A Big Lie & Some Inconvenient Truths

Threats to American democracy meritless given its lack of existence

Wake Up the “Echoes.”

In today’s hyper-partisan US political climate, one talking point consistently and repeatedly crosses the aisle: “America’s democracy is under attack, threatened, in peril, in need of Life Alert!” Do these cries represent moments of macro-level unity? Or insanity? Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results yields the latter, but what about verbal repetition? If the same rule holds true, unlatch the doors at Shutter Island. A new crop of patients awaits admittance.

Meet patient group 1. The press. Some viewers hear it from local news or mainstream outlets. Fox feeds it to the right. CNN and MSNBC shout it to those who lean, tilt, and lunge left. What constitutes the imminent threat? Opposing viewpoints. In print, The Atlantic castigates a political party (in line with readership) as democracy’s enemy. Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post dramatically ponders its end with the rag’s slogan. The Constitution protects the press via the First Amendment. Given the bipartisan (albeit paradoxical) warnings of democracy’s demise, readers and listeners would expect to see the word “democracy” littered throughout the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Stay tuned.

Enter patient group 2. Political figures. Hillary Clinton recently predicted the end of American democracy if Trump regains the Oval Office. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)… once… again… made apocalyptic claims about its demise. President Biden warned of imminent attacks and threats during a global democracy summit, a January 6th anniversary address, and a Georgia stump for an election overhaul bill. The President takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Other elected representatives and appointed officials take oaths to uphold it. Reading or listening to statements from former and current oath-bound political leaders suggests to Americans that our founding documents embed democracy as the hallmark and bedrock of our nation’s governmental form. About that…

Between the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, the word democracy appears the same number of times as Tom Brady Super Bowl victories vs. Eli Manning in the record books. Zero. Zilch. Nada. How can that be? Simple. The word did not exist in 1776 and this writing bears no insight. Kidding. The real reason? The United States is not and never was a democracy. Also, apologies to Mr. Brady, still legitimately want to be you. Thanks for coming back.

I. A Big Lie.

While Americans might notice a surplus of economic illiteracy spewing from large swaths of the media and Washington DC, they do not expect civics incompetence and historical ignorance to permeate the groups given the abundance of invaluable liberal arts, PhD, and juris doctorate degrees. <Removes tongue from cheek>

It bears repeating: The United States is not a democracy. Statements to the contrary are a fallacy, a lie, fake news, disinformation.

Of course, the United States utilizes democratic processes like elections that deserve protection, but that alone does not make America a democracy. The United States is a constitutional republic. Distinction without a difference? Not hardly.

A. Stranger Danger — Democracy Ahead!

A cursory look at democracy reads quite attractively as power vests in the people to set laws, either directly or indirectly through elected representatives. People understandably want amplified voices in policy making. Democracy as a construct and tangible form of government existed at the time of the United States’ formation. The founders knew and understood it well. In fact, one of the few modernly heralded founders, Alexander Hamilton, wrote extensively of the perils of democracy in the Federalist Papers. My apologies to the late Mr. Hamilton if such a spotlight succumbs him to cancelation. Just kidding… nobody will read this. Self-deprecation aside, the founders purposefully chose an alternative path to democracy for the United States. Why?

Democracies lend well to mob rule and tyranny. While power may vest in the people, it takes only a simple majority of said people to dictate law. Democracies largely lack checks and balances that limit this power. While democracies purport to give greater say to voters, simple-majority measures often wield antithetical results. 50.1% of voters can petition and vote to legally criminalize dissent. 50.1% of elected representatives can lawfully expand executive powers to establish permanent party rule. The sole avenue to change laws and leadership ex post facto? ¡Revolución!

