[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 130 (Friday, September 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10979-S10982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE UNITED STATES IS A REPUBLIC

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Americans, commonly speaking, refer to our 
form of government as a ``democracy.'' I often try to talk with our 
little pages--both Republican and Democratic pages--out in the lobby 
from time to time. I tell them the story, ``Acres of Diamonds,'' 
Tolstoy wrote, ``How Much Land Does a Man Need,'' and I tell them the 
story, that Russell Conwell, one of the early chautauqua speakers, said 
he had given 5,000 times. I tell them various other stories, and I 
always try to help them to learn some things about the Senate, about 
our Constitution, and about our form of government. Recently, I said to 
the little pages, ``Now, is this a democracy? What form of government 
is ours?'' And I said to them about the same things that I am going to 
say here with reference to a democracy versus a republic.
  Again, Americans, commonly speaking, refer to our form of government 
as a ``democracy.'' One reason for this is because politicians of all 
political parties generally refer to our government as a democracy. 
Politicians generally do that. Glib references are constantly being 
made anent our democracy. But our form of government, strictly 
speaking, is not a democracy. It may more properly be called a 
representative democracy, but, strictly speaking, ours is a republic. 
``We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and 
to the Republic for which it stands''--not to the democracy for which 
it stands.
  Incidentally, I was a Member of the other body when the House passed 
the law on June 5, 1954, inserting the words ``under God'' into the 
Pledge of Allegiance. Exactly 1 year from that day, on June 5, 1955, we 
passed a law requiring the words ``In God We Trust'' to appear on our 
currency and coins. There are the words on the wall in this Senate 
Chamber just below the clock, ``In God We Trust.'' We passed that law 
in the House on June 5, 1955. I will always be proud that I was a 
Member of the House of Representatives when we passed those two pieces 
of legislation.

  So we pledge allegiance ``to the flag of the United States of America 
and to the Republic''--not to the democracy, but to the Republic--``for 
which it stands.'' We operate by democratic processes. Ours is a 
democratic society--I have no quarrel with that--but we do not live in 
a pure democracy. This is a Republic. We ought to get it straight. High 
rhetorical phrases referring to our form of government as a democracy 
constitute somewhat idle talk, and we politicians especially ought to 
know better.
  I sent over to the Library and got a civics textbook by R.O. Hughes, 
vintage 1927. I studied civics in 1927. That was the year Lindbergh 
flew across the Atlantic and Jack Dempsey fought Gene Tunney to regain 
the heavyweight title, but he didn't regain it.

[[Page S10980]]

