American Republic vs. Democracy: What the Founders Built

A nation in which the masses elect representatives to the government—thus ensuring the law is shaped by public opinion, so long as that opinion is constitutional—is considered a republic. This was the aim of America's Founding Fathers. Democracy closely resembles a republic; however, a key point of distinction between the two lies in the role of representatives. The Founders were worried about citizens' criticism that they were assuming too much control themselves, and hence felt a need to prove that it was the law, not the President, that governed the nation.

Following the very ineffective attempt at enforcing the Articles of Confederation, the Founders ultimately found success with the Constitution—American history's most celebrated text—which ensured that federal power was limited to only those matters included within it. Without the Constitution, the United States would be an absolute democracy, with all citizens doing whatever they felt was the law. This danger has been described brilliantly in Plato's Republic, where the Greek philosopher argues that democracy gives rise to anarchy, which ultimately results in tyranny. History confirms this pattern: after the French Revolution's historic Bastille Day, anarchy surfaced, and shortly afterward the world saw Napoleon Bonaparte rise to power.

It is therefore reasonable that the Founders sought to avoid anarchy and establish a government that would not ultimately reduce to it.

America's Founders greatly feared establishing a government with too many characteristics of pure democracy. They were afraid of the destructiveness inherent in a majority's attempts at achieving social equality through the appropriation of property, property rights, and God-given fundamental freedoms. They expected a Robin Hood attitude to develop—one in which the rich are "soaked" and the poor profit—representing a democratic drift toward socialism.

The Founders' fears were well-grounded. They were all well-informed individuals who had discussed at length how disastrously earlier democracies, including Athens, had failed. As Paul Gagnon observed, U.S. history traces back to Christian and Jewish texts, the rise and fall of Athenian democracy, the feudal era, and more; in order to explain American values, one must begin there.

A historical argument that had circulated for many years—one the Founders were highly familiar with—captures their concern precisely:

Democracies are unable to survive permanently as governmental forms. They only thrive as long as citizens do not realize their ability to vote themselves bounty from the nation's coffers. But the moment this realization sinks in, the majority will always elect candidates who assure them maximum benefits from the public exchequer, resulting in governmental collapse over a weak fiscal policy; the end result will be dictatorship. The greatest civilizations in the world have, on average, lasted two centuries and advanced along the following sequence: Subjugation — Spiritual Faith — Valor — Freedom — Prosperity — Self-centeredness — Indifference — Dependence — Subjugation (Adams, 2008).

The Founders universally rejected democracy, hoping America would never witness it. They used the term "Republic" rather than "Democracy"; the latter term does not appear in the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution. The patriotic pledge also entails swearing allegiance "to the Republic for which it stands."

Founding Father Benjamin Franklin aptly described democracy as two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch—and liberty as the well-armed lamb who contests the vote.

Democracy was fundamentally rejected owing to its inherent flaw: the "wealth-sharing" ideology, which succeeds only as long as one has a share of somebody else's money. People who receive money are gratified by having their wants fulfilled at no cost to themselves. However, individuals coerced into relinquishing their lawfully earned money cannot enjoy the rewards of their hard work or serve their own self-interest. As a result, the incentive to work hard begins to erode regardless of how funds are spent.

Fraser Tyler's two-centuries-old work The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic stated it plainly: democracies are unable to survive permanently as governmental forms. They only thrive as long as citizens do not realize their ability to vote themselves bounty from the nation's coffers. Once that realization takes hold, the majority will always elect candidates who promise maximum benefits from the public exchequer, resulting in governmental collapse driven by weak fiscal policy—and ultimately, dictatorship.

All "good" that the state does for its people comes from somebody else's pocket. Willingly given money is charity; coercing someone to surrender part of their earnings is tyranny. The longer and more consistently a beneficiary receives such money, the more entitled he becomes, until he boldly begins demanding a larger share of others' earnings as his natural right. This dynamic works only until the wealthy become paupers themselves and all become equally poor—a collapse in living standards witnessed under communist economies in the last century.

Republics and democracies differ sharply in what they guarantee. Democracies offer only two principles: rule by majority choice, and regular voting with multiple options. They fail to protect citizens from governmental wealth redistribution, which gives less productive members of society something for nothing. Republics also feature regular voting, but majority rule is given weight only to a certain extent, because the majority is not always right. Moreover, republics are founded on universal, indisputable, fundamental rights—life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness—understood as coming from God rather than government.

Republics safeguard minority rights against the majority. Democracies, by contrast, can function like lynch mobs, where everyone except the individual being lynched has a say. A republic rescues that individual and offers a fair trial, with witnesses and a legitimate judge. Republics emphasize individual differences rather than enforced equality, viewing those differences as an asset rather than a weakness—unlike democracies, which equate sameness with equality.

Another key feature of republics is limited government, restricted from dominating citizens' lives. To obtain further power, authorities must follow a well-defined process. Finally, a healthy anxiety persists in republican systems that public emotion might undermine natural law, which forms the basis of genuine freedom. Hence, the Founding Fathers established a republic rather than a democracy, and they crafted the Constitution specifically to guarantee that America would remain one (Pease, 2010).

Although the American Constitution is often acclaimed as a symbol of democratic governance, the text in reality reflects a significant distrust of that system. The Founders instituted a republican government aimed at restricting democracy's excesses, using safeguards such as checks and balances, the Senate, unelected courts, and the Electoral College.