Dieter H. Dahmen
On April 19th, 1775, a shot fired on Lexington's green, a shot heard around the world, announced the birth pains of a new nation. Eight years later, to the day, her birth was confirmed and she had become free to embark on a better course of destiny than the one before, on a course she and her people had envisioned to be the proper and only path a free people should have to travel.
The musket, Captain Parker's musket, spokes instrument asserting and confirming that path with euphoric eloquence, is now suspended high on a wall, inside the Massachusetts Senate chamber, out of reach of all Americans. And to make certain it could not become the instrument of further mischief, it is rendered inoperable, courtesy of a trigger lock.
Why? Who is that monster that inserted itself into the splendor so wondrously asserted here?
Alexis de Tocqueville, French historian, traveled the new nation seeking to discover what sort of people these Americans were and what sort of government it was they had established here between the shining seas. He, bereft of comprehending individual independence, could allow for only two types of government: aristocracy and democracy. But he sensed something truly unique had been assembled here. He did see the uniqueness, but not the entire reason for it, finding most of it rooted, and correctly so, in the adherence to an Author of Liberty, Christ the Redeemer, Who had readily been perceived to be the very fundament of this new form of government.
"What form of government have you given us?" an old woman asked Franklin as he emerged from Constitution hall. "A Republic, if you can keep it!" had been his reply.
And we did not keep it! Ignorance and forgetfulness, flagitious ignorance and brazen forgetfulness! And so it is that many have come not to know what had been assembled here and because of that Americans in untold numbers, which sadly includes many who should know better, have taken to synthesizing opposites. Millions are infected with an incredible lust to parse everything in sight. That supposedly allows to pick and choose the best from the best and reassemble them in the hope of creating a new and better concept than any of the one from which they had been extracted - a new concept to one's own liking.
But it cannot be done! Whatever its nature, it will in time assume the character of the whole of which its worst portion had been a part. One can synthesize good and evil, because they are the same; good is the womb where evil is conceived. That is why you can combine redundancies like social and democracy. Even worse, you can synthesize religion and socialism, because religion intones compassion while socialism demands it. There is nothing wrong with compassion. On the contrary, compassion is one of the noblest human instincts testifying to the kinship of the species. But when enforced by law, compassion is not compassion. The sanctified, legal taking from one to give to another is not compassion; it is legalized plunder. And it is this legalized plunder, the hallmark of a democratic republic, any democracy, which furnishes us with the most poignant evidence that some things cannot be synthesized and that those include free and democracy, Christian and democracy, and most decidedly democratic and republic.
Also, in the rush to madness, people, and I emphasize people who should know better, have forgotten that corruption overpowers incorruption; filth soils purity, it is never the other way around. And so it is that people are oblivious to the fact that you cannot mix arsenic and honey in the hope of having a new and better kind of honey. You cannot mix arsenic and honey. Arsenic mixed with honey will still be arsenic. And so a democracy mixed with a republic is still a democracy; thus a democratic republic is still a democracy, just ask an East German. No occasion in history can be recruited here to give evidence to the contrary. To believe otherwise reflects mental incontinence.
The Republic, the Great Republic, a republic like no other! There have been many republics during the bloody course of human history, but never one like the American Republic and it behooves us then to linger here in order to discover what these people had created here that, albeit for a short time only, brought incomparable splendor and blessings to a great and magnificent people by whose incredible graciousness the world came to be blessed as well.
I will not here elaborate in any great detail on the structure of the Republic except to describe its sequence. God was supreme and to Him, therefore, all, especially those to whom authority to govern had been granted, were to be responsible. Invested with divine sovereignty, courtesy of the right to keep and bear arms, the people themselves were sovereign and hence supreme. Then came local and State governments which were to act as the agents of the people and then lastly the Federal government which was to be the agent of the several states.
It produced a form of government never seen before and, until God Himself will rule, in all likelihood will never be seen again. It should serve here well to have de Tocqueville speak again, when he observed:
"In some countries a power exists which, though it is in a degree foreign to the social body, directs it, and forces it to pursue a certain track. In others the ruling force is divided, being partly within and partly without the ranks of the people. But nothing of the kind is to be seen in the United States; there society governs itself for itself. All power centers in its bosom; and scarcely an individual is to be met with who would venture to conceive, or, still more, to express, the idea of seeking it elsewhere. The nation participates in the making of its laws by the choice of its legislatures, and in the execution of them by the choice of the agents of the executive government; it may almost be said to govern itself, so feeble and so restricted is the share left to the administration, so little do the authorities forget their popular origin and the power from which they emanate..."
Government's power was so restricted as to be nearly nonexistent. And it brings to mind the Montana cowboy who, when asked by a British tourist where his master (English for boss) was, replied: "That sumbitch ain't been born yet!"
