https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/whatever-happened-to-democracy/

Those of us whose experience goes back a way into the lastcentury, can remember when “democracy” was the main theme of Americandiscourse. A million tongues proudly andrepeatedly declared that America was
the
Democracy,exemplar and defender of that sacred idea to all the world. Hardly anyone dared to question thatsentiment. It saw us through two worldwars and the Cold War.


Of course, praise of “democracy” was not always sincere, andthe term never had a very strict and clear definition. But most Americans thought of it in Lincoln’ssonorous phrase: government of, by, andfor the people. In practical terms thatseemed to mean majority rule. In thatcase Lincoln was not sincere because he headed the party of a large minoritythat seized control of the federal government and made brutal war againstanother large minority of the people.

Of course, a lot of questions were bypassed in thecelebration of “democracy.” Who are “thepeople”? Who gets to participate inmajority rule? Our Founding Fathers,like the ancients, were wary of a too pure democracy. They would have been astounded by the notionthat a few million uninvited immigrants could wade ashore and immediately becomedeciding members of “the people.”

The Founders preferred to consider themselves “republicans,”not “democrats.” For republicans “thepeople” were not the mass but citizens with substantial stakes in society. Some, the Hamiltonians, thought that pure majorityrule simply meant that the poor majority would vote themselves the wealth ofthe rich minority, that the people are “a great beast.” Therefore, the majority had to be hedgedabout by Supreme Courts, infrequent elections, a strong executive with armedforce, government bondholders, and a national bank. Hamiltonianism now universally prevails,except that the constitutional gadgets that they relied on have never quiteworked as they are supposed to. Theywould undoubtedly be shocked at some of the purposes of social revolution towhich radicalized elites have devoted their institutional power.

The Jeffersonians had a bit more trust in the people and theability of the majority to decide justly. After all, most folks were busy making a living and did not bother thegovernment as long as it did not bother them. It was elitists who hung around the halls of power looking for privilegeand profit. However, it cannot beover-stressed that the government in which the majority was to rule was one ofvery limited power. It was the agent ofcertain collective tasks but had no power to seriously interfere with thenatural society of those who deserved to be called free men. For Jeffersoniansmajority rule was very limited in its jurisdiction, and the farther away it wasthe more limited it should be.

The thoughtful have always understood that there is a tensionbetween democracy and liberty. They do notnaturally go together, in fact are logically in conflict. Democracy strictly considered has nothing tosay about liberty. However, Anglo-Saxonhistorical experience had for some time provided what seemed to be a practicalworking relationship, so it was somewhat natural to think of “democracy” beingthe two things happily married.

Looking a step further ahead, we find in our path another powerfulidea: equality. Majority rule suggested that citizens weremore or less equal in their political rights and freedoms. But both ancients and the Founders werepretty clearly convinced that liberty and equality were natural enemies andvery unnatural companions.

We no longer talk much about “democracy,” but Equality isall the rage. Minorities are to be made“equal” by government force: majoritywill and constitutional limitations be damned. Aspiring politicians no longer promise just rule and following the willof “the people” but announce what government power they will use to enforceEquality. Democracy, majority rule, thewill of the people are obsolete ideas that stand in the way of sacred Equality.

Thus, Obama can disdain the people for their “guns andBibles” and Hillary Clinton, like Alexander Hamilton, can describe the peopleas “deplorables.” In a genuine governmentof the people both of these characters would be sent down in shame forinsulting “the people.” Instead, they gatherthe votes of a majority of the electorate. How can this happen? I offer apossible explanation. The Americaneducational system has turned out millions of pseudo-intellectuals, people withno particular intelligence or learning and who have no real power but who thinkthat because they share the egalitarian scripture that they are thereforemembers of the elite and superior to those deplorables.

In present day America vast amounts of the national wealthare owned by a tiny fraction of people; imperial military bases straddle the globe;and five Supreme Court justices can make social revolutions in defiance of law,tradition, religion, and common sense. Aprivate banking cartel controls the credit and currency of the country; theflow of information is effectively controlled by a few unknown oligarchs; thereis an unpayable government debt that can never be paid, is partly owned byforeign powers, and will economically enslave our descendants; there is nocivilized democratic political debate but only advertising campaigns competingfor market share.

This cannot possibly be a government of the people, ademocracy. It is even an enemy of genuine equality ofcitizenship. We should stop pretending weare a democracy, but that would be an intolerable blow to Americanself-esteem which has long been based on denial of reality.