In democracy, people, not ruling class, are sovereign

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” —Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.

I agree with Vicki Penney-Rohner that an educated populace is vital to our nation’s security and prosperity. In her April 23 letter entitled “Republic roots lost on today’s populous [sic],” she cites as an example of the dumbing down of America the lack of engaged conversation about our form of government and the difference between a democracy and a republic.

The offered definition of “democracy” is “the group with the most power forcing the rest of the country to follow its dictates.” That pretty well describes nearly every form of government including monarchy, oligarchy, anarchy, and dictatorship. Philosophically, what differentiates “democracy” is the concept that the people, not the ruler or ruling class, are sovereign. In that broad sense, the United States is a democratic country, a government that, as the Declaration of Independence says, derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The power of the government is derived from the rights of the populace, not the other way around. The particular implementation of this idea is where the republican form of government is unique. The central question is: what is the fundamental entity that possesses rights? If it’s the people, then you have a democracy. If it’s the individual, then you have a republic.

What we have is neither, and that’s probably a good thing. Although the underlying principles of this country define it as a republic, we have a lot going on that is justified not by protecting the rights of the individual, but rather by doing good things in the judgment of the majority. These additional functions have been created by laws whose validity is subject ultimately to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution in light of how its principles apply to today’s situations. Thus the principles and ideas, not the people promulgating them, possess the ultimate power; this is what makes us “a government of laws, not of men”.

Ms. Penney-Rohner decries the view that the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution, contradicting herself in the next sentence saying their job is interpretation, not legislation. This too is a continuing conversation regarding the extent to which the Constitution is open to interpretation without violating or abandoning the immutable principles that are its backbone. Does the Supreme Court violate our trust by interpreting the Constitution in light of changing social opinion, as she accuses? Our founding documents say that governments are instituted “among men”, and “all men are created equal”, and a close examination of these documents and their original implementation makes it clear that they referred to white men. Should these documents be interpreted in the light of the eventual realization that women and people of color also possess rights, institute governments, and must consent in order for a government’s powers to be just?

Social Security is a right, she says. The money is “yours and mine, period.” That’s not quite accurate. The government is not just taking your money and then giving it back to you. The Urban Institute publishes annual estimates of the difference between what retirees have paid in and the benefits they receive. This ranges from receiving about 25 percent more than was paid in, to receiving more then eight times as much as was paid in. There is no enumerated right in the Constitution, nor is there any stated unalienable right in the Declaration of Independence, that says when you and I retire we have the right to take 25 percent to 800 percent profit at the expense of the current taxpayers.

Nonetheless, Social Security, Medicare, public education, and many other forms of tax-funded benefits are certainly doing a lot of good, even though they are clearly going beyond simply preserving the rights of our citizens. Is it right that the government should do some good things that are beyond the scope of a strictly-defined republic?

It is so important to think about these questions, especially in the current political climate, which is an alarming demonstration of what happens when people skip the first part of Ms. Penney-Rohner’s advice to study up and understand how our republic is supposed to work, and jump right to the second part: “get mad and do something about it”. There’s far to much madness and not nearly enough considered disagreement. The freedom to disagree and challenge each other and our leaders is one of the greatest attributes of our country.

What makes America great is the underlying immutable principle of freedom: freedom of each individual to exercise those natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; limited by the necessity of respecting and preserving the very same rights in others.

Editor’s note: The incorrect populace in Vicki Penney-Rohner’s My Turn column headline was an error by West Hawaii Today, not Penney-Rohner

David Rodman is a resident of Kapaau