Modern examples of leaders who utilized democracy to expand executive powers to tyrannical levels include Fidel Castro of Cuba, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and Adolf Hitler of Germany. Examples of democracies roiled in revolutions appear frequently in Eastern Europe. The framers foresaw similar outcomes decades and centuries before these regimes and revolutions. Foresight guided the founders to craft a form of government that brought the United States under the rule of law, not the windblown whims of a simple majority. A constitutional republic permits majority rule, but unlike democracy, majority rule occurs only with consent from the minority. Broad consensus.

B. The Eagle hath Landed — The Constitutional Republic

A republic is a “government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” The definitions read somewhat similarly, and like democracies, republics are not infallible. The key difference between republics and democracies resides in the last 3 words of the former’s definition, “according to law.” Essentially, in a game akin to rock-paper-scissors between the majority’s will, the government, and the law — the law trumps all. A law given utmost deference requires integrity and procedural specificity to ensure checks and balances exist between its branches of government. That supreme law in the United States is the Constitution. What falls within the 4-corners of its pages?

20% of the Constitution describes the rights of the people upon which the government cannot infringe (negative rights). A mere 10% focuses on grants of power (positive rights). Roughly 70% of the Constitution outlines the procedural mechanisms and guardrails that bring the US government under the rule of law.

The overwhelming focus on procedure underscores the founders’ prioritization of governing the government, not the people. The emphasis on governmental restraint starkly contrasts a constitutional republic with a representative democracy.

Despite what Senator Tuberville (R-AL) may opine, the Constitution establishes three branches of the federal government: 1) legislative, 2) executive, and 3) judicial. Checks and balances between the branches ensure liberty for the American people. Those powers not prescribed to the federal government in the Constitution belong explicitly to the states. Each state sets its own laws related to elections, health care, social welfare, education, and policing because those matters differ by state and demand localized specificity and attention. So… how does the Constitution delegate responsibilities?

i. Advise and Consent

The legislative branch drafts and votes on bills that may eventually become law. The Constitution bifurcates this branch, Congress, into two bodies. Shockingly not the clowns and jesters, but instead: 1) the House of Representatives, and 2) the Senate.

The former body boasts the nickname, “The People’s House.” Today one might surmise the nickname originated within the body to convince voters its members are actually humans. Historically, the nickname arose because the House constituted the only governing body that Americans elected directly (i.e., by vote) until the 17th amendment. House representatives owe duties to the people in their districts.

The House reflects the population of each state. States with more people receive more seats in the chamber. For example, the state of California comprises 53 of the 435 seats, roughly 12% of the body. Similarly, California’s population comprises approximately 12% of the US population. At the other end of the spectrum, the geographically gargantuan state of Alaska sends only one representative due to its sparse population. Legislation begins in the House and thus the will of the American majority drives the creation of future laws.

If the House comprised the sole body responsible for enacting American law, one could accurately define the United States as a representative democracy; however, according to the Constitution, legislation merely starts in the House. Before a bill becomes law, it must first pass through the Senate. The Senate initiates requisite consent by the minority: broad consensus begins.

When forming the legislative branch, colonies (now states) with smaller populations feared the House would inadequately protect their interests due to the disparity in representation. The Great Compromise created the second chamber of Congress, the US Senate, to assuage these concerns. In the Senate, the Constitution prescribes equal legislative representation, two Senators per state. The Senate’s structure recognizes and emphasizes that populations between states may differ materially, but the individuals residing in less populated states (i.e., the minority) deserve equal participation and recognition under law.

Unlike the House, Senators owe a constitutional duty to their state interests when legislating. The majority’s will may drive the House’s legislative initiatives but those will fail to meet the President’s pen without the Senate’s approval. Thanks to this upper chamber, California, New York, and Texas cannot easily overrule the interests of Georgia, Rhode Island, and Hawaii. By design, the Senate limits democracy and instead demands broad consensus. When such consensus occurs, the bill garners a sufficient level of national appeal and moves to the Oval Office.

ii. The West Wing

The President signs a bill into law once it passes through both chambers of Congress. He or she bears responsibility to enforce it. The United States selects its President via the electoral college. The electoral college reiterates the framers’ desire to temper democracy. An actual democracy would select its executive solely by popular vote. How does the electoral college work? Why is it in place?

