Dr. Martin Hash Podcast

Democracy definitely has its downside; mob rule is a real problem. As an antidote, we're told we have a Republic, one person representing many, rather than a democracy, but the pro-democracy people have an alternative story that the original choice as a republic was on purely practical grounds because it was too difficult to get a large number of people to vote over long distances, which is now antiquated and we have to get closer to pure democracy. The reason for the competing narratives is that people who are out of power come up with alternate explanations of things that are prohibiting their ascendance to power. People who want a pure democracy think it will lead to the benefit of the majority, and people who support a republic think that individual Rights, as envisioned in the Constitution, are at risk to pure democracy.

This dichotomy manifests itself in another way; the collectivist, pure democracy types, think representatives are not responsible to the people who elected them, but should instead represent the thinking of the majority. There's even disagreement with the concept politicians are responsible for executing the will of the electorate at all, but should instead represent what is “good for everybody,” as decided by them in their elite status. However, it's not in a politician’s purview to substitute their own judgment when the will of their constituency is clear. People who applaud “taking a brave stance” against the will of the electorate are simply those whose own selfish interests agree with that politician.