We should also briefly recognize that similarity as such does not confirm identity. I have known many communists all of whom had mothers, mothers whom they loved, loved dearly. That does not make mother love a communist concept! And so the fact that people step into voting booths to make choices there, in and of itself, does not define government. It is pandemic, like eating and drinking and defines nothing. People have done so ever since the flood established a new world.
Montezuma was chosen by the people. So were Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam, just to name a few, all heads of state of democracies. Only in recognizing the difference between electing, as was done in the Great Republic, and voting, as was and still is done in the rest of the world, can anyone begin to define the difference between the American Republic and democracy, any democracy. Having clearly defined that difference will then identify democracies, where voting is the norm, and the Great Republic, in the Great Republic only, where electing was the norm.
Let us then now reflect on the quintessential essence of the Great Republic as it was at its inception. Other then by a general perception, people were not involved in its construction. The Republic was presented to them! A finished product in whose assemblage the people did not participate! "What form of government have you given us?" was the question. Remember? On a piece of paper then, precious paper, a new kind of government was certified in which the people were to be sovereign. All power was vested in them and because it was impinged by restrictions, it metamorphosed into authority, an authority that could not be subsumed by government, because government itself was to subsist only by a portion of that authority on loan to it by the people.
It is very much like visiting someone else's house. Different rules and regulations, some of which may even be repugnant to you, prevail, but you naturally submit and abide by them. The Constitution, the house, was assembled, rules and regulations were in place and all, people and those allowed to govern, abided by them. Hence, the "incredibly feeble and restricted share left to the authorities."
In a democracy people convene, build the house, set up rules and regulations as they go along, designate those who are to rule, and institute power, which is then quickly surrendered to those who are to rule, that is, government, the face of power.
Here then we see the enormous difference between the Great Republic and democracy, any democracy. In the Republic authority - restraint without force - precedes the people and thus remains immune to governmental usurpation. In contrast, in a democracy people precede authority, which degenerates instantly into power - force without restraint -, which then can and is instantly usurped by government.
In the Republic people, property owners only, unfortunately male property owners only, never decided issues directly. All knew what these were and then elected their representatives and the legislatures of each state theirs to encode the issues representative of a free and sovereign people.
In a democracy people do not elect, they vote and vote for issues directly, thus giving the criterion by which one can determine what sort of government proscribes their lives. And by that criterion we find ourselves now to be captured by a democracy, that is a democratic republic. Only a cursory look at the East German government of recent history should yield ample indices as to what that entails.
This then should help to realize that the Great Republic did not embody even the remotest trace of democracy. But at some point democratic madness sought to inject itself into the affairs of the Republic. I do not know the exact historical moment, when the monster's attack began. The earliest moment I have been able to discern occurred during the Andrew Jackson administration, with an attempt to establish a national bank. But Jackson saw it, resisted it, and warned the people not to succumb to it and for nearly a hundred years they listened.
But perhaps the most poignant display for democracy's intrusion into the Nation's affairs of state came in 1898, when South Dakota became the first State in the Union to institute the Initiative and Referendum process, inviting her citizens to participate directly in the policy making process. So it can be argued then that not until the late part of the nineteenth century did the peoples' resistance crumble allowing democracy to find a foothold here.
Not much given to digress on historical moments, which furthered the cause of democracy, I remain, in the interest of brevity, committed to the notion that only when the Fat Lady has sung are things over. It obviates the need to elaborate on the effect the Civil War and the 17th Amendment had on the destruction of our Republic. The Fat Lady sang on Tuesday, October 22nd, 1968. It was then that democracy finally and completely replaced the Republic. And now the cowboy's words ring hallow, `cause that sumbitch got born!'
No need should be required of me here to elaborate on the etiology of democracy's unrelenting destructive powers by which it overwhelmed our liberties. Heaven knows I have done so many times before. I have often sought to explain the insanity caused by euphemisms, which is nothing less then hijacking clear and simple definitions in an attempt to obfuscate truth and to beguile the simple minded. Suffice it to say that such an attempt would only demonstrate that democracy, no matter how juxtaposed, is fraught with Marxist lunacy and contaminates everything it touches.
Knowing these things is the passport to my understanding and the certificate of my assuredness. I know! When I find myself bitten by a dog and a dog is in the room with me, it does not take me a great amount of time to determine that it was this and no other dog that bit me. I also learn from the mistakes others make. And so it is that I know of the madness of a democratic republic and, therefore, that it is only another version of democracy. However, sadly and tragically others, who also find themselves bitten by a dog in the same room with them, cannot come to this conclusion, because it is their favorite dog. And so it is that those who suffer from a sickening infatuation with democracy, be that a noun democracy, or a verb democratize, or an adjective democratic, cannot bring themselves to believe that the word embodies destruction and mayhem, in spite of the fact that history, recent history even, is replete with examples of the vitriol - heart and soul - of all democratic republics.
Indeed, I know.
Dieter H. Dahmen
Body and Soul American
To return to our home page, click: