Will Edwinson

Author & Storyteller



This blog was originally posted on October 26, of last year, but with the current political primary elections taking place right now, I think it bears posting again.


There is a notion being bandied about these days(mostly by liberals) that the United States is a democracy.  Some have even erroneously referred to our system of government as a representative democracy.  Are we a democracy or a representative republic—or have we morphed into an oligarchy? Let’s explore these questions a bit further.

democracy—a noun An organization where everyone is treated equally and has equal rights.  2.) Government by the people; supreme power invested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly by a system of representation.  3.) Absence of hereditary or arbitrary distinction of privilege.

Such is the definition of a democracy given by The Online Dictionary and Merriam Webster.

According to an essay entitled, An Important Distinction: Democracy vs. Republic–author unlisted—written in the American Ideal of 1776: The twelve Basic American Principles, the definition of democracy as stated by the sources I mentioned above, may be overly simplified.  According to my understanding of this author’s interpretation, democracy has a double meaning, majority unlimited and majority limited.   One is a specific type of government, the other is a specific  form of government. A majority unlimited democracy, by its very nature of majority rule, can be tyrannical.

Old Glory

Is Old Glory the symbol of democracy or a representative republic

Majority unlimited democracy represents the majority unlimited.  In other words, the majority rules, period.  It is omnipotent with no regard for the rights of the minority, i.e., the example of three foxes and two lambs voting on the proposition of “what’s for dinner?”  The majority vote of the three foxes has no regard for the rights of the three sheep.  The majority rules.  This is true for both types of majority unlimited democracy—direct democracy, as in the previous example, or representative democracy as in the English Parliament.  The English people live under the majority vote of the House of Commons with little or no redress.  The majority’s power is absolute and unlimited, which opens the door to unlimited tyranny by the majority.

The Founding Fathers were searching for a type of popular democracy that We The Peoplewould ensure power to the people and still protect the minority from majority tyranny.  They accomplished this with a different form of democracy—a representative republic which is still a type of democracy but with restraints on the power of the majority.  Hence, our Constitution, and our representative republic. This Constitution provided safeguards for protecting the rights of the minority against the omnipotent power of the majority as was the case with direct and representative majority unlimited democracies.  Since the Constitution is the absolute law of the land, every piece of legislation passed in the Congress by a majority must pass Constitutional authority.  This provision was designed to prevent the omnipotent power of the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority.  It’s purpose is to control the majority; primarily to protect the individual’s God-given unalienable rights, and liberties of the people in general by putting restraints on the actions of majority rule in the Congress.

But unfortunately, as the Progressive movement gained more power, Congress began delegating their responsibility over to bureaucrats.  They learned they could pass a simple law, or create a new agency, and then pass the rule writing process onto unelected bureaucrats.  Congress also granted to these bureaucracies the power of judge, jury, and executioner with the power to impose massive fines without a trial.  In many instances these bureaucrats wrote excessively egregious and punitive regulations(ignoring private property rights) that forced businesses and individuals into expensive court battles for redress.  Hence, our move toward that of an oligarchy.

James MadisonOur original government came about as described by James Madison in  Federalist,  number 10, when he pointed out that through the centuries democracy was erroneously regarded as a form of government, rather than a type of government. Madison’s quote: “Theoretic politicians,  who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Now let’s explore oligarchy, a bit more.

John AdamsOligarchy—a noun,  a form of government in which all power is invested in a few persons, or in a dominant class or clique; a government by the few. 2.) A state or organization so ruled.  Unfortunately, I believe we have regressed back into an oligarchy where “snob-rule” of the elite, and the “mob rule” of the majority prevails in both chambers of our Congress, and in the bureaucratic agencies and the courts, as well.  Our Constitution is being shredded daily. Hardly anyone, not even the courts, pays attention to our founding document anymore.   We live under regulations that faceless bureaucrats wrote and administer.  I don’t recall who said it, whether it was James Madison, or John Adams, and I  paraphrase: Our Constitutional protection  will only prevail so long as the people remain moral and true to its  tenets.

