Tom Mullen: Democracy is The Problem

"A Wisconsin judge has been arrested for allegedly helping an illegal alien evade immigration authorities. The case has added gasoline to the fire blazing in the wake of several recent court rulings against the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport illegal aliens more expeditiously than customary due process procedures would allow.

The administration argues the judiciary is deliberately obstructing its attempt to execute the clear will of the people, expressed in the last election, to reverse the trend of mass illegal immigration into the United States. Its opponents argue the administration is violating established law and basic constitutional protections of individual rights, especially the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Both sides accuse the other of being “a threat to our democracy.” This has been a mantra repeated about political opponents for many years now, by everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Tucker Carlson. Carlson railed against suppression of free speech as incompatible with “a democracy.” Democrats wailed that we must “save our democracy” from their Hitler-cartoon version of President Trump, even after he’d left office.

But to paraphrase a popular 20th century president, democracy is not the solution to our problems. Democracy is the problem.

If Americans should have learned one thing, it is to be suspicious of anything the media repeat over and over, through every medium. And what they’ve heard night and day for the past decade, from conservative and liberal media alike, is some form of the message “democracy is in danger.” They’ve heard it so much that they’ve forgotten what it is they should be desperate to protect. And it isn’t democracy.

Before the progressive era, the American political system was generally referred to as “republican” rather than “democratic.” This may seem purely semantic and to some extent it would be if the Constitution merely described a simple republic. In that case, representatives would be elected by popular vote and would generally be expected to do what those who elected them want them to do.

But the Constitution isn’t even that democratic. Once elected, the representatives are not permitted to do anything the people who elected them want. They are limited to a short list of powers they are authorized to exercise, regardless of the supposed “will of the people.”

To make doubly sure they do not go astray, the first ten amendments to the Constitution specify certain rights the government is especially prohibited from violating, again whether a majority of Americans seems to want it to or not.

The enumerated powers, the separation of powers among branches of the federal government and between the federal and state governments, the bicameral legislature, the Bill of Rights – they are all there to thwart the power of the majority, in other words, to protect us from democracy.

Thus, it seems odd that every politician, every media pundit, and even most citizens refer to the government the Constitution describes as “a democracy.” Certainly, it has democratic elements, particularly the election of legislators (originally only the House was elected democratically by the people). But most of the Constitution is dedicated to restraining the will of the majority.

This is more than an academic point. It speaks to a fundamental question that most Americans would answer incorrectly: what is the purpose of the government?

Those who have internalized the idea the American political system is “a democracy” would probably say its purpose was to do “the will of the people” or some such rot. And who can blame them? That’s all any American has heard for most of his or her life. But that’s incorrect...

Source:Tom Mullen back from 2011. Which feels like 14 years ago. (For some reason)

From Tom Mullen

From what I wrote in response to Dr. Ron Paul's preview of President Trump's State of the Union speech from this year: 

"When Libertarians or even old school Conservatives, (or Classical Conservatives) talk about what they would call a "free society", they're talking about a republic. But just like they're all types of cars, planes, etc, there all types of countries and even republics:

Russia is a republic. They call themselves the Russian Federation. So I guess 1 could call them a federation of republics. But under their Constitution, they are a federal republic. 

China is a republic: The People's Republic of China. But anyone who is familiar with China and communism, knows that China is a Communist Republic. By far not just the most successful communist republic in the world, but the most successful authoritarian republic in the world as well. 

Iran calls themselves the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

My point here is it depends of what type of republic you are talking about. Republic itself doesn't guarantee a free society or not...

From The New Democrat

I guess Tom Mullen's "alternative" to democracy in America, would be what he would call a republic. But as I mentioned back in March, republic in of itself, does not guarantee individual freedom: 

You take democracy away in this country, how would our leaders be chosen to run the country? 

Would just just have some "board of experts" there to decide what's best for everyone else in the country and they would appoint our members of Congress and the President? 

As U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill intelligently once said: democracy is the worst form of government, except for anything else. But 1 good thing about democracy, is accountability. The people don't like their leaders, they tend to get replaced... unless they dislike their opponents even more. (Not uncommon in America) And in our liberal democratic republic, (as opposed to some social democracy, or communist republic, religious state, etc) our leaders aren't just held accountable by the voters, but by our branches of government: 

The executive holds the legislative accountable and vice-versa

The judiciary holds both the executive and judiciary accountable and vice-versa. 

And the voters can hold both the executive and the legislative accountable. And to a certain extent the judiciary. If the voters don't like a judge, or some judges, they can call on their members of Congress to speak out against that judge, or that ruling, even ask to have that judge impeached and removed by Congress, or even call for any of the courts to be expanded.

What I would really like to hear from "Libertarians" (as some of them still call themselves) is what their idea of a libertarian republic would be. I've never really seen that. And as Tom Mullen was sort of suggesting in his blog post:

"Before the progressive era, the American political system was generally referred to as “republican” rather than “democratic.” This may seem purely semantic and to some extent it would be if the Constitution merely described a simple republic. In that case, representatives would be elected by popular vote and would generally be expected to do what those who elected them want them to do...

that we go back to an America before the Progressive Era, how would he try to accomplish that. I doubt it would be popular in this country and it would also be very difficult to do, at least constitutionally. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.