First, the “How.” Each state receives electoral votes that equal the state’s congressional delegation (i.e., its US House representatives plus its US senators). More populous states receive more electoral votes. For example, California casts 55 electoral votes (53 US House representatives + two US Senators), approximately 11% of the 538 available electoral votes. That percentage closely aligns with California’s percentage of the total population. Alaska casts only three electoral votes, the minimum for all states (one House representative + two Senators), due to its small population.

Next, the “Why.” More populous states tilt Presidential elections with greater propensity. Still, Presidential candidates cannot ignore the concerns of citizens in less inhabited states and claim victory. The 3-vote minimum decentralizes power from a handful of states with the most residents. The electoral college thus guarantees that citizens in every state meaningfully participate in Presidential elections. It also ensures that candidates appreciate and value the interests of the actual states. Why does that matter?

The President presides over the entire country: people, land, borders, and resources. Many natural resources benefit the nation at-large and reside in less inhabited states. The electoral college ensures those closest to the protection and development of resources are heard. While city centers in New York City and Los Angeles might individually dwarf the combined populations of “flyover” states, concerns regarding agricultural and energy production deserve genuine consideration. States with federal lands and foreign borders warrant prudent attention. The electoral college ensures that voices in Nebraska, Iowa, New Mexico, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, and Montana all reach the Executive’s ears. One need only look to the destruction and shortages of natural resources in Venezuela to appreciate the founders’ foresight to avoid democracy where urban population centers dictate national policy.

The President can veto laws passed by Congress. Congress can override the veto with two-thirds majorities in both chambers. Checks. Balances. Consent from the minority. Broad consensus.

iii. All Rise!

To tie a bow on the framer’s desire to reign in democracy, enter the judiciary. If a bill dutifully works its way through Congress and the Oval Office, individuals can challenge that law if they believe it violates the Constitution. If the court agrees, it strikes the law, embodying how the Constitution, the law, trumps the government.

Voters do not elect judges. The President appoints them. The Senate, not the House, confirms judiciary appointments giving each state and its respective citizenry equal weight during confirmation proceedings.

Readers may recall Aristotle’s quote, “The law is reason free from passion,” thanks to Holland Taylor’s brilliant performance in Legally Blonde. The statement pointedly describes why the framers opted for judiciary appointment by the President and confirmation from the Senate, rather than by direct vote or approval by the House. The House properly represents the passionate views of constituents on key issues with its role in Congress, but the judiciary evaluates legislation in the context of constitutionality — not popular opinion. A judiciary that fears backlash from the mob focuses on passion instead of reason and jeopardizes the very essence of law. The court ensures that neither the simple majority nor the government breaches those rights established in the Constitution even if popular opinion at a particular time seeks limitation. Checks. Balances. According to law.

C. Liberty, not Democracy

The founders desired liberty for Americans yet purposefully restrained democracy. Prima facie, that notion appears irreconcilable as current public discourse unabashedly synonymizes the two terms. Senator Hirono (D-HI) might swoop in if her staffers read this, but thesauruses currently produce zero results for “democracy” when users search for synonyms to “liberty.” The founders understood freedom encompassed more than the right to vote. Liberty included rights inviolable by majority-vote or government mandates. Why then do politicians and pundits constantly link the two terms? Can misinformation infect the educated class with greater contagion than COVID’s Omicron BA.2 variant? <Insert CDC disclaimer redirecting you to the COVID-19 information site here> Or do purveyors, as with other initiatives, seek to reimagine a government that revamps our system of checks and balances? What would that look like? Seat belts, please. Rough air ahead.

II. Some Inconvenient Truths.

A likely culprit for the misinformed belief that America is a democracy stems from our century-long attempt to spread it globally. Surely the United States would not seek to widely institute a government form abroad that does not exist at home. Well, evidently “Oopsie Daisies” are not exclusive to Schitt’s Creek’s David Rose.

