Consensual Political Intercourse
Introduction
How often and how recently have you been corrected for calling our country a democracy, only to be told it is a republic? What truth lies in either assertion? Are we one, the other, or both? This essay examines the extent to which each assertion about our form of government is correct and delves into the roots of each. It may also help us better understand and respond to less-than-flattering labels attached to them or to their namesake political parties.
We know our founding fathers did not make their best efforts to be inclusive when debating, framing, and drafting our Constitution from May through September 1787. For now, let’s cut them some slack and assume they thought everyone aspired to be like them—wealthy, white, and men. We can do this by setting aside the obvious impossibilities faced by the period’s disenfranchised majority in attaining two of those traits. “For every man expects to be upon an equal footing with his wealthiest neighbor,” wrote Anglican clergyman Jacob Duche of Philadelphia, chaplain to the Continental Congress.[i] The famous Scottish Enlightenment philosopher and economist Adam Smith wrote, “It is because mankind are disposed to sympathize more entirely with our joy than with our sorrow, that we make parade of our riches, and conceal our poverty. …it is chiefly from this regard to the sentiments of mankind, that we pursue riches and avoid poverty.”[ii] Let’s also set aside the obvious conflation of money with contentment suggested in these two quotes. I used them merely to defend our founders’ less-than-enthusiastic embrace of equality across race and gender at the time. In deference to creating a robust monetary reward system (i.e., an economy), the Constitution they wrote kicked the proverbial can of human rights down the road to future generations, who would have to turn the parchment into their fever dream of equality.
As always, the burden of proof for what you read here rests with me. If you feel led to challenge me on anything I’ve written, I encourage it. If you seek dialogue, I invite it.
Our Common Liberal Roots
At a campaign rally for George H. W. Bush in San Diego on November 7, 1988, President Ronald Reagan remarked, “Our liberal friends just never seem to learn: You can't be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.” Reagan did not coin “liberal” as a pejorative; William Buckley did in the 1950s, suggesting that liberalism was socialism or “communism lite.” Apparently, Buckley himself was feeling too free, so he assumed everyone else was, too. Reagan simply used the “pre-woke” liberal punching bag to his Republican party’s advantage.[iii] Despite Buckley’s successful attempt to co-opt the word liberal as a political pejorative, let’s agree to apply the term in this essay in its original sense—a desire for freedom or liberty from autocratic rule and for a choice in who rules on our behalf.
The acceptance of non-authoritarian principles of governance emerged during the Enlightenment Age of liberal philosophy, spanning the 17th to the 18th centuries. We have Martin Luther, in part, to thank for these Enlightenment philosophies. When he posted his 95 Theses by nailing them to the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, in 1517, it sparked the Protestant Reformation, weakened Christian dogma, and made reason an important determinant of human development. The Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries further strengthened reason over religious dogma. Enlightenment Age government philosophies marked a radical departure from the pre-Enlightenment view that a monarch’s subjects were essentially his or her property—not to be bought or sold as in the chattel slavery model, but utterly dependent nonetheless and therefore unfree. This philosophy informed John Locke’s blend of reason and morality when he asserted the inviolable principle that “every man has a property unto himself,” grounded in the Edenic ideal of freedom—considered man’s natural state in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The post-Enlightenment rise of both democracy and republicanism as governing forms derives its foundational principles from liberalism. The Enlightenment upended previous postulates of governing hierarchy. Instead of flowing top-down from a self-appointed or so-called God-ordained hereditary monarch, it saw all freedoms, and by extension all power, flowing from individuals upward. This was an early expression of government by, of, and for the people.
Government by Paradox
Asking “What is democracy?” is neither rhetorical nor should answering it necessarily devolve into semantics. However, given how often the word appears in our daily political discourse, the answer requires reflection, mainly because it resists a widely accepted practical application from which we can draw a definition. Who among us can easily identify a democratic practice or institution and name its defining characteristics? Is our local Homeowners Association, our school PTA, or our nonprofit board democratic? What about our local town council or state legislature? Is our national legislature democratic? Does it mean self-rule; majority rule; populism; anarchy; one person, one vote; equality; or something else? I hope I have made my point through these examples. If so, allow me to help us arrive at a consensus by beginning with the word’s ancient roots and providing a comparative analysis of it with republicanism, another extant variant of government.
