“We may appeal to every page of history...for proofs irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous, and cruel as any king or senate possessed by an uncontrollable power. The majority has eternally, and without any one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority.” – John Adams
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams
As I discussed in my first article in this series, our Founding Fathers considered democracy the “most vile” form of government because it created factions that would tear the country apart. The voters would eventually bankrupt the nation by demanding politicians give them increasing amounts of other people’s money. As Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Hence, they did not trust “the people” as a whole.
Then, what kind of government and society did they try to establish? It is a fascinating historical study that few Americans today truly understand.
Our Founders believed that there were basically three natural forms of government: monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and democracy (rule by the many, or the people). All of them were dangerous and had the historical tendency to degenerate into a tyranny: a monarch would devolve into a dictatorship (one man rule), an aristocracy would eventuate into an oligarchy (rule by the rich few for their own benefit), and a democracy would lead to mob rule, which would end up in a dictatorship, too, as decent people would demand somebody stop the chaos. As historian Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote, a democracy is “always followed by a dictatorship.”
So, our Founding Fathers didn’t want a pure monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy. Thus, they produced a “mixed” government with forms of all three within it. The president would represent the “monarchy,” the Senate was the “aristocratic” branch (fewer in number in Congress, and chosen, initially, by the state governments), and the House of Representatives was the “democratic” branch—chosen directly by the people, and given control of financial matters. The idea being a “checks and balances” situation. No bill could be passed without the consent of both houses of Congress (both the “aristocracy” and the “democracy”), and the president (the “monarchy”) had to sign it into law (he could veto it and send it back to Congress, which could override his veto). Passing laws was not easy and wasn’t intended to be because laws restrict freedom and can lead to government tyranny, the one thing the Founders feared most of all (it’s what they believed they had rebelled against). The system of “power” was also divided among the national government and the states (a “federal” system), with most of the power being in the hands of the states and local governments for the simple reason that they are closer to the people and thus, theoretically, easier to control. Since the people in “power” had to be elected due to the size of the country, a “republic” was established (elected representatives of the people, not every citizen directly taking part in every government decision).
Thus, not a democracy. A monarch—one man—was certainly to be feared, and a small number (an oligarchy) could also be dangerous. But “mob rule” (democracy) was most frightening of all. How could the masses be contained?
That’s the government the Founders established. But who were the best people to rule? How could we make sure we got virtuous leaders, those who wouldn’t tyrannize the people? All governors are to be dreaded and limited in power, but only a virtuous leadership could have even a small measure of trust. How to accomplish this?
The society our Founders wanted was based on freedom—and equal rights before the law to all. They did not believe that all humans have equal talents, abilities, intelligence, etc., but that all people should be treated equally in regards to their access to freedom—government, as much as possible, should stay out of people’s way, only protecting property and preventing men from harming one another. The idea was that if all are left free to pursue their own interests, with minimal government interference, then “the cream would rise to the top”—those with virtue, industry, and character, if left free, will succeed. Lazy, shiftless, promiscuous people will fail and sink to the bottom (and the country, frankly, owes them nothing, certainly not other people’s hard-earned property). Nobody can complain if there are some “winners” and “losers” if everybody is free and equal. Obviously, slavery was a problem, but one they hoped would eventually be solved; they couldn’t do it in 1789. But what this “freedom” and “equality before the law” would produce would be, what I call, an “aristocracy of merit.”
The old European aristocracy was based upon family lineage—an “aristocracy of birth” and could not ensure quality leadership. King George III literally went insane. So, to our Founders, let the best people emerge, by freedom and equality before the law, to the top through virtue and industry. And these people should be the rulers of the “mixed Republic” they established. Not democracy. John Adams stated, “If you give more than a share in the sovereignty to democrats...they will vote all the property out of the hands of you aristocrats.”
Create a country based on freedom and equality before the law. With limited government interference, the virtuous and industrious would succeed. But everybody should have an equal chance, and if you fail, it’s your own fault. An “aristocracy of merit” would be produced—virtuous leaders, not those chosen by “democratic” masses who would vote themselves the money of others.
Unfortunately, increasing democracy is what America got. Next: how feminism has helped destroy American democracy.
My substacks are a little unique. Not just current events, but history, our Founding Fathers, what America was meant to be, and Biblical exegesis. Check them out. “Mark It Down! (mklewis929.substack.com) and “Mark It Down! Bible Substack” (mklbibless.substack.com). Both free. Follow me on “X”: @thailandmkl. Read my western novels, "Whitewater," "River Bend," "Return to River Bend," and "Allie’s Dilemma," all available on Amazon.