A. “We’ve made a real fire, huh Wilson.” — Castaway (2000).

President Woodrow Wilson largely bears the blame for America’s modern misconception with democracy. President Wilson sharply pivoted US foreign policy when he deemed it the United States’ responsibility “to make the world safe for democracy.” The US thankfully emerged victorious in World War I under the Wilson administration. Sadly, his policies left the nations of Germany and Italy ripe for tyrannical takeover by Hitler, Mussolini and the perils of World War II. Wilson’s US successors course-corrected his flawed viewpoint and reversed strategies… NOT. <Borat voice emphasized> Instead they doubled down. Under President(s) Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, defense and expansion of global democracy implied freedom, prosperity, and security — even a future state of world peace. The American press and public took the bait.

Pro-democracy efforts, both militarily and through NGOs, failed to properly secure the rule of law. American leadership expected voters in newfound democracies to instinctively prioritize liberty and justice at the ballot box over vindication. They envisioned newly elected leaders would inherently apply restraint rather than revenge in governance. The results of such naivete? Ruin, rubble, and repeated revolutions at the helm of manic mobs. Kleptocracy and autocracy ensued. Dissent forbidden and criminalized. Opposition imprisoned. Persecution realized. Chaos permeated the Middle East and Eastern Europe (including Ukraine pre-2022). The right to vote remains vital to ensure liberty, but it fails to secure liberty if laws do not constrain rulers and mobs. Oh, also, if any staffers still remain, someone please show Vice President Harris the location of Yugoslavia on a map from the 1990's, as well as where that decade plots on a timeline.

An Inconvenient Truth? Democracy fails to stabilize the international order.

B. “Warning — Do NOT try this at home!”

President Wilson profoundly influenced the trajectory of American foreign policy. As democracy’s global champion, his approach to its domestic implementation also merits close attention.

Readers might anticipate that Wilson’s administration amplified the voices of American people and garnered their input in government decisions. He pursued an opposite path. Wilson routinely sought ways to avoid checks and balances that Constitutionally limit the executive’s power. He found Constitutional restraints “outdated” and the rule of law pedantic. Wilson notably usurped checks and balances through the expansion of the administrative state, aka government agencies. Why rely on Congress to pass laws when agencies can easily write diktats for the executive? Consent of the minority? Broad consensus? No need. No wonder Wilson envied Lenin for “stealing” his world view.

Wilson also attacked the First Amendment with a vengeance. The administration signed into law the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918 which censored and suppressed any criticism of the war and more disturbingly, the administration itself. Violators faced and received prosecution and imprisonment. Possession of a pamphlet that outlined the inalienable rights prescribed by the Constitution came with a complimentary 6-month sabbatical… behind bars. Wilson embodied the founders’ distrust of democracy and also why they believed Constitutional restraint would remain relevant beyond 1776.

Wilson’s lean-in to democracy resulted in: Checks and balances reduced. Separation of powers diffused. Executive authority expanded. Dissent criminalized. Opposition jailed. The rule of law depreciatied. Evaporated? The liberties due Americans under said law, liberties that leaders place our armed forces in harm’s way to protect.

Americans rejected Wilson’s encroachment on Constitutional authority and handed his political party a resounding defeat in the midterms of 1918. The results were shocking given the war victory. Wilson’s political party then lost the White House in 1920. Congress repealed the Sedition Act the same year, overturned convictions and released the incarcerated. The Supreme Court limited the “Espionage Act” and chose to encourage a “marketplace of ideas” standard upon examining free speech limitations via Brandenburg v. Ohio. American people and institutions rejected Wilson’s attempts at unfettered democracy. The Republic prevailed.

An Inconvenient truth? Democracy secures no liberty except the right to vote… for approved viewpoints.