The word “democracy” comes from the Greek demokratia, which, in turn, derives from the two root words demos (people) and kratos (power). In the 5th century BCE, Greek city-states such as Athens practiced a form of “people-powered” self-rule. Implicit in the use of the word democracy to describe a form of self-rule is the need to circumscribe the population of citizens who are ruled and, by extension, those who rule, without mutual exclusivity. This is a practical application of “no one is above the law,” an important principle of democracy and republicanism. In Federalist Phoenix No. 3, I assert that equality is the foundational principle of democracy:
As far as any power of restraint or protection is exerted over the actions of the people in an association by the operation of the laws of that association, those same laws, by necessity, must circumscribe the people upon whom those laws operate as belonging to the association and thus as citizens; and therefore, they exist in a bond of equality under the restraints and protections of those laws.[iv]
In other words, to the extent that every person in an association agrees to be bound by the rules and the decisions of the rulers they chose, the association is a democracy. In the same Federalist Phoenix article, I also explain that a puredemocracy can never exist so long as anyone in the association is excluded from the governing processes of voting or holding office. Excluding children below a certain age does not make the association non-democratic; it, in fact, preserves its democratic nature by preventing irrational decisions. Nor does this suggest that inequality has crept into the form. I’m sure most pre-adolescents would agree to remain free from the tyranny of voting or governing.
Some people may argue that democracy is a method of choosing rather than a principle of governance. Theywould not be wrong, but isn’t choice itself an important principle compared with the tyranny of other forms of government, such as autocracy, dictatorship, and monarchy?
Adherents of republicanism also claim that power is derived from the people. Classical republicanism, rooted in the writings of Roman political philosophers such as Cicero, and later those of Machiavelli, Milton, Montesquieu, and Jefferson, emphasizes civic virtue, political participation, the avoidance of corruption, a mixed constitution, and the rule of law. A more contemporary interpretation of classical republicanism, called civic republicanism, shifts the emphasis to political liberty, or non-domination by arbitrary political power. In this context, freedom is defined as the absence of one or more persons’ power to arbitrarily constrain another’s liberties. In his treatise, On Liberty, British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote, “the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs.” In the political sphere, it is not the degree to which one group exercises its power to govern another, but the mere presence of the power to do so that concerns republicans. It is, in the negative, freedom arising from the absence of any power by one group to have dominion over another. But what of the constraints imposed by the rule of law? Civic republicans would argue that laws allow and enable freedoms so long as they are commonly understood among citizens.[v]
At this point in the discussion, we have democracy, which excludes some members of the association from participating in governance to protect it from irrational and potentially tyrannical decisions by the very young. And we have republicanism, which demands freedom from interference yet insists on laws to restrict and protect its citizens from tyranny. If the paradoxes of these two forms of governance do not cause readers discomfort, let’s move on. But first, let me reiterate: freedom from tyranny is not the exclusive domain of republicanism. In a perfectly equal society, tyranny would not take root, regardless of the form of governance.
Hard Choices: Populism or Elitism
Democratic principles prioritize one person, one vote, and majority rule, which, if unchecked, may inadvertently overlook minority rights. Classical republicanism emphasizes prescriptive rules and institutional structures that provide checks and balances to protect the minority. Direct democracies, found in many private associations and in public referenda, allow decision-making by popular vote, and voters directly influence outcomes. Think of your local school PTA when the moderator or president asks for a show of hands or a voice vote to determine the outcome of a decision. Republican decision-making authority is mediated through elected representatives, such as officers or board members. Using the same PTA example, the executive committee or PTA board may be empowered to make important decisions on behalf of the entire membership. At the national level of governance, this distinction regarding decision-making, though significant in theory, becomes less pronounced in practice, as I will explain later.
