Democracy vs. Constitutional Republic

Here CNN tries to convince the low information voters that the US is a Democracy. They do so by mocking voters who understand, at some level, that the US is not a Democracy, though being low information voters they can not articulate why.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/06/17/cnns_donie_osullivan_some_trump_supporters_say_america_is_a_republic_not_a_democracy.html

Let’s see if we can help CNN and these low information voters out.

We are NOT a Democracy. Democracy is a leveling political system that is characterized by a strict majority vote. It is the rule of the mob. Democracy is always first and foremost concerned with equality and is a system that guarantees the rule of those who always serve the interests of the lowest common denominator in the population. Democracy is the aristocracy of the bad, the false, and the envious.

We are a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic is system whereby the mob cannot rule, limited as they are by the strictures of the US Constitution and by the inherent checks and balances within the system. A Constitutional Republic is always first and foremost concerned with liberty for the man who walks in terms of the law and constraint against the man who walks contrary to the law. A Constitutional Republic is the aristocracy of the meritorious – a meritocracy.

The Founders warned gravely against Democracy. Edmund Randolph, delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Virginia said;

“The general object of the Convention was to provide a cure for the follies and fury of Democracies.”

Elbridge Gary and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut urged the Constitutional Convention to create a system that would eliminate the evils that flow from the excess of Democracy.

Alexander Hamilton, Constitutional delegate from New York said;

“We are now forming a Republican Government. real liberty is not found in democracy. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”

John Adams said;

“Democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time democracy will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel.”

The Constitution itself requires a Republican form of government for all states. This indicates that originally we were a Republic of Republics.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked ” “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied; “A Republic if you can keep it.”

Now to be sure our Constitutional Republic had a touch of democracy in it with the direct election of House members by voters but that was where the democracy impulse ended. Originally, there was no direct vote of US Senators, no direct vote for US Presidents and no vote at all for SCOTUS appointees.

The US was never a democracy though the lugenpresse and the lying Politicians (but I repeat myself) constantly talk about how “We are a democracy.”

We were never formed to be a democracy. However, that is indeed where we have matriculated over the course of years. The US Constitution is no longer a check on the vicious use of raw power. The 17th amendment inched us more towards a direct democracy. The stripping of state’s rights also pushed us towards a direct democracy. The 9th and 10th amendments, which were bulwarks against democracy are completely irrelevant.

So, while it is true that according to original intent these united States were never intended to form a democracy, that is largely where we have come to. Indeed, one might be inclined to observe that we are a democratically elected Kakistocracy — that is a government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.

Because we have been a Kakistocracy for so long now, all that is left to choose from to elect to governmental office are derelicts, mountebanks, and perverts. Because we, as a people, have been in a Kakistocracy for so long all of our Institutions have become corrupt, feeble, cancerous and unprincipled. Living in the US now is like living among Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, and the One Hundred Twenty perverts.

Even the visible Church is now a Kakistocracy. It weeds out the best men, or, failing that so intimidates otherwise good men they dare not lift their voice against the ecclesial Kakistocracy less they lose their livelihood. Just ask Michael Spangler, Ryan Turnipseed or Bret McAtee and they will tell you that the intent of “accountability” that church government was suppose to foster is now simply a mechanism whereby good men can be held accountable to wicked or small men and so be squashed.

However, lest we stray to far from our original intent, this nation was never intended to be a democracy and if CNN ever sticks a microphone in your face to mock you, you now have the ammunition to mock them right back… mock them for being so stupid that they could possibly ever suggest that US was founded to be a democracy.

Finally, after reading this, perhaps the next time you hear Joe Biden or the Democrats bleat about how if we elect Trump to be president we could “lose our democracy,” your response will be,

“Dear God, I hope so.”

There’s No Christendom Now?

