The concept of freedom rests on a government limited to the protection of individual rights, while the concept of democracy rests on a government run by unlimited majority rule; we need to stop confusing these two opposite ideas.
America's foreign policy has led to a bizarre contradiction. President Bush claims to be pursuing freedom in the world, so that Americans will be safer. Yet this campaign's results — a more zealous proponent of terrorism in the Palestinian Authority, and the prospect of theocracy in Iraq — are posing even greater threats to us.
The cause of this failure is Mr. Bush's hopeless view that tyranny is reversed by the holding of elections — a view stemming from the widespread confusion between freedom and democracy.
Ask a typical American if there should be limits on what government may do, and he would answer: yes. He understands that each of us has rights which no law — regardless of how much public support it happens to attract — is entitled to breach. An advocate of democracy, however, would answer: no.
The essence of democracy is unlimited majority rule. It is the notion that the government should not be constrained, as long as its behavior is sanctioned by majority vote. It is the notion that the function of government is to implement the "will of the people." It is the notion we are espousing when we tell the Iraqis, the Palestinians and the Afghanis that the legitimacy of their new governments rests essentially on their being democratically approved.
And it is the notion that was repudiated by the founding of the United States.
America's defining characteristic is freedom. Freedom exists when there are limitations on government, limitations imposed by the principle of individual rights. America was established as a republic, under which government is restricted to protecting our inalienable rights; this should not be called "democracy." Thus, you are free to criticize your neighbors, your society, your government — no matter how many people wish to pass a law censoring you. But if "popular will" is the standard, then the individual has no rights — only temporary privileges, granted or withdrawn according to the mass sentiment of the moment. The Founders understood that the tyranny of the majority could be just as evil as the tyranny of an absolute monarch.
Yes, we have the ability to vote, but that is not the yardstick by which freedom is measured. After all, even dictatorships hold official elections. It is only the context of liberty — in which individual rights may not be voted out of existence — that justifies, and gives meaning to, the ballot box. In a genuinely free country, voting pertains only to the particular means of safeguarding individual rights. There is no moral "right" to vote to destroy rights.
Unfortunately, like Mr. Bush, most Americans use the antithetical concepts of "freedom" and "democracy" interchangeably. Sometimes our government upholds the primacy of individual rights and regards one's life, liberty and property as inviolable. Many other times it negates rights by upholding the primacy of the majority's wishes — from confiscating an individual's property because the majority wants it for "public use," to preventing a terminally ill individual from gaining assistance in ending his life because a majority finds suicide unpalatable.
Today, our foreign policy upholds this latter position. We declare that our overriding goal in the Mideast is that people vote — regardless of whether they care about freedom. But then, if a Shiite, pro-Iranian majority imposes its theology on Iraq — or if Palestinian suicide-bombers execute their popular mandate by blowing up schoolchildren — on what basis can we object, since democracy is being faithfully served? As a spokesman for Hamas, following its electoral victory, correctly noted: "I thank the United States that they have given us this weapon of democracy. . . . It's not possible for the U.S. . . . to turn its back on an elected democracy." The Palestinians abhor freedom — but have adopted democratic voting.
The Iraqis may reject freedom, in which case military force alone — as dismally inadequate as our efforts in that realm have been so far — will have to ensure our safety against any threats from them. But if we are going to try to replace tyranny with freedom there, we must at least demonstrate what freedom is. We should have been spreading the ideas and institutions of a free society, before allowing elections even to be considered. For example, we should have written the new constitution, as we did in post-WWII Japan. Instead, we deferred to the "will of the people" — people who do not understand individual rights — and endorsed a despotic constitution, which rejects intellectual freedom in favor of enforced obedience to the Koran, and which rejects economic freedom and private property in favor of "collective ownership." The consequence: looming neo-tyranny in Iraq.
We need to stop confusing democracy with freedom. Morally supporting freedom is always in our interests. But supporting unlimited majority rule is always destructive — to us, and to all who value the rights of the individual.