C. Democracy as Clorox — cleaner or toxin?

What if we rewind the clock a bit further? Prominent, modern activists claim America failed to exist as a democracy until the Civil War ended and Congress ratified the 13th Amendment in 1865. Current political candidates accept this idea and portend that democracy’s demise would reverse all civil rights progress. The belief again conflates the right to vote, a democratic process, to define an entire form of government. A repeated and erred assumption, but one that raises interesting questions: Would America’s checkered past look differently under democracy? Would democracy cleanse or poison our story?

First, an examination of the checkered past. Slavery stains humanity. Its existence transcends geography, race and religion. It confirms humankind’s fallibility from the beginning of world history to its presence in certain counties today. The United States regrettably partook in this sin until the 1860's.

In 1860, 60.2% of the US population voted for a Presidential candidate that either endorsed slavery or stayed neutral regarding its constitutionality. National sentiment towards slavery grew overwhelmingly disapproving. That said, public polling showed a vast majority of Americans favored keeping the union together over the prohibition of slavery if the latter resulted in civil war. Anti-war protests even littered abolitionist states. Nonetheless, Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency and charted America’s redemptive path that same year. The statements construct neither a riddle nor an LSAT question, but “how” or “what the $#@!” constitute valid questions to ask.

The framers bickered contentiously over the issue of slavery while drafting the Bill of Rights. Those in favor of slavery outnumbered those opposed. Impasse jeopardized the formation of the union. While the founders regrettably omitted abolition, they drafted the Bill of Rights purposefully vague. Notably the framers inserted the clause, “all men are created equal,” which left the door open for constitutional challenges to slavery. Abraham Lincoln exploited that opening.

Lincoln challenged an incumbent Senator in 1858, juxtaposing his opponent’s position of “constitutional slavery” with the Bill of Rights’ verbatim phrase denoting equality. Lincoln lost that battle versus Senator Douglas, but his rhetoric struck a chord. He scored the Republican nomination for President in 1860. Meanwhile, the Democrat party split. Lincoln faced two Democratic party opponents in the Presidential race, one being a familiar face in Mr. Douglas. Douglas advocated for state sovereignty to determine the legality of slavery. This “moderate” stance appeased northerners but upset southern Democrats who wanted the practice institutionalized as the US expanded west. John Breckinridge championed this Southern view. John Bell stood for nothing but still entered the race, proving Libertarians existed even during the 1860s. The 4-headed race paired with the electoral college made the election a political game of jump ball.

The results? Lincoln carried only 39.8% of the popular vote but won 18 states worth 180 electoral votes. Douglas commanded 29.5% of the popular vote, but only 2 states and 12 electoral votes. Breckinridge earned 18.1% of the popular vote, 11 states and 72 electoral votes. Bell? 12.6% of the popular vote, 3 states and 39 electoral votes. Lincoln’s electoral college victory sufficed and led to the secession of southern states. The Civil War ensued and upon the Union’s victory America abolished slavery.

Lincoln initially used the words of the Constitution to plant the seed for emancipation. The procedural mechanisms therewithin elected him President and effectuated slavery’s demise. The result? Liberty and freedom for more Americans, thanks to the Constitution and the governmental form produced by the framers.

Magic school bus lesson complete. Next, a revisionist rehash with democracy in place. Democracy proponents might point to the unfavorable polling of slavery in 1860 and label democracy a cleaning product: the majority would vote to abolish the practice. Unfortunately, unfavorable attitudes do not equate to tangible action.

The most likely outcome under democracy is a Douglas victory. The vast majority of Americans in 1860 favored slavery’s continuation, either because they supported the practice or because they valued preservation of the union above all. Two ways Douglas wins. First, Southern Democrats acquiesce state sovereignty to determine the legality of slavery and focus efforts on state legislatures in newly formed, western states. Without Breckinridge in the race, Douglas defeats Lincoln with ~48% of the popular vote. Option two, democracy requires a 50.1% majority where the top two candidates face each other in a runoff election. Lincoln and Douglas finish one-two and compete head-to-head in a runoff where the Bell and Breckinridge votes fall for Douglas giving him a commanding majority.