All the stories have been told
Of kings and days of old
But there’s no Christendom now
(There’s no Christendom now)
All the wars that were won and lost
Somehow don’t seem to matter very much anymore

All the trusts have been sold

All the fire is now cold
There’s no Christendom now
(There’s no Christendom now)
All the troth that were made and broke
Somehow don’t seem to matter very much anymore

All the blood that once tied

Man to Man has now died
There’s no Christendom now
(There’s no Christendom now)
All the clans that were bold and strong
Somehow don’t seem to matter very much anymore

The prayers once asked

Are they part of the past?
Is there no Christendom now
(Is there no Christendom now)
Still, God remembers the pleas of yore
So somehow it all still matters very much anymore

As long as there’s a King

My voice will still now sing
There is a Christendom now
(There is a Christendom now)
God will arise and His enemies retreat
So somehow it all still matters very much anymore

Doug Wilson on How the White Romans Killed Jesus

“But if for some reason you are looking for the instrumental cause, the Romans were the ones who killed Him. To be more specific, white Romans were the culprits (Mark 15:15).”

Rev. Doug Wilson 
Pope of the CREC

*It is true that white Romans were the instrumental cause of Christ’s death.

 
*The Scripture though, lays the blame at the feet of the Jews who were the efficient cause of Christ’s death;

Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man [u]attested to you by God with [v]miracles and wonders and [w]signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of [x]godless men and put Him to death.

And again,

I Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and [r]drove us out. [s]They are not pleasing to God, [t]but hostile to all people, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always [u]reach the limit of their sins. But wrath has come upon them [v]fully.

 
* Keep in mind that the Scripture records that for the White Romans Jesus prayed; “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” The implication here is that the Jews did know what they were doing by crucifying their Messiah.

* This looks to me like Doug Wilson is trying to lessen the responsibility that the Scripture squarely places on the Jews for crucifying their Messiah by seeking to broaden the blame so that the Jews are seen as not being any more culpable than the “White Romans for murdering Jesus, the Christ.

While it is true, and must be preached, that it was the sin of all God’s elect of all races that crucified the Lord of glory, that fact does not make it less true that the Scripture records as a matter of historical fact that the Jews are the ones who God held culpable for crucifying their Messiah.

The good news of the Gospel is that this generational sin can be forgiven of all men, inclusive of Jew and Gentile, who sue for peace with God, in faith, by agreeing with and believing God’s record that Jesus can forgive their sin — both personal and corporate. Jesus has said… “Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” This is true for both Jew and Gentile.

Now, having said that, why does Doug Wilson continue to seek to diminish the guilt and responsibility of the Jews for crucifying their Messiah — and this in the face of the Scripture’s clear testimony to the contrary?

And let’s keep in mind that there are at least some Jews who pass all this off as a matter of their stand up comedy routine;

It is interesting here that Sarah Silverman says that “many people try to pass it (the crucifixion of Christ) off on the Romans.” This is exactly what Doug Wilson is trying to do.

McAtee Disagrees and Agrees with C. J. Engel on the Problem with Theonomist Social Theory

“Stephen Wolfe’s disagreement with James White and Wilson (and Joe Boot too) reflects precisely what I’ve been talking about for years: the inability of modern political theologies to properly understand the function of the Political within the paradigm of civil society.

People thought it odd that I would draw parallels between theonomic thinking and liberalism; but I have always emphasized that both of these models adopt the modern view that society springs forth out of the heart of man: the soul must be converted and the integrity of the political order at large is downstream from the conversion of souls. Liberalism of course is a secularized version of such things but the fact remains that for them, politics reflects culture.

This neglects the role of hegemony in society and the fact that society always reflects the vision and ethos of its elites. This is especially true and unavoidable in the post-Managerial revolution where culture is a product of political calculus and flows out from the plans of social engineers. The fact of the matter is that the Political serves the role within civil society of “Society making.” It mediates and facilitates the soul of the people, the ethos that will be adopted by that people; a nation reflects its rulers.

Read: the magisterial reformers (Turretin, Hooker, Vermigli, etc), Paul Gottfried, de Jouvenal, Carl Schmitt, James Burnham, the Paleoconservatives, and even people like Edmund Burke, the counter-revolutionaries, and the Federalists. They understand Power and it’s function to craft the souls of men and societies far better than most moderns.”