Hello, I found your article to be remarkable! It has contributed to my understanding of the world as a proponent of Libertarianism, which protects individual liberties, as provided for by our Constitution, and went a great way to explain how democratically elected governments (including the established government) in Afghanistan can go so far in oppressing core individual rights, such as freedom of religion and speech. Other problems related to the tyranny of the majority, including the popularity of support for Sharia law and censorship in the Middle East are also very unsettling. Thank you for brightening my day! Again, it's rare for me to come across an article with such wonderful insights! Sincerely, Melissa H
America is almost always incorrectly described by the world, and by itself, as a true democracy. The country was framed as a constitutional democratic republic. True democracy has been as large a failure as socialism or Communism historically: it inevitably deteriorates into mob rule where law is relative to the opinion du jour. However, "freedom", as described in this article, does not and should not exist. Freedom is every bit as dangerous as democracy or tyranny. For example, without a restriction on the freedom to murder, society would be a very dangerous place. The relaxation of the restriction on that freedom has led to the now-accepted fundamental right to have an unborn child killed by a doctor at the whim of the mother for no medical reason whatsoever. When morally and ethically "gray" areas like that emerge (including the freedom of assisted-suicide mentioned in the article), the majority should be consulted before "rights" that weren't expressly given in the constitution are forced upon them (there was no vote on legalized abortion; 9 people decided that your right to privacy included killing a baby, but it doesn't include killing an adult. Which is unfair. Using that precedent, I guess as long as you're in private, there should also be no restriction of your freedom to sodomize a child, or steal someone's identity, or beat your wife either). Otherwise, we're right back to tyranny again. The entire point of establishing this constitutional republic was to restrain certain human freedoms in order to maintain the prosperity of others. Without democratic representation, which freedoms are restrained and which are encouraged would be arbitrarily decided by either the "State" or the King. The article is correct in saying that democracy in and of itself is not freedom. However, democracy is a necessary component of civilized freedom. That's why it was included by the framers of our constitution right along with the limitation and separation of powers. "Freedom", as it seems to be defined here, is no better on it's own than democracy is. If I had to pick between mob rule and completely unregulated "freedom", I'd have to go with option C and, without any assistance, throw myself off a cliff. The United States constitution in it's uncorrupted, original text struck the delicate balance among all of the worst extremes of human government and between the worst extremes of human freedom. It's unfortunate that we are straying so far from that original framework and encouraging the rest of the world the join us.
The opposite is as true as your conclusion: unlimited minority rule is just as tyrannical as an unlimited majority, including the so-called rights of an individual. The sad thing is most think that overwhelming weight should be given to the minority voice. What is great in America is the opportunity of the minority, through freedom of speech, to convince the majority of its wrong thinking. Today, however, judges and enviromentalists are able to impose tyrannical rule over the rest of us, giving us the crisis society we now have.
I think you missed the point; our republic was founded on very well defined freedoms that could never be abridged by the government, but every last one of them has been compromised to one extent or another via the slow insidious shift to 'democracy'.
Reading your comment makes me feel disappointed with America foreign policy. I don´t truste in foreign goverments, even democracies or dictatorships. America must concentrate it´s resources in protecting the Home Land without sending money or soldiers abroad. Wars are always followed by devaluations of the dollar. America must protect the value of the dollar. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. Devaluation generates inflation, and bigger interest rates. That is the beginning of stanflation. We need a new Ronald Reagan to face this unsustainable situation.
Though I agree with the substance of this article, I cannot quite believe that 'freedom' and 'democracy' are 'antithetical', as you claim they are. Though one can have democracy without freedom, can one really have freedom without democracy? Though the rights of the majority must be limited to prevent the formation of a tyranny, can one really exercise their freedom in a nation where they have no right to choose their own leaders? I understand that that kind of dictatorship is not exactly what you were getting at, but still…
What disturbs me is that any group would reject the near unique guarantee to speak and act, as they will without consequence imposed by a government that is subject to the tides and whims of public opinion. This is indeed the very heart of our Constitutional ideals, and why entire groups of people are willing to toss that out the window in return for the fleeting, transitory opportunity to oppress or exploit others in the name of their particular preferences, philosophies or moral viewpoints bemuses me – for they sabotage their own liberty on the alter of their cause. Of course, that's WHY we have a Constitution. People are always more willing to restrict the liberty of others than to make good use of their own. Oh, and by this you may take for granted that I snicker aloud at all suggestions that government should be permitted to intrude in anyone's realm of conscience.
I think this is an extremely honest article, and it is very interesting to see you guys finally starting to show your true colors.
I have been telling friends for years that despite their rhetoric conservatives deeply resent democracy and majority rule, and if they could find any way of getting rid of it, without it looking like they were getting rid of it, then they would.
I believe in 'unlimited' democracy as you call it. I believe there is nothing that a true government of the people should not be able to legislate on, assuming it really does reflect the will of a stable majority of the people, and assuming also a genuinely informed electorate. Freedom is a relative concept, and it all boils down to who's freedoms do you want to promote, the majority, or the usually wealthy minority who feel they have no use for society anymore, having made their money and being in a secure financial position.
