Democracy or Republic?

In recent years, the Constitution has become a

source of political controversy between conservatives and progressives. While

the right defends our founding document, the left argues that it's an

antiquated plan of government that goes against basic principles of democratic

sovereignty.



What's missing from this debate is an

appreciation for the Constitution's purpose. What kind of government were the

founders trying to achieve?



In his new book, Democracy or Republic? The

People and the Constitution, Jay Cost provides insight into that question.

He argues that the founders' vision was for a republic, not a democracy.



In both types of government, the citizens have

the power to rule, but republics go further than this. A republic, as Abraham

Lincoln put it, is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

But in a simple democracy, the majority can rule for the good of themselves,

rather than the whole community. How do you place the people in charge without

creating a democratic tyranny? By the time of the American Revolution, nobody

in the history of the world had yet answered this question.



But America's Founding Fathers did just that,

and the Constitution reflects their ingenious solution--the idea of consensus.

They created a government that would take action not because a narrow and

fleeting majority demands it, but because a large, broad, and considered

coalition of the people has found common cause with one another. This reflects

the true opinion of the people, not just a faction that is temporarily in

power. That is how government of the people becomes government for the people.



America, then, is not merely a democracy. It is

something greater. It is a republic, built on the ideal of consensus. And while

our country today has many problems, consensus remains the best way to solve

them. Far from being a liability for the United States, the Constitution is

still its greatest asset.