In theory, both democratic and republican forms of government seek to empower the people by asserting that authority originates with the people. A key distinction lies in their desire for civic participation in decision-making. This is where democratic populism or republican elitism may creep in. Adherents of democracy assume that an educated society will make the best choices when provided with enough information, so they prefer broad participation in decision-making. Adherents of republicanism claim they know what is best for everyone, so they seek to limit participation to the well-educated aristocracy. As a guardrail against republican elitism, democracies recognize citizen participation, in addition to voting, in petitioning and protesting, as a vital right. Republicanism’s preference for the rule of law often clashes with this democratic right. The potential for the inherent dynamism of a democracy to lead to populism is safeguarded against by the republican principle of written constitutions, which establish courts and divide powers to prevent majority tyranny. National democracies and republics elect representatives who deliberate and make decisions on behalf of citizens, acting in opposition to impulsive decision-making driven mostly by popular, pressing issues, referred to as populism. In this regard, our founders were republicans because they overthrew the tyranny of King George III—actually Parliament—and they were democrats because they protested and sought redress through unconventional means.
Most contemporary republics, including the United States, are democratic republics, harmoniously blending both traditions: democratic in that one person, one vote establishes equality among the people; republican in that authority is exercised through elected representatives constrained by constitutions, laws, and the legal frameworks that support them. These were the basic principles of governance our founders distilled from their personal knowledge and experiences when framing our Constitution. Regardless of which takes precedence or how far the political pendulum swings from one to the other, both forms of government establish and rely on a vast bureaucracy to manage the daily operations of government because our elected officials lack the capacity or desire to do so. If you prefer to pejoratively label our government bureaucracy the “deep state” or “administrative state,” that is your choice, but without it, little would get done at the national level. It is also important to understand that our elected officials created this bureaucracy of civilian professionals; it did not simply come into being on its own. Nor is any one political party more likely to reduce or increase its size.
If all of the foregoing is agreeable, we can acknowledge that the United States is not a pure democracy. Nor is any other country. A pure democracy is impractical because it would require everyone, regardless of age, to vote and govern. It is a republic in which sovereignty derives from the people through their civic participation in voting, and the power to rule is entrusted to representatives. When choosing our Representatives, we apply democratic principles of one person, one vote and majority rule, making our country a democratic republic. And herein lies the rub once we scratch beneath the thin veneer of democracy.
Democracy Lite
Only the election of our members of the U.S. House of Representatives employs the democratic principle of one person, one vote. In our unitary district system, the people choose one Representative by popular vote. The candidate who wins a majority of the votes is elected to the House. Because Representatives are chosen on a per-capita basis, we are left with the impression that we elect them by casting our votes and that the highest vote-getter wins. Though technically true, this bastion of democracy is lately being eroded by gerrymandering for partisan political purposes. In a manner of speaking, our Representatives are choosing their voters by packing or diluting the electorate in their favor, using census tract data, voter registration data, and previous election results. Most elections that employ democracy occur at the state and local levels. Referenda are another example of one person, one vote, majority rules.
Our Senators are elected at large by each state through popular vote. However, their influence is diluted or amplified based on the population of the state they represent because every state is apportioned two Senators. This is simple math. Two divided by the population of the least populous state, compared with two divided by the population of the most populous state, yields vastly different results in political influence. The least populous state, Wyoming, has outsized influence over Senate deliberations compared to the most populous state, California, on a per capita basis. Likewise, although our President receives popular votes in each state, the Electoral College casts the deciding votes on who wins the White House. The number of Electors for each state is apportioned based on the number of Representatives and Senators combined. Again, less populous states, because each has two Senators, wield more influence per capita in the Electoral College than more populous states. The apportionment of our Senators and, by extension, our Electors, is the result of the Great Compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth during debate at the Philadelphia Convention on July 16, 1787, and approved by delegates by a margin of one vote—hardly a mandate, in today’s political language. Whether by design or fortuitous concourse, the Senate became modeled after the aristocratic House of Lords in London, and, in the words of James Madison, would allow that chamber “to proceed with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popularly elected branch.”[vi] Mr. Madison’s comment is telling. He concluded that the 6-year term and minimum age of 30 for Senators, compared to the 2-year terms and minimum age of 25 for Representatives, confer “coolness” and “wisdom.” Despite Madison’s own political prowess, I will forgo dignifying the absurdity of his statement.