You people disgust me. You talk in code for the benefit of the true believers and rarely if ever say what you really mean. When you talk about individual rights what you really mean is you want to be able to let your fellow citizens rot in the gutter and not be compelled to take any responsibility for them whatsoever. What big men you all are, what pillars of your community.
I know very few middle class conservatives who have ever had to pull themselves up by their 'bootstraps', and many poor working class people who have to do just that everyday merely to survive. I have met very few, if any, genuinely intelligent conservatives, though not for want of searching, but I have met many perceptive and razor sharp working people. So much for the 'natural' order.
I have seen very few children who ever reach their full potential by being physically punished, but many who have flourished with encouragement, respect and support. Why, because children are born very good, not bad, and they have no need at all to be physically slapped into some preordained shape. Lazy parents hit children, parents who don't know what else to do, parents eager to indulge their own aggressive impulses in a self-righteous air of false benevolence.
Those who would tell you otherwise were usually treated harshly as children themselves and not respected for the true individuals they were. This they interpret as having been for their 'own good' and as 'having done them no harm' while then going out in the world to 'punish' and 'discipline' as many of their fellow citizens as they can. What a house of cards, what a sad farce.
Give me true majority rule any day over a conservative vacuum of so called 'individuality', and an anti social utopia where those born poor are free to make more money for the wealthy and those born wealthy are free to kick the legs out from under the poor.
To comment on the comments for the sake of contributing to lively debate (P.S. I do not intend to be rude in the slightest, folks, but will not restrain the force of my opinions for political correctness or any faulty premise :-): "The opposite is as true as your conclusion: unlimited minority rule is just as tyrannical as an unlimited majority, including the so-called rights of an individual." Individual rights are not "so-called." The rights of an individual should always take precedence over the comfort of the majority. This principle is enshrined within our Constution, specifically the Bill of Rights. In terms of controlling the populace, I think that government should be concerned with the idea of protecting liberty until it infringes upon the liberty of others. Unfortunately, this principle has continually come under attack by the majority. The FCC, for example, which was established by Congress and whose members are appointed to censor major cable channels and radio, is completely and utterly unconstitutional because it is tantamount to restrictions on free speech ("Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech…" any questions?). But this unconstitutional organization survives because the material censored is that which the majority may find objectional and they support it, despite the face that citizens can modern technology, like the V-chip and channel scramblers to avoid viewing these materials, should they choose. Another example of tyranny of the majority is Proposition 14 and the attempt to enshrine discrimination within our Constitution by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This is merely one example of how minority groups, including homosexuals, are discriminated against due to the bigotry of the majority, whose opinions rest on personal feelings (often religious) to justify the imposition of law, as opposed to scientific evidence, rational thinking, or respect for the nature of our government. It is one thing to judge, live life in accordance with ones own principles, and to advocate these views in the private sphere, with private dollars. It is another thing to manipulate the underpinnings of our democratic, individualist, secular government to impose these views; this is tyranny in the strictest interpretation. "The sad thing is most think that overwhelming weight should be given to the minority voice. What is great in America is the opportunity of the minority, through freedom of speech, to convince the majority of its wrong thinking." This is certainly true. Affirmative action (today) is merely one example of a minority attempting to straddle the majority, and it is tantamount to state-sanctioned racism. Unless there is a severe inequity of diversity which is directly due to discrimination, I do not think that affirmative action, especially not quotas, has any place in a free society. And of course, you are right to say that freedom of speech allows different ideas to be discussed in the private sphere- this is a hallmark of our democracy! "Today, however, judges and enviromentalists are able to impose tyrannical rule over the rest of us, giving us the crisis society we now have." Certainly, the Warren Court was very liberal-leaning. I have not studied oto much on this, but I do not believe that Judges, by protecting individual rights with their interpretation of the Constitution, are being tyrannical in any means. This argument of "tyrannical rule," it seems to me, is often parodied by religious conservatives who wish for their personal views against abortion, and even the birth control (Griswald vs. Connecticut), to be enshrined in law. Again, the Constitution and our judicial system has helped to protect individual rights. But on the abortion, I do agree that, should scientific evidence warrant the protection of the fetus in a certain stage of development in pregnancy which is currently covered by Roe (no such evidence exists prior viability but some sonograph images from the fifth month are quite interesting and threaten to reinvigorate the debate), then citizens should have the ability to restrict these measures by popular