Even if America was a democracy with no 50% margin of victory requirement and the candidate pool remained constant, Lincoln wins the election by plurality but the will of the majority dictates public policy — not the Constitution. State sovereignty prevails as a “middle ground” to appease the simple majority and the abhorrent practice of slavery endures. Democracy compounds the sin beyond 1865. Britney Spears described this outcome best, Toxic.

Under democracy, would Americans eventually repent and repeal the practice? Or would Americans turn a blind eye to those states that maintained its legality as many do today when ordering products from China? Even if America eventually forbade, continuation beyond 1865 stalls civil rights progress and exacerbates the disparities in equal opportunity post-emancipation. After abolition, would integration occur only when a simple majority approved without fear of civil unrest? When would that time arrive? If we fast-forward and return to President Wilson’s “progressive” administration, his viewpoints on race and segregation in the 1910’s paint a dire picture. Might US history even mirror the apartheid atrocities that occurred in South Africa until 1994? Under a democracy, it is certainly possible. Clorox accurately describes the impact democracy would place on America’s struggle over slavery and civil rights —it protects the whites and poisons when ingested.

An Inconvenient Truth: Democracy only protects the “civil rights” of the simple majority.

History showcases the detrimental impacts the United States would face as a democracy. Still, it finds public and prominent torch bearers. The reasoning deserves reflection.

In 2017, Hillary Clinton admitted on CNN the electoral college thwarted democracy. She called to abolish it. In 2021, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) epiphanized an 8th grade civics lesson on YouTube and lambasted the equal representation of states within the US Senate. She called to amend its undemocratic structure. Subsequent comments from both Clinton and Ocasio-Cortez contradict their earlier statements and predict doom for American democracy. What gives? Did someone wipe their brains “with a cloth” between statements?

The comments sadly reveal that Wilson’s dream and gaslighting tactics survived 1920. Political figures continue to manipulatively synonymize democracy with liberty and cast hollow threats of its demise to shift the narrative. Protection of (in reality: transformation to) democracy is of highest importance and virtue. If safeguarding democracy necessitates decapitation of the Constitution? So be it.

Someone needs to ask… who benefits with a castrated rule of law under democracy?

“No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are №1 and №2. Whatever is №3 is far behind”. — Thomas Sowell.

Politicians, political parties, and their allies — who else? Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. Elimination of the electoral college hands her the Presidency. Despite passage in the House, Build Back Better stalled in Congress due to the Senate. Democracy moves the bill AOC emphatically championed to the President’s pen. Without Constitutional roadblocks, politicians find winning elections and cementing personal legacies much easier. Political creatures arguably crave these items more so than Honey BooBoo’s addiction to GoGo Juice. Dollar made her holler.

Speaking of dollars, election and legislative results also provide ROIs to those invested in politicians and bills through their time and money. To identify the investors, look to political party leadership, foundations, think-tanks, lobbying firms, and political action committees. The goals of these well-oiled and deeply funded machines? Funnel money to shape campaigns and legislation. More victories at the ballot box and on the Hill? Demands from interest groups increase. More foundations and organizations arise. More causes surface or evolve to maintain relevance. The cycle creates more avenues for money to flow through and influence candidates and legislation. It also provides more cushy landing and re-launching pads for political figures. The circle (jerk) of (Washington) life. <Nants ingonyama bagithi baba>

A decapitated Constitution replaced by democracy eliminates the greatest consternation interest groups encounter today: demand for broad consensus. Broad consensus requires a bottoms-up approach that incorporates analysis and evaluation of competing viewpoints from all vantage points, even within political parties. The opinions of voters in major city centers must reconcile with those in suburban and rural communities. Broad consensus forces elected officials to act as public servants, answerable to constituencies and state interests. Private interest groups prefer the elected class answer to them while the rest of the nation simply complies. Plainly, they know best and they want their money put to work — activist shareholders with tweaked titles. Democracy enables this top-down approach as positions must appeal only to a simple majority. Political parties coalesce the aforementioned interest groups. Siloed from the concerns of everyday Americans, the organizations submit agenda items that parties enshrine as the platform largely based on whose money, influence, or ego wins the day. Influential persons help control the narrative and its distribution.

Constitutional safeguards today prevent dogma transforming immediately to law. Still, those who stray from the party line receive the traitor label despite upholding Constitutional obligations to constituency or state interests. In a democracy, holding firm serves no purpose. Party dogma becomes canon and law even when it produces undesired or harmful results to large pluralities. Ignorant attitudes towards the impact of inflation on the working-class spotlight existing callouses. Expectations that middle-class families can simply purchase $60,000 electric vehicles as they struggle with $5.00/gallon gas infers they run deep. Of concern, urban city centers still take the bait. History shows the ease and speediness with which political leaders can manipulate a slim majority to support disguised, sinister motives. Even if readers assume those currently seeking to influence or pass legislation in the US pose no tyrannical threat, democracy provides no safeguards to thwart it at a future time. The Constitution does. The Republic matters.

President Wilson championed democracy. Wilson also limited free speech and silenced and jailed critics. The people and the Constitution checked that power and overturned the efforts. Americans should carefully examine the actions of today’s leaders and how they mirror Wilson. Today’s politicians publicly pressure big tech companies to censor speech and label dissent misinformation, even when the “fake news” label later proves incorrect. Politicians and pundits now use one horrific act or statement to blanketly delegitimize large swaths of Americans. People who raise questions and concerns related to complex issues get tagged as bigots or misogynists without answer or substantiative retort. Private-enterprise cancellation and censorship currently provides the Constitutional-workaround for the government to silence certain stories and viewpoints (though avenues for challenge may exist). Without the Constitution, criminalization of opposing and critical thought becomes legal, perhaps permanent. Melodramatic? Consider the recent labeling of parents as domestic terrorists when they voiced concerns regarding school curriculum and masking policies. The label redefines both terror and threat while it also strips 4th amendment rights using the Patriot Act, a law intended for foreign actors intent on killing Americans. Such actions should invoke trepidation. Americans must insist elected leaders reverse these efforts, uphold the Constitution and demand a robust debate of all topics, no matter how controversial, utilizing the marketplace of ideas standard set in Brandenburg.

Without a true marketplace, free speech is only illusory. Without countervailing opinion, the right to vote faces an identical fate. Single party rule has now entered the chat. All under democracy. Are Americans to naively believe the powerful interest groups that invest so much time and money really seek otherwise? Americans must wake up.

These walls of words admittedly focus on figures associated with the Democrat party. The reason? Polls currently predict a midterm bloodbath for the majority party and Constitutional limitations blockaded their legislative agenda. Democrats want to maintain control and create law, as do their donor pools, so they cry loudest and most frequently for democracy. It spotlights the veiled concern is really about election and re-election, power and influence. While this piece focuses on Democrats, it in no way exonerates Republicans who used or may use similarly deceptive tactics in the past, present or future, from Liz Cheney (R-WY) to Donald Trump. Americans should similarly take them to task and hold them accountable when in power — accountable to the people, those they serve. Demand accountability to the Constitution, not party dogma drooling for control.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently stated in Munich that democracy is on the ballot this November. Americans should believe her. Democracy also found its way to the ballot in 1918 and 1920. Americans rightly rejected it in favor of liberty protected by the Constitution. May they follow suit this November and thereafter. To those oath-bound leaders beholden to the Constitution yet crying for democracy, if the Bill of Rights’ 10 pages prove too challenging a read, perhaps the Pledge of Allegiance or the title of the Union’s Battle Hymn can jog the collective memory…

“To” and “Of” the Republic.