“The first question that offers itself,” Madison posed, “is whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican.” According to Madison, the answer to the question required no deliberation for it was “evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America;” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 39, ¶2. Clearly, in the beginning, the Framers considered the American people flush with genius and, as such, the only form of government worthy of that genius had to “be strictly republican”.
Today, the second “question that offers itself” is whether or not that genius has remained intact? One of the more obvious clues for that answer can be found in our political conversations. American politicians drone on and on about the threats to “our democracy” and “our sacred vote”, but none of them ever speak of our “strictly republican” form of government and the threats to it.
Does this current pursuit towards the ideals of democracy and “our sacred vote” imply genius or does it imply something else? At least one author has identified the disparity – “it has been recognized since Plato’s time that the line between genius and insanity is very fine and, in many cases, difficult to determine.”[1]
Perhaps it would be wise for us to pause and ponder the rather obvious question – could democracy seriously be the sum total of the Framers’ genius? In all seriousness, ask yourself, what depth of mental aptitude would have actually been required to come up with the idea that everybody should just get together every four years and vote for the most popular person for president and the senate especially in light of the fact that 49% of the people are going to be angry and upset that “their guy” lost? Does this puerile form of government truly sound like the work of genius?
Take a moment to consider the facts. Democracy, by its very nature, creates contention, strife, and turbulence because it is always an us versus them mentality. As such, our tug-of-war democracy has created a vast, never-ending and festering political divide with its two-party system. It also breeds corruption as billions of dollars flow into the coffers of the national political party organizations, which allows for an inexorable inlet of foreign actors who are incessantly trying to buy access to political power.
Democracy always lends itself to cheating. We don’t always know how much cheating actually goes on because the oligarchy behind the political parties does not want the public to lose faith in their con game, which is why they always suppress the evidence. Yet, it is not impossible to see the fruits of the fix, since the incumbent rarely, if ever, loses – even when they have abysmal records.
On some rare occasions, we will hear about the cheating but not until many years later. For instance, we have heard about LBJ’s infamous ballot Box 13 in Jim Wells County where his supporters stuffed ballot boxes with bogus votes all across the south of Texas in order to win the Democratic senate nomination in 1948. Of course, there was the 1960 presidential election as well, but it’s way too early to even mention the election of 2020 as it is still verboten. We’ll have to wait at least another 50 years or so before historians will even begin to seriously discuss the obvious anomalies.
Another reason that easily demonstrates why democracy is an extremely poor substitute for genius can be found in the inclusion of the structure of checks and balances by the Framers for the national government. If there was genius in their system of checks and balances within the national government, why would their genius end there by leaving the rest up to the foibles of democracy?
Perhaps the Framers exhausted their genius in setting up the checks and balances within the national government? Was the genius that created a national government with checks and balances lost on an inability to provide similar checks and balances between the different levels of government, where the political parties reign supreme due to our democratically controlled elections?
Before answering that question, let us revisit that fine line spoken of earlier and ask a series of questions in this regard. Is it genius or insanity for the American people to believe that all they have to do to save the country is for them to step inside a booth where they can place a checkmark by a person’s name? Is it genius or insanity to believe that such a person will save our “strictly republican” Constitution given the fact that he is on record stating that he is willing to go to jail “for democracy”? Is it genius or insanity to believe that such a person will save our “strictly republican” Constitution when he is laser focused on restructuring the RNC, in spite of the fact that the Framers eschewed political parties for being filled “at all times,” as Hamilton noted, with an “intolerant spirit” and “ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives” thereby placing the party above the interests of the country? Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 1, ¶3.
Is it genius or insanity to believe that one man alone will save this country while we just sit back and watch? Is it genius or insanity to believe that the power that controls “our democracy” will even let that man back into the White House when they went to such extreme lengths in 2020 to make sure that he wouldn’t get a second term?
Is it genius or insanity to think that if the lawfare being waged against that man fails that they will stop with their persecution? Is it genius or insanity to believe that they won’t continue to use more extreme measures such as forcing more RINO Republican House members to resign until they can create a temporary majority for the Democrats in order to pass a law declaring President Trump to be an insurrectionist thereby removing him from the ballot with no recourse since SCOTUS has already ruled that the Congress can pass such a law? You probably didn’t catch that in the latest SCOTUS ruling, did you?
