Once again on the republic-not-a-democracy nonsense

Manfred Schmidt recalls that the original Constitutional structure of the US emerged from a time of distinct political contention. He writes:

Today political-ideological polarizations still define the democracy of the United States of America. In the roughly two-and-a-half decades since the turn of the millennium [2001], they have reached the edge of a civil-war-like enmity between tribes – the Republicans on one side and the Democrats on the other side. (1)

[The next couple of weeks I’ll be presenting a series of posts focusing on the challenges that the US and the Democratic Party will need to address in restoring democratic governance and rule of law in the post-Trump era.]

This is the world of 2025, in which the US is not a model of democracy but a test case of how to go about pushing back against a dictatorial-minded government that is working hard to do away with democracy and the rule of law.

Schmidt also makes a point of refuting the crackpot rightwing claim that the Constitution was meant to establish a republic-not-a-democracy.

The Federalist Papers are a standard-setting contribution to democratic theory, although they promote the cause of the "Republic" (Federalist Papers No. 10) and distinguish between their position and what they describe as the direct-democratic "pure democracy." In reality, the term "republic" in the Federalist Papers refers to a form of rule as it is practiced today in the democratic constitutional states of the West. However, the democracy of the Federalist Papers is still highly defective: they praise equality and yet exclude from it "women, slaves, the dispossessed and Indians" [2] from it.

The Founders read books. Including Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Harrington, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. They knew what a democratic republic was and made it very clear that’s what they were establishing, however rudimentary the 1791 form of it was compared to what we mean by democracy today.

But as Schmidt also observes, “the authors of the Federalist Papers overestimated the stability of America's politics and society.”

But, yes, they would have recognized that Donald Trump and today’s Republican Party are opposed to democracy and the rule of law. They certainly hoped that the Constitution would give Americans the tools needed to prevent the Trumpism we see today. Even someone with monarchist leanings like Alexander Hamilton would have recognized that. Although he was Trumpian enough to think that a democratic government could only function by making extensive use of corruption. So, who knows, he might have thought that Trump’s massively corrupt self-dealing was desirable.

In case anyone is wondering, no, I’m not a big fan of Alexander Hamilton. Although I would certainly not put him on the degenerate level of John Calhoun, the Evil Spirit of American history who is cheering for Donald Trump down in Hell right now.

Notes:

(1) Schmidt, Manfred (2025): Demokratietheorien, 7.Auflage, 81. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. My translation to English.

(2) Quote from Höffe, Otfried (2016): Geschichte des politischen Denkens. München: C. H. Beck.