majority. However, I am rather certain that no scientific evidence will lead to restrictions in the first trimester of pregnancy. As for the case of extreme environmentalists, this is certainly true because they hope to enforce irrational, anti-corporate, populist measures (ex. forced recycling by individuals) in order to advance their personal, political ideas and agendas. But let us not forget that many Conservatives are no different when they attempt to advance particular moral beliefs which are by no means in consensus in the states. This is true in abstinence-only education, which NO scientific study has proven effective, but which is upheld by the majority and by Christian thinkers who envision sex as a means of procreation within religious marriage. Let's not forget that irrational behavior and tyranny exist on both sides. Ultimately, I believe that individual rights must take precedence within a democracy. Ok, now for the next posted comment: "I have been telling friends for years that despite their rhetoric conservatives deeply resent democracy and majority rule, and if they could find any way of getting rid of it, without it looking like they were getting rid of it, then they would." -Actually, Conservatives do support Democracy and especially majority rule. While strongly upholding some of the most basic tenents of our Constitution, including freedom of political dissent and freedom of religion, they tend to backhandedly support rollbacks on these liberties in accordance with their personal principles, often through democratic vote (example: display of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse, which blatantly defiles the separation between church and state). This often leads to a tyranny of the majority, something which can be found in both liberals and conservatives. "I believe in ‘unlimited’ democracy as you call it. I believe there is nothing that a true government of the people should not be able to legislate on, assuming it really does reflect the will of a stable majority of the people, and assuming also a genuinely informed electorate. Freedom is a relative concept, and it all boils down to who’s freedoms do you want to promote, the majority, or the usually wealthy minority who feel they have no use for society anymore, having made their money and being in a secure financial position." I'm afraid that this made me laugh. If pure democracy takes place in the states, we could call ourselves similar to Iran, which legislates because of popular, conservative sentiment for the Koran, or Indonesia, which just passed a popular law censoring materials "offensive" to Muslims (bye bye, figurative art). Heck, if we believe in a democracy completely subject to the whims of the majority, we might as well burn the Constitution altogether, eh??? The Constitution is the central foundation of our free, democratic society. It is nearly immune to democratic pandering (minus the stupid marriage act by Bush); it cannot be subject to the societal whims of the majority, lest we throw individual rights away. P.S. Governmental insurance of individual Freedom is not relative, it is an absolute right for every individual, an intrinsic right of intelligent beings, and this is also affirmed by our Constitution. Would you like to go to Iran, now? P.S. Don't tell them if you're not a Muslim. The majority there wouldn't like it. "You people disgust me. You talk in code for the benefit of the true believers and rarely if ever say what you really mean. When you talk about individual rights what you really mean is you want to be able to let your fellow citizens rot in the gutter and not be compelled to take any responsibility for them whatsoever. What big men you all are, what pillars of your community." No, conservative-leaning folks like me enjoy to talk about personal responsibility. By the way, what's wrong with being rich? The rich are often so because they have greatly contributed to our economic growth by their innovations to industry (ex. Bill Gates, who contributed $200 million to help innocuate children in the third world). These contributions to the marketplace often help to create jobs and funnel down to the lesser helped. While America has a great deal of millionaires due to the free market, it is also one of the countries with the least degree of separation between rich/poor, compared to say, eh…Mexico? As for ulterior motives, why don't you end the "code" and just come out and say that you are anti-corporatism or anti-globalization or anti-individualism? It's quite obvious. :-) And no, it is not our responsibility to help those citizens who make a deliberate choice not to put forth their efforts, who CHOOSE to "rot in the gutter." Help should only be given to those who do try, and many Americans are displaced and marginalized for legitimate reasons, including layoffs (common in unskilled labor) and even personal reasons such as mental illness. By all means, help these folks out! And try to help the others! But for those others, why is it not better ask if they could take responsibility for the direction of their own lives? And no, I am not a "big man," hehe. I'm a woman of partly Hispanic origin (for liberals, I guess they give me extra points for this one). And now, for the kicker: "I know very few middle class conservatives who have ever had to pull themselves up by their ‘bootstraps’, and many poor working class people who have to do just that everyday merely to survive. I have met very few, if any, genuinely intelligent conservatives, though not for want of searching, but I have met many perceptive and razor sharp working people. So much for the ‘natural’ order." Hmm…I don't really know of any middle class conservatives who have pulled themselves by the bootstraps….Wait, let me think….I know! I'm middle class and I have! When I was 15 years old, I skipped a month of school, felt extreme depression, and failed out of my grade. I considered giving up and getting a GED while finding part-time unskilled work. But I knew