Our path to becoming an oligarchy began to pick up steam back in 1912 whenWoodrow Wilson Woodrow Wilson was elected president.  He was instrumental in getting the Progressive movement up and running.  Theodore Roosevelt was the first Progressive president, but it wasn’t until Wilson’s time that it began to take hold.  Later, after World War I, the  country was living high on the hog (“a chicken in every pot, and two cars in every garage”) was the slogan when the Great Depression came on the scene.  Democrats saw the Depression as a godsend.  In order to get elected, they started pushing the Democrat Party as the party of the people, the party of the little guy.  The Republican Party, they said was the party of the rich.  So with the help of their allies in the media, the Progressives (i.e. Democrats) began their ruse on the American people, and a good many of them fell for it.  They fell in line just like Lemmings.  The sad part of all this is, the establishment Republicans of today are now a party to this scheme, the same as the Democrats.

The scheme behind the Progressives plan was to gain control of the people. People fell for it, and sadly about fifty percent of the population  are still following the progressives like a pack of Lemmings.  Free health care, free college tuition, expanded food stamps for illegal aliens, social security benefits for illegal aliens, free hospital emergency care for the poor and illegal immigrants; guaranteed job protection, guaranteed wage control, and free food stamps for everybody.  The list goes on and on, and on.  This all sounds good and very humanitarian, but their “ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” and I think most who are reading this post will agree.  Who’s going to pay for all this largesse?   The standard mantra is: “Well…them rich folk, of course.”  What happens when the rich are taxed so heavily that they aren’t rich anymore?

Ben FranklinWith promises like the ones above, there is always a catch; and that catch is more often than not, a trade of freedom for security.  Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin, and, again, I paraphrase: Those who would be willing  to trade freedom for security, deserve neither freedom nor security.

Total security breaks the human spirit; makes people dependent, and dependency ultimately destroys self-respect, and without self-respect, we have nothing.  We become like sheep; follow the leader.  This country became great because early on, the Founders recognized self-reliance was the key to success. Self-reliance feeds the human spirit, develops self-respect and self-confidence. It all goes back to the old axiom, “give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach him how to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”

The Founding Fathers understood this, and they realized that a government governs best when it governs least.  The trouble, as I see it, is that what the Progressives are shooting for, with all their so-called humanitarian hyperbole, is to make us wards of the state; subjects instead of citizens.  They love the power it affords them.  The people allow themselves to suffer under the resultant oppression for so long, then they rebel and start the process of securing their freedom all over again.

Alexander Tytler

Alexander Tytler

It all goes back to two undeniable truths,  man’s innate desire for freedom, and  human nature as expressed in Professor Alexander Tytlers’ circle of bondage.  He wrote that as soon as the people learn they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury,(which the Progressives promise)  a free society begins to crumble. It happens in eight stages.  While in bondage, a people develop a spiritual relationship with their creator; from this spirituality comes courage, they fight and gain their freedom.  With freedom comes prosperity; human nature being what it is, prosperity breeds selfishness and greed. From there they move to apathy. (We’ve already entered the apathy phase.  We’re not paying attention to what is happening to our republic.) From apathy, they move to dependency. I think we’re close to the dependency phase with all the promises the current politicians are making.  From dependency, we move back into bondage, where the Colonists were under King George III.

I told my youngest daughter when she was ten years old (she is now 40) that I was certain that her generation, or her children’s generation would have to fight another revolutionary war for freedom. I stand by that prediction today.  The metamorphism away from freedom is steadily progressing.  Whether we want to admit it, or not, I believe we’re already an oligarchy.

The next step is monarchy or totalitarianism and bondage.  And the irony of it all is that those who are streaming to the United States looking freedom and the better life, are ultimately leaping from the frying pan into the fire, because in a few years if we continue on our present course, we will be just like the countries they are leaving.

Shadow Revolution Final e-book coverCheck out my latest novel.  Titus Coppard and the revolutionists faced the same question we now face.  Read the novel and see how they solved the problem.  It’s available in print version at amazon.com and barnes&noble.com.  It’s also available on all five e-reader devices.  Enjoy.


P.S.  See flyer below.



Shadow Revolution Flyer





  • Great article! It seems that both democracies and republics are temporary forms of government. I mean, It’s deja vu all over again! Look back: Rome’s republic lasted four glorious centuries until the pressures of population growth, immigration of minorities, and corruption of an overgrown bureaucracy made it ungovernable. (Sounds like us today!)

    Eventually, Julius Caesar and Rome’s subsequent strong leaders ended the charade and chaos of what had become a populist democracy by imposing autocratic rule. With strong hands in charge, relatively impervious to the demands of special interests and the masses, Rome enjoyed a couple centuries of glory, and the known world enjoyed PAX Romana, centuries of peace, travel, and trade throughout the Mediterranean world. But it still collapsed by 400AD when, with an ever growing population demanding assistance, it could not defend against the Northern hordes that swept down to sack Rome.

