By Douglas V. Gibbs
The word democracy is thrown around a lot, and I shudder when I hear it because I know that the Founding Fathers created the United States to be a republic, rather than a democracy. And the fact that the word democracy is used so much to describe our system of government has convinced most Americans that we are one. You know how it goes; tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. I wound up, in fact, writing a book about it. In “Repeal Democracy” I describe, governmental mechanism by governmental mechanism, why we are not a democracy and what being a federal republic truly means.
Like the word “democracy,” another word is also used so much that we’ve been convinced that it is true, despite its fallacious nature in the American System. The other word is, “Nation.” Sure, some of the Founding Fathers used it on occasion in their discussions about the United States, but if you dig deep and dissect their conversations in committees, delegations, and in their correspondence, you discover that the true nature of this country, and the whole point of the Constitution of the United States, was to make sure we are not a nation.
In most conversations, the word “nation” is used innocently enough, treated as a synonym for the word “country.” In our case, we are more than a country, we are a Union of States – or you might say, “Federation of States,” hence the reason our government is a “Federal Government.” But, when you really break it down, nation, or a national government, were not what the Founders intended for this Union.
The 1828, Webster’s Dictionary, the first truly American English Language dictionary, therefore the one closest to the time of the Founders we possess, defines nation as being, “A body of people inhabiting the same country, or united under the same sovereign or government; as the English nation; the French nation It often happens that many nations are subject to one government; in which case, the word nation usually denotes a body of people speaking the same language, or a body that has formerly been under a distinct government, but has been conquered, or incorporated with a larger nation Thus the empire of Russia comprehends many nations, as did formerly the Roman and Persian empires. nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe, but by emigration, conquest and intermixture of men of different families, this distinction is in most countries lost.”
The key part of that being, “united under the same sovereign or government” or a “distinct government.”
In a sense, we are united under the Federal Government, but we are not supposed to be “subject to one government,” as is also presented in that definition.
Thomas Jefferson had strong opinions about the structure of government and the balance of power. He often emphasized the importance of states’ rights and was wary of a strong centralized national government. He viewed the federal system as one that was different from a national government. In concert with people like James Madison and George Mason, he believed that a federal system, where power is divided between the states and a central government, was essential to preserving liberty and preventing tyranny. National governments operated as a single umbrella, consolidating all power under one government, while a federal system divides those powers, distributing local powers to state or local governments, and leaves only national external powers or the power to act as a mediator between the states with the federal government. He feared that a strong national government could lead to “elective despotism,” where elected officials might abuse their power and then use it to consolidate power and “rule” over the states and the people in a despotic manner. As a union, the union of states operated as a balance to prevent any one entity from becoming too powerful. He believed that the states should have significant autonomy to govern themselves regarding their own internal affairs and improvement, while still being part of a larger union.
National governments, historically, have a history of becoming despotic and an enemy of liberty. From the Founder’s point of view, Liberty and Freedom were concepts that were divinely dispensated as gifts from the Creator to the people. If our natural rights life liberty and freedom are gifts from God, why would a central government have any power over those concepts? The federal system, he believed, as opposed to a national government, would remain under the control of checks and balances, ultimately securing individual liberties. A federal system balances power between the states and the federal government, preserving the importance of states’ rights and the union of states to maintain liberty and prevent tyranny.
If we were truly a nation, the national government would reign supreme, and the states would be mere provinces who operated under the ruling thumb of a powerful national government – a condition that seems to have arisen in modern America of late, and cannot be corrected unless we begin restoring original constitutional principles and recognizing that our country is governed by a federal government, not a national one.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