I couldn't give up on my principles and that there is no freedom without discipline. I switched to an alternative public school and graduated on time with a 3.5 GPA (even with those earlier "F"s factored in) and with a scholarship for my art and studies!!! Did I mention that I'm now at a nationally-ranked school with a GPA of 3.95; I make regular contributions to the literary journal, straight A's, and also study realist art in Philadelphia during the summer with top artists??? Did I mention that Glenn Beck also dealt with a cocaine addiction and hit rock bottom before he became a nationally-syndicated radio guy? In short, can we (especially liberals) PLEASE stop looking at minorities and working-class folks with a unique "victimization" attitude? It's bigoted. All of us have struggled, and it is true for the working-class and poor especially, but they are subject to personal responsibility like everyone else and can help themselves do better in our free society like America. We have opportunities here that the third world can scarcely imagine. Ah, and as for bashing intelligent, rich conservatives, did I mention that I qualify for a membership to Mensa (but that shouldn't make a difference because it's not what we have, but what we do with what we have that counts!). And my father is a genius who is smarter than I am, lived in a tiny house when he was young (without a TV), became a Marine, majored in Chemistry and Calculus, and went through Dental school, requiring a decade to pay off the fees of his private practice while he struggled with a family! My grandfather, also a bright guy, stayed home raising his seven brothers during the Depression after the death fo his mother from Tuberculosis, instead of becomming an animal doctor like he wanted! He worked his way up the economic ladder through hard work, from poverty to middle-class and beyond, and made the best of what he had. One of his brothers began to advertise homes and became a millionaire, from poverty to financial security! And they were all conservatives! None of these hard-working, smart folks whined about their victimization at the hands of economic forces, they pulled themselves up from the bootstraps, and in our free society I think this is an important lesson we all could learn from. I hope this debate has enlivened our discussions. Thanks for the opportunity to comment, folks! Ah, and forgive the typos. :-)
I really don't know if extreme wealth tends to turn people into sociopaths, or if people with sociopathic tendencies have a special desperation to climb the economic ladder. Of course talent often, but not always, lifts people above the crowd in terms of personal wealth, but I would argue that the majority of people who claw their way ahead are not talented so much as simply ruthless, arrogant and unscrupulous. There are people who admire these traits, they are called conservatives, and people who think these traits are harmful, these are called liberals.
The thing that conservatives always miss though, the fact that so often flies straight over their heads, is that we are all part of a community, a society, and it is in everybody's interests to look after one another. I think of this as a kind of family, but perhaps this is a metaphor that again most conservatives may not understand, so desperate are they to rebel against their own claustrophobic upbringing.
The irony is that most people brought up in a strict conservative atmosphere often have their true individuality trampled, as parents or guardians attempt to 'discipline' them and beat out of them any true spontaneity of spirit. As with all things a balance is required, and conservative parents I think get the balance wrong, compelling their children to spend the rest of their lives over compensating for the lack of true consideration they received when young.
The individually that conservatives so crave is, I firmly believe, just one big resentful excuse to ignore all the responsibilities they have to wellbeing of their communities, their country and the world. We have, for instance, a responsibility not to invade other countries simply for economic or strategic gain. That's a kind of murderous 'individuality' the world can do without. Unfortunately what conservatives call individually, normal people think of as self-centeredness, arrogance and greed.
Of course people have a responsibility to themselves and their immediate loved ones, but this is balanced against a general regard for the broader communities of which we are all a part. It has often struck me that conservatives can be such lovely people when it comes to their immediate family and social group, but go beyond that and the well being of anyone else in the world doesn't seem to even register on their radar. I don't think they actively want to hurt other people, so much as they simply don't care. As such conservative values represent to me a type of amorality, a system of circular logic that exists merely to defend their right to do nothing for anyone except themselves.
This philosophy of course leads to constant conflict and all sorts of avoidable difficulties for their fellow citizens and themselves, and yet conservatives will carry on fostering a self-righteous contempt for anyone or anything that doesn't appear to benefit them directly.
Having read this article and all of the comments that have been submitted, I can only come to the following conclusion: Get real! Haven't you heard? Even GW says that the Constitution is "just a Goddamn piece of paper!" The President, the Supreme Court, and with a very few exceptions (Ron Paul maybe) all of Congress believe that the Constitution is obsolete and shouldn't be followed anymore. I'm afraid it is too late to save the republic. The democracy has taken over and most sheeple, being lazy with no ambition, will continue to elect those who promise them the most from the federal treasury. The socialists have taken over and they really don't care what the "Goddamn piece of paper" says! Will Mattison