Most of our founders, and all of the Big Seven (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jay, Madison, and Hamilton), unabashedly espoused classical republican principles of federalism and categorically rejected democracy, arguing that it might lead to populism. While serving in the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly, Benjamin Franklin was accused by Provincial Governor Robert Morris of attempting to promote democracy. Franklin coolly rejoined, “We are not so absurd as to design a democracy, of which the governor is pleased to accuse us. Such a conduct in a Governor appears to us the most likely thing in the world to make people incline to a Democracy, who would otherwise never think of it.”[vii] During the Philadelphia Convention, Elbridge Gerry, the namesake of gerrymandering, claimed, “The evils we experience flow from an excess of democracy.”[viii] The founders were also wary of latent monarchical tendencies, drawing on recent bad experiences with the Crown. But their grievances stemmed more from Parliament’s ham-handed rule than from principled objections to a monarchy or to King George III. Benjamin Franklin expressed an affectionate bond for King George after witnessing his coronation while on a diplomatic mission to prevent an imperial rupture. After the Revolutionary War ended, while working in London on the Peace Treaty of 1783, John Adams was the first emissary from the newly independent United States to meet King George III in person. By contrast, Hamilton supported a strong chief executive to oversee the day-to-day administration of government. He went so far as to suggest, in all seriousness, that the President be appointed for life. His attitude toward a monarchy differed markedly from that of Adams. These opposing ideas informed our founders as they prepared the American experiment. In addition to personal experiences and preferences and Enlightenment ideals, they drew on less contemporary moral sources such as the Bible. They drew on the Bible not through the proscriptive approach of forgiveness and redemption found in the New Testament, but through the prescriptive, rule-based, judgmental approach found in the Old Testament.
Conclusion
If this essay has given you an understanding and appreciation of how radical the concept of liberal democracy or liberal republicanism was during the late 18th-century founding period, I feel gratified. If it has provided a fresh lens through which to view liberalism as something other than opposition to a competing contemporary governing philosophy, such as conservatism, I have succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. If you vehemently deny being a liberal, you deny, with equal vehemence, the concept of freedom from authoritarianism. If you pejoratively label someone a liberal, you cast aspersions on liberty and embrace authoritarianism. If together we want an undistorted view of our country’s political history and evolution, our common starting point must be that liberalism freed us from contemporaneous forms of authoritarianism in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Everyone loves freedom. Both democratic and republican principles claim to establish and maintain it. Indeed, we should care less about what we call it and more about electing politicians who wield those principles for the common good.
Notes:
[i]. Jon Meacham, Thomas Jefferson, The Art of Power, (Random House, 2012), 86.
[ii]. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, (Wells and Lilly, 1817), 63
[iii]. Leah Worthington, “Please Don’t Call Me a Liberal,” (Cal Alumni Association, August 5, 2025), UC Berkeley, accessed September 15, 2026, https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/online/please-dont-call-me-a-liberal/.
[iv]. Wayne Turner, “Federalist Phoenix No. 3,” My Wit’s End, Substack, accessed February 3, 2026, https://wrybantermywitsend.substack.com/p/the-federalist-phoenix-no-3.
[v]. Frank Lovett, “Republicanism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, editors, accessed June 15, 2026, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/republicanism/.
[vi]. The Avalon Project, “Madison Debates, June 7, 1787,” Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, Yale Law School, accessed September 18, 2026, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_607.asp.
[vii]. H. W. Brands, The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, (Vintage Books, 2000), 256.
[viii]. The Avalon Project, “Madison Debates, May 31, 1787,” Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, Yale Law School, accessed September 18, 2026, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_531.asp.