 That was the year when Babe Ruth, the Sultan of Swat, hit his 60th 
home run. So this civics textbook was vintage 1927, and it was right on 
the mark. Here is what it said: ``We call the United States a federal 
republic.'' The textbook also defined a republic as ``a government in 
which the sovereign power is in the hands of the people, but is 
exercised through officials whom they elect.'' Now, there it is. The 
textbook also defined a democracy: ``A democracy is a government in 
which all power is exercised directly by the people. It is next to 
impossible for this to be done except in small communities, but the 
spirit of democracy prevails in many republics and some monarchies.''
  That 1927 civics textbook had it right. In my hometown of Sophia, WV, 
1,186 souls--as of the last census--could very well operate as a pure 
democracy.
  All of the people could gather together, and they could pass laws; 
that would not be difficult at all--like the early city-states of 
Greece.
  The 1927 civics textbook also defined a ``monarchy'' as well as an 
``oligarchy'' and an ``aristocracy.''
  Curious as to what a modern textbook on civics would have to say on 
this subject, I picked up a book, copyright 1990 by Prentice-Hall, 
Inc., and found no reference--none--to republics and monarchies. 
Instead, the book referred only to dictatorships and democracies. The 
1990 civics textbook states that one way to describe government ``is by 
saying whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy.'' The book defined 
a democracy as follows: ``Democracies are quite different from 
dictatorships. In a democracy the final authority rests with the 
people. Those who govern do so by permission of the people. Government 
is run, in other words, with the people's consent. The United States of 
America is an example of a democracy.''
  That is really inaccurate, ``The United States of America is an 
example of a democracy.'' It is not.
  Let me quote what I would consider to be the ultimate authority. This 
definition does not square with Madison's definition. If Senators want 
an argument about this, don't argue with me, argue with Madison. This 
definition does not square with Madison's definition, yet this is what 
students who study from this 1990 civics textbook are being taught.
  The same textbook goes on to state: ``Democracies may be either 
direct or indirect. A direct democracy is one in which the people 
themselves, usually in a group meeting, make decisions about what the 
government will do. Direct democracies do not work very well in large 
communities. It is almost impossible to get all the people together in 
one place.''
  That is what the book says.
  Then the book proceeds. It says: ``An indirect democracy is one in 
which a few people are elected to represent everyone else in the 
community. For this reason, indirect democracies are also called 
representative democracies.''
  It is kind of a convoluted way of getting around to saying the right 
thing, referring to a representative democracy.
  Continuing to quote from the book: ``These representatives are held 
responsible by the people for the day-to-day operation of the 
government. If the people are unhappy with the performance of their 
representatives, they may vote them out of office during the next 
election.''
  What a profound statement. That is the civics textbook of 1990. Until 
I opened up that textbook, I had never heard, I have to say, of 
``direct'' democracies and ``indirect'' democracies. So now, my Pledge 
of Allegiance would have to be stated as follows: ``I pledge allegiance 
to the flag of the United States of America and to the indirect 
democracy for which it stands,'' and so forth.
  Are you confused?
  James Madison, one of the principal framers of the Constitution, 
alluded to ``the confounding of a republic with a democracy'' in the 
Federalist #14, written on November 30, 1787. He proceeds to delineate 
a true distinction between these forms: ``. . . in a democracy, the 
people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they 
assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A 
democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A republic may 
be extended over a large region.''
  Madison was confronting the critics of the Constitution, some of whom 
sought, by the artifice of confusing the terms democracy and republic, 
to maintain that a republic could never be established except among a 
small number of people, living within a small territory. As Madison so 
ably pointed out, this observation was applicable to a democracy only.
  Madison describes the territorial limitations of democracies such as 
the ``turbulent democracies of ancient Greece,'' saying: ``. . . the 
natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central point, 
which would just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often 
as their public functions demand; and will include no greater number 
than can join in those functions; . . .'' He proceeds to say that the 
natural limit of a republic ``is that distance from the center, which 
will barely allow the representatives of the people to meet as often as 
may be necessary for the administration of public affairs.''
  Madison argues that the territorial limits of the United States do 
not exceed the limit within which a republic can operate and 
effectively administer the affairs of the people. Again, in the 
Federalist #10, where Madison discusses the sources and causes and 
dangers of faction, he defines a ``pure'' democracy as being ``a 
society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and 
administer the government in person.''
  Let me say that again.
  Madison defines a ``pure'' democracy as being ``a society, consisting 
of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the 
government in person.'' And Madison indicates that such a form of 
government ``can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.''
  Listen to this--Madison again--stating that, ``democracies have ever 
been spectacles of turbulence and contention,'' Madison proceeds to add 
that they ``have ever been found incompatible with personal security, 
or the rights of property.'' He adds: ``Theoretic politicians, who have 
patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that 
by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, 
they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in 
their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.''

  It is quite different with a republic, however. Listen to Madison as 
he extols this form as a better approach to dealing with faction: ``A 
republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of 
representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises 
the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which 
it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature 
of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the union.''
  Again, Madison clearly distinguishes between a democracy and a 
republic: ``The two great points of difference between a democracy and 
a republic are, first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, 
``--meaning in the republic--'' to a small number of citizens elected 
by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater 
sphere of country, over which the latter ``--meaning the republic--'' 
may be extended.''
  Madison in the Federalist #10 then examines whether the public voice 
pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonant 
to the public good in a small rather than in a large republic, and he 
comes down in favor of a more extensive republic as being ``most 
favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal.'' 
Madison clearly decides in favor of the larger territory. But let's let 
him speak for himself: ``The greater number of citizens and extent of 
territory which may be brought within the compass of republican, than 
of democratic government'' is a ``circumstance principally which 
renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former ``--the 
republic--'' than in the latter.''
  In summation, Madison said, ``Hence it clearly appears, that the same 
advantage, which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the 
effects of faction''--George Washington, we will remember, warned us 
about faction in his farewell address. Madison said, ``Hence it clearly 
appears, that the same advantage, which a republic has over a 
democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large

[[Page S10981]]

over a small republic--is enjoyed by the Union over the States 
composing it.''
  Hamilton, in Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, 
referred to the ``amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic 
spirit.'' Madison himself, in his notes, referred to the dangers of a 
``leveling spirit,'' when he said: ``No agrarian attempts have yet been 
made in this country, but symptoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have 
understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarter to give 
notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded against 
on republican principles?''
  Madison was probably referring to the Shays' Rebellion which had 
occurred just the year before the convention, in 1786, when he spoke of 
the symptoms of a ``leveling spirit.''
  Madison was espousing the establishment of a Senate as ``a body in 
the government sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and virtue, to 
aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its 
weight into that scale.''
  Madison went on to observe ``That as it was more than probable we 
were now digesting a plan which in its operations would decide forever 
the fate of republican government--talking about the constitution--we 
ought not only to provide every guard to liberty that its preservation 
could require, but be equally careful to supply the defects which our 
own experience had particularly pointed out.''
  What a wise, wise man, Madison. What wise men who gathered there in 
Philadelphia during those hot summer days between May 25, 1787 and 
September 17 of that year and hammered out the Constitution of the 
United States. What a document!
  In the discussions concerning the mode of selection of members of the 
first branch of the national legislature, Mr. Sherman opposed election 
by the people.
  We hear a lot about this ``democracy'' of ours. Many of the framers 
were concerned about democracy. Some of them didn't want any part of 
it. They didn't want a democracy.
  Mr. Sherman opposed election by the people, insisting that it ought 
to be by the State legislatures. According to Madison's notes, Mr. 
Sherman expressed himself accordingly: ``The people, he said, 
immediately should have as little to do as may be about the Government. 
They want information and are constantly liable to be misled.''
  Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut, was joined in this 
feeling by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts who, as Madison explained, 
averred: ``The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. . 
. . He . . . had been taught by experience the danger of the leveling 
[sic] spirit.''
  George Mason of Virginia favored the election of the larger branch by 
the people. According to Madison, Mason ``admitted that we had been too 
Democratic but was afraid we should incautiously run into the opposite 
extreme.'' They didn't want to go to the extreme on either edge.
  Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia, who had offered the resolves, 
around which the debates would swirl throughout the Convention. These 
are Madison notes from which I am quoting Governor Edmund Randolph of 
Virginia who had presented the resolves on the 29th day of May, 1787. 
It is so easy for me to remember that day because the 29th day of May 
is my wedding anniversary. It happens to be my wife's wedding 
anniversary also, naturally, May 29. We have seen 61 anniversaries 
already in our lifetime. And so here is the quote of Governor Randolph.

  He ``observed that the general object was to provide a cure for the 
evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these 
evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and 
follies of democracy.'' He was of the opinion, therefore, that a check 
``was to be sought for against this tendency of our government,'' and 
he believed that a Senate--a Senate would achieve this end.
  In speaking of the Senate of Maryland, and the length of Senatorial 
terms in that State, Hamilton said: ``They suppose seven years a 
sufficient period to give the Senate an adequate firmness, from not 
duly considering the amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic 
spirit. When a great object of government is pursued, which seizes the 
popular passions, they spread like wildfire, and become irresistible.'' 
This was Hamilton speaking, referring to the Senate of Maryland.
  It is evident from Madison's notes on the Convention that a pure 
democracy, as a form of government, did not appeal to the delegates at 
the Convention, and that a fear of the ``leveling spirit'' of democracy 
was prevalent at the time and leading members of the Convention were 
aware of this concern.
  Therefore, as Alexis de Tocqueville stated in ``Democracy in 
America,'' ``the Americans have a democratic state of society'', we 
should be more careful than to allude to our form of government as a 
``democracy.'' If we want to say it's a representative democracy, that 
is one thing. But it is not a ``democracy''. To do so is to use our 
language loosely. And we all use our language loosely from time to 
time. I do. But I never refer to this government as a ``democracy.'' I 
prefer to stick to the strict definition as explained by Madison and 
refer to ours as a republic--which I proudly do.
  The framers were wise men. As Butler of South Carolina said ``We must 
follow the example of Solon, who gave the Athenians not the best 
government he could devise, but the best [government that] they would 
receive.''
  Our founding fathers gave us a republic. As Dale Bumpers reminded me 
a moment ago--a few minutes ago, when a lady approached Benjamin 
Franklin at the conclusion of the convention's proceedings on September 
17, 1987, she said, ``Dr. Franklin, what form of government have you 
given us?''

  Franklin didn't answer saying, ``A democracy, Madam.'' His answer 
was, ``A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.''
  Our Founding Fathers gave us a republic, and we public officials, 
politicians and other molders of opinion should formulate our spoken 
and written language accordingly.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank Senators for their 
courtesy in listening. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have enjoyed being here and listening 
to the senior Senator of West Virginia on a subject about which I have 
had some opinions and to which I have given some thought, and I would 
like to engage with him at another time about these issues. But I would 
just share with him and with the Senate this personal experience.
  When I lived in California, I discovered that many governmental 
reformers had put into place in California, initiative, referendum, and 
recall. This was the cry of political reformers, I think, in the 1920s, 
and it was supposed to be a demonstration of how forward-looking you 
were if you were in favor of initiative, referendum and recall. I voted 
against every single initiative that came in California, whether I 
agreed with it or not, for precisely the reasons that the Senator from 
West Virginia has given us. Because, I said, the people should not be 
legislating directly in the ballot box. We have a republic to do that. 
The Constitution guarantees every State a republican form of 
government. And I felt that California was going down the road, away 
from that constitutional requirement.
  I have discovered, since I left California, that whenever the 
politicians there have a problem now that they find too difficult for 
them to deal with in the State assembly, they simply say: Well, let's 
put it on the ballot. And you have legislation going on the ballot that 
should be fought out in the legislative process of a republic.
  Another problem that you have in California, I would say to the 
Senator from West Virginia, if it passes in an initiative, it becomes 
part of the State constitution and therefore cannot be amended. And we 
have seen examples of legislation that could not get through the State 
assembly being put on the ballot by factions--to use Madison's term; 
today we would call them special interests--and therefore being 
embedded in the California State Constitution so that a future 
legislature cannot repair the mischief that is created by this attempt 
at pure democracy.
  So we have a laboratory here in our own Union of States that 
demonstrates the wisdom of Madison and his counterparts in creating the 
Constitution.

[[Page S10982]]

 As I say, I am proud to say that when I lived in California, as a 
citizen, as a matter of constitutional conscience, I voted against 
every single initiative, even those with which I agreed, because I 
wanted to preserve the concept of a representative republic that is the 
foundation of our liberties.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia for this most scholarly 
presentation. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to be here to 
hear it.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
observations. I am grateful for his presence at this time and grateful 
for the perceptions that he has expressed to us based on his 
experiences in living in the great State of California.
  I thank him. I think he is a scholar, a real scholar of our form of 
government and interested in keeping this republic as Benjamin Franklin 
so wisely admonished the lady. I thank him very much.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator for his kind words.

                          ____________________