Empire America - Spreading Freedom, Democracy, Terrorism

Empire America – Republic or Democracy?

By Michael Knight.

In the first of the Federalist Papers, which set out the arguments in favor of a unique United States republic under a federal government, the word "empire" was used to paint a picture of a cohesive nation able to take its place in the world on an equal footing with other empires of the time.

Today, the United States has surpassed them all.

America is now a nuclear-armed Super Power which has moved from sailing ships to sailing in space, from the flintlock to the Bunker Buster bomb, and from a republic to a democracy.

Which was the last thing the Founding Fathers had in mind.

If one studies the Federalist Papers with an honest desire to understand what the Founding Fathers were prepared to fight and die for, with a genuine wish to embrace all that is great about America, and with an open mind set on observing the very foundations of thought that went into establishing this mighty empire – then one is in for a few surprises.

Not least among those surprises is this: When one compares just the first of the Federalist Papers with what America obviously is today, then one cannot escape the realization that America has morphed from a republic (which the founders established) into a democracy (which the founders abhorred).

Today, critics of the United States fear that it is indeed in the process of establishing a global empire – albeit an empire which by definition is far removed from the meaning ascribed to that word by the Founding Fathers.

In fact, they sincerely favored a complete "Union" of the states, governed by a political system known as a "republic" – a republic which would be the first and best of its kind in the world.

So much did they prefer this type of governance over all others that they clearly stated their opposition to democracy in Federalist Paper 10.

James Madison wrote: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as
short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Is it not therefore an irony of the first order that today, the United States Government is determined to spread democracy around the world?

Reflection and Choice - Accident and Force

In its early days, according to the first of the Federalist Papers, it had been "frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

In other words, they believed that it was only through "reflection and choice" that this country could avoid the "accident and force" by which government was imposed in other countries.

The debate of the time was about "nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world."

Since its inception the United States has indeed been one of the most interesting societies in the world. And it has also been an ever-growing empire.

The "public good" was what James Hamilton and his colleagues sought to address at all levels of debate, in particular the debate over a new form of federal government and an abiding Constitution. Nevertheless, they conceded that human nature being what it was, the subject would surely attract "views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth."

How little has changed.

They expected opposition from men who feared the diminution of their existing power, and from the "perverted ambition" of others opposed to a federal government who would prefer positions of power in a series of confederacies.

"Nothing could be more ill-judged," wrote Hamilton, "than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties."

It still does, as witness the intolerant spirit of modern political commercials, the muck-raking attacks on opponents, and the zeal with which political aspirants and incumbents denounce each other.

"The Specious Mask of Zeal"

Wisely, Hamilton observed that "a dangerous ambition …often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people."

He went on to say: "History will teach us that (this) has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism …that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

By definition, a demagogue is a leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace. Pretending concern for the people, he ensures electoral victory.

But once in office, he will then claim absolute power (perhaps referred to as a ‘mandate’) over all his ‘subjects.’

Such is the hidden agenda of a closet despot, a secret tyrant who uses honeyed words to appeal to the people but whose true colors are eventually revealed not by his words, but by his actions.

Such people have been responsible for the overthrow of many republics throughout history. And as we know, history has a habit of repeating itself.

Intent upon making a break from monarchical and democratic forms of government, the Founding Fathers asked Americans of the time to be aware of "the conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government (and)( the additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that (republican) form of government, to Liberty, and to property.

How strange then, that that "species of government" is no longer considered to be the American way. Strange indeed that "democracy" has supplanted those lofty ideals, and now, in the name of "freedom" democracy is being spread – often by force of arms – by an "empire" which is led by a "Republican" party.

From the point of view of those countries and people now subjected to the reach of the modern American empire, an empire which we are told is "spreading freedom and democracy around the world" can we really say this option is one in which they have the opportunity for "reflection and choice"?

Or does the death of tens of thousands of civilians suggest to them that democracy is being imposed by "accident and force"?

Well, who cares what they think.

Shouldn’t we find it more to the point to consider what we think?

In this case, the "we" is in the words of former Pentagon advisor Richard Perle, who is reported by The Pittsburgh Tribune Review to have said the "Bush doctrine" to promote democracy in other parts of the world is the only way to combat an "intensely ideological movement," especially in the Middle East, that fosters global terrorism.

"This doesn't mean imposing democracy by force. We can't do that, and we know we can't do that. But sometimes the obstacles to democracy can only be removed by force," he said.

Such are the pearls of political wisdom. We cannot impose democracy by force. We can only remove the obstacles to democracy by force. Darling I would never rape you. I am just tearing your clothes off so we can make love…
.
Frankly, today’s headlines about the carnage that bedevils Iraq in the name of "freedom and democracy" since the US invasion suggests that the thrust of the Federalist Papers, which were intended to unite America as a true republic and a unique empire, were seeds that fell on extremely infertile ground.

The hybrid that those seeds have become – a democracy that to all intents and purposes now denies its roots as a republic – might well invoke a hollow ring in the Liberty Bell.

And tears in our forefathers' graves.

(The next in this series will examine the second of the Federalist Papers).

©2005 Michael Knight

(Footnote: "The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written under the pen name of Publius by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay." From - http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/ ).

Does Freedom Prevent Terrorism? – No.
Acts of terrorism within the US deomocracy