When their attempts at creating a temporary majority fails, is it genius or insanity to believe they won’t continue with more severe tactics such as assassination, world war, martial law, suspension of the elections, or failure to certify the election?
Is it genius or insanity to believe, if we just keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing over and over for the last 100+ years, that it will somehow, some way be different this time? Is it genius or insanity to even believe in democracy given all of the failings of democracy?
While it should be readily apparent by now that our genius as Americans is highly suspect, it is important to understand that the genius of the Framers was not exhausted with the checks and balances of the national government. They did not give us an incomplete Constitution in this regard. The Framers provided checks and balances between the different levels of government as well, but we have erased those checks and balances with our “sacred democracy.”
Originally, the U.S. President was supposed to be elected by electors who were selected for the sole purpose of choosing a qualified president. The electors were meant to act without the control of a democratic, popular vote, but you know how it works now? Today, everyone in the state gets to vote first for president before the electors can vote. Once the democratic tallies are counted, the electors become a rubber stamp for the majority vote.
Originally, the electors were meant to be loyal to their state and not a political party. If the electors were still allowed to vote based on the interests of the state instead of being controlled by party politics, the states would still be a check on the national government. Instead, the political parties now control D.C.
Also, the U.S. Senators were supposed to be appointed by the state legislature. Once again, this system guaranteed that the senator would be loyal to the state and not the political party, but we’ve destroyed that loyalty with our “sacred democracy.”
The national government was also meant to have only a “few and defined” list of powers, which were only given in order to protect our national borders from invasion. Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 45, ¶6. Since we have democratized our Constitution, the political parties have ignored those limitations and expanded the national government’s power in order to appeal to more and more voters. It has gotten to the point now that they have completely abdicated their job of protecting our borders in order to bring in more voters. The states can no longer stop the expansion of power and our open borders since they gave up their checks and balances created by our U.S. Constitution.
Finally, the Constitution mandates that the national government will guarantee the same Republican form of government to the states themselves. This meant that the states were supposed to be controlled by the counties in the same way and in the same manner as the states were supposed to control the national government. It also meant that the state governments would be given just a “few and defined” list of powers which would only include the protection of the state from invasion and domestic violence. Finally, just as with the U.S. Senators and President, the state senators and governor were supposed to be appointed at the county level – not through a democratic process.
This pattern was expected to continue right on down to the individual neighborhoods. In this manner, Madison explained, we would be “broken into so many parts, interest and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals” would never be in danger of oppression. Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 51, ¶9.
In other words, no one governmental entity could ever control the American people as they would be able to govern themselves individually because the Framers gave us a bottoms-up power structure and not the top-down structure that we have today.
Unfortunately, no one speaks about these things anymore – neither the conservative influencers nor the so-called conservative politicians running for office. In fact, politics has become so corrupted that even bringing up our “strictly republican” form of government is now considered to be tinfoil hat, crazy talk.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news folks, but it would seem that that our genius has been lost on the insanity of our unconstitutional democratic government.
Madame Publius
[1] 1901 August 3, Scientific American Supplement, Number 1335, Art Canons—Historic and Prehistoric by Prof. Thomas Wilson (Department of Prehistoric Anthropology U.S. National Museum), Quote Page 21393, Column 2, Scientific American, New York. (Verified with scans)
Thank you for articulating what i believe is a major flaw in the thinking process of most conservatives in their stated desire to “stick to the Constitution.”
However, unless there is a strictly adhered to (via vigilance and laws with sharp teeth) reformation in the “government & greed” portion of our political recipe, even fealty to our Constitution will be severely diminished due to lack of virtue.
And therein lies the rub:
It’s the narcissistic nature of humanity in the 21st century that steered us upon this prideful path to Darkness, and nothing short of Divine Epiphany can save us at this point.
The modern impetus of Mankind demonstrates every single day that humans, especially elitist humans, believe they are more intelligent and capable than Nature and GOD.
Unless that attitude changes and we learn to see and revere the Connection, our entire species is doomed to devolution and eventual extinction --- it’s just a matter of time.
The only way a problem can be fixed is when the problem is recognized and then addressed. In my view, you explain the problem clearly. I think you need a bigger platform. Are you looking for interviews with people who are smart, have energy, influence, and reach? Tom Wood comes to mind. I think the two of you would have a great conversation.