    America’s noble experiment, emulating the great Republics of ancient times, has now come to those points of collapse, with foreign entanglements, a huge population expansion, the organized demands of special interest groups, an excess immigration of diverse minorities, and gross corruption at the top, all combining to strangle any orderly governance. That is why a Donald Trump seems so appealing to many–like Caesar and the 300 years under the emperors of Pax Romana, such an autocrat might solve our problems.

    Politics has been called “the art of compromise,” and our leaders of today have brought it to a new disastrous level; when you compromise to every popular demand, cater to the vocal majority, and use deception and lies to hold power, nothing sensible gets accomplished. No rational leader wants to be in the position that Hillary Clinton et. al. is so good at–promising everything to everyone, while catering to the elites that finance the elections, and actually doing nothing to forestall the slide into national bankruptcy and suicide. The rational individuals are running the giant corporations that operate successfully throughout the world and they operate under dictatorial By-Laws that grant them full executive power, subject only to a Board of Directors that can replace them if their clearly measured results falter.

    Professor Alexander Tytlers’ observation is well known: “as soon as the people learn they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury,(which the Progressives promise) a free society begins to crumble.” However, recent history has shown that an autocrat can avoid excess tyranny, and create or restore a national economy and spirit, while overcoming the fatal weaknesses of democracies. It happened in Singapore, Chile, Hong Kong, and even under Islam in the Emirates. It happened for centuries in the Italian city states that flourished during the Renaissance. The Princes and Doges that took over whenever the many recurring Republics faltered in Florence, Venice, Milan, etc.
    maintained an enlightened order that was the glory of civilization for centuries. And they did it while protecting private property and allowing upward mobility. Citizens don’t enjoy voting–they enjoy economic freedom and opportunity!

    As the article states, in America, a growing number of the voters have moved from apathy into dependence, and the slide goes on, accelerating with each new election of pandering compromisers. I can’t wait to read “Shadow Revolution” and see how Titus Coppard and the revolutionists solve such intractable problems!

  • Thanks for the comments, Bill. Very profound. And as Alexander Tytler stated, most free republics or democracies last, on average, about 250 years. So based on that, we’re good for about another 24 years before our system totally collapses unless something similar to what you stated about an autocrat like Trump takes place.

    I like Trump’s courage in stating what needs to be said. I think that’s why he is so popular right now. My only concern is that he may try to run the country like a typical CEO, and he, too, could move close to the edge of becoming a dictator.

    Right now, I’m leaning very heavily toward Dr. Ben Carson. What would be nice, I think, is for all these conservative candidates to make up the new presidential Cabinet. Perhaps with their guidance we might be able to stop this Progressive juggernaut that’s taking us down the track under a full head of steam to a major train wreck.

    P.S. Stay tuned for an upcoming post about the U.S. as a Kakistocracy. I think you’ll enjoy that one as well.

  • Thanks Will– I like Ben Carson too, but worry that many voters will just not get excited about his low-key, calm, soft-spoken approach. It’s unique in today’s sound-bite world.

    BTW- The 250 year life of democracies is not absolute–this time around it could be just 226 years–and Trump could be the answer! What’s wrong with running the country like a company–say Apple, Procter and Gamble, Colgate, General Mills, etc.? They use budgets! Hire and promote all types of people without regard to their race or class! Operate successfully in hundreds of countries where they are liked and respected! Promote competent executives to replace superiors and carry-on for generations in a stable self-sustaining manner! Keep their debt at reasonable levels! Reward their owners! And, stay out of conflicts and wars! If only the government and state department could do any of that!

  • Hi again, Bill. No, I have no problem with running the government agencies like a successful corporation, as long as the president and Congress stay within the confines of the Constitution. I hope Mr. Trump realizes he will have Constitutional restraints (and obligations) and will honor them, and not be like his predecessor who thinks the Constitution is a negative document that should be scrapped. The trouble with BO is that his narscistic tendencies cause him to want to be a king, but he has about as much common sense as Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned. I agree with you that all bureaucrats should be held accountable for their actions, and if they screw up, it’s out the door.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Let’s Connect!

 Follow me on Twitter
 Connect on Facebook
 Amazon Author page

Shadow Revolution Final e-book cover
Grab a FREE sample of my book, Shadow Revolution
Want The Newest Post?

Copyright 2013 Will Edwinson