C. Jay Engel
X Post

1.) First, I think it profitable to emphasize the proper definition of culture here since Engel posits that theonomists and liberals posit that politics reflects culture. If we understand that culture is the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs or, more succinctly put, culture is theology externalized, then we have to understand that it is indeed the case that politics reflects culture.

2.) Now, we must note that while Engel may indeed be correct observing “the fact that society always reflects the vision and ethos of its elites.” However, it is simply the case that the vision and ethos of the elites is itself a result of their theology being externalized into the political order. So, the theonomist would argue that if one wants to see change in a given culture it is not so much mass conversions that are required but rather conversions of a people’s elites. This fits well with the accounts of early Christian mission efforts where we read that the early Christian missionaries would go to the King, Shaman, or tribal wise man knowing that if conversion could be made among these then the whole people would follow.

So, despite Engel’s denial “that society springs forth out of the heart of man:” it remains the case. The difference between myself and chaps like White, Wilson, and Boot is that I am insisting that it is not the heart of mass man out of which society springs, but rather society springs out of the heart of the ruling elites or even in some cases one ruling elite in the case of someone like King Alfred or Oliver Cromwell.

3.) So it remains true, despite Engel’s denial that “the integrity of the political order at large is downstream from the conversion of souls.” Our difference is on whose soul’s conversion are necessary in order to have the integrity of political order. Engel rightly protests that the likes of Wilson, White, and Boot who think that there needs be mass conversions in order to effect this change. I enter the same protest but without denying that politics reflects culture — the culture of the elites and so society at the same time reflects the culture of its rulers.

4.) I quite agree with Engel that the “Political serves the role within civil society of ‘Society making.’” However, I insist that theology/religion serves the role within civil society of ‘Elite Making.’ This is a Theonomic observation and demonstrates that Theonomy remains the only model that can consistently provide relief.

5.) Having read many of Engel’s recommendation, I remain on solid ground.

Redemption Aimed At In “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance?”

An article by Marvin Olaskey got me thinking about this and pushed me to come up with my own slightly different take.

_________

In the film, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” film-maker John Ford demonstrates in the villain’s name and character (played by Lee Marvin) that Liberty expressed as malevolence (Hence the name Valance?) is the worst kind of license.

The character played by Jimmy Stewart is named “Ransom Stoddard.” In the film Ransom is willing to surrender his life (as a ransom) in an attempt to rid the town of the malevolence of the license brought by “Liberty Valance.” And that is what everybody thinks happened as Ranse is universally thought of as “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.”

The town Sheriff is aptly named “Sheriff Appleyard” (played by Andy Devine). Appleyard is a bumbling but lovable fool with no real authority in the town. Devine was Barney Fife before Barney Fife was Barney Fife. The Sheriff’s last name is interesting though if only because man showed himself a fallen fool as happening in a “Appleyard.” No real help against the license of Liberty Valance is going to come from the fallen Sheriff Appleyard.

In the climax of the film, everyone has abandoned Ranse as he faces down Liberty Valance in a gun fight wherein Ranse is clearly overmatched. It is dark out. Here we see themes of Jesus being abandoned by all while all is still dark. Ranse is rescued by Tom Doniphon’s (played by John Wayne) surreptitious gunslinging thus providing a ransom for Ransom.
Because of Doniphon’s heroics he loses the girl (played by Vera Miles) to Ranse Stoddard. Could it be that the name Hallie in the film is short for Hallelujah?

“The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” is indeed a tale about Liberty and how liberty can easily turn into license. It’s also a tale about how true liberty has to put down false liberty in order for all people to enjoy true liberty, but it’s also a tale about how a town is ransomed so that everyone can say “Hallelujah.” Finally, it might be taken as a tale that teaches that the true hero who provides the real ransom sometimes is not recognized by those whom he provided the ransom.