of ensuring states maintained oversight over the federal government they were creating. The goal was to prevent the federal government from making decisions without state approval.
As a result, the voice of the states influenced nearly all federal government policies:
Budget: Federal spending was established including the states’ voice in the Senate (pre-17th Amendment), and payment from states for spending was approved through indirect taxation (pre-16th Amendment).
Taxation: Tax law was established through the states’ voice in the Senate (pre-17th Amendment), and income tax was paid indirectly through states based on population (pre-16th Amendment).
Elections: Prescribed by state legislatures, except where Congress might regulate (Article I, Section 4), with states also having a voice through the U.S. Senate (pre-17th Amendment). States determined the election of electors for President (Article II, Section 1). Votes were first counted locally before being sent to central counting at state and federal levels to maintain local control. Congress was prohibited from interfering with how state legislatures prescribed Senators could be elected (Article I, Section 4), a provision violated when Congress proposed the 17th Amendment.
Appointments: New federal executive positions required approval/confirmation by the U.S. Senate (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2), the states’ voice prior to the 17th Amendment. Similarly, federal judges require Senate confirmation.
Treaties: The President may negotiate and sign treaties, but validation needs Senate ratification (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2).
Local Legislation: Federal powers are enumerated powers by the Constitution, so local issues belong to local governments, except in cases directly impacting the union.
In short, the Founders understood that one of the best ways to guard against the consolidation of federal power, which historically leads to tyranny, was ensuring states stood in the way of such power. While the federal government was given significant authority regarding war, maritime law, trade with other countries, and other external matters, it was largely not authorized to interfere with domestic issues without state approval.
The enemies of liberty and proponents of centralized tyranny understand this, which is why they’ve been systematically dismantling Constitutional checks and balances, with major assaults during the Andrew Jackson years, Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, through the New Deal and Great Society eras, and with each argument against states having a voice to “save our democracy,” including recent calls for eliminating the Electoral College.
Calls for “saving our democracy” advocates increasing tyranny and centralized control without minority voices having any influence. “Save the democracy” calls for the enslavement of regions of the United States that lack large populations, consequently losing the Rule of Law to absolute rule by a tyrannical majority.
Even our allies call for “saving democracy.”
To save the country, we need to abandon democracy and return to being a republic.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
