A Republic – If You Can Keep It

The threats to a republic are many, and the idealized federal republic may be more mythical than real – but it is at the very least, an excellent goal. The republic seeks to tread carefully in that slimmest of passageways between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of a minority. It thus eschews both democracy and monarchy, and sets ideals of liberty and equality above that of the ruling class – choosing to restrict the government instead of the people.

But if the will of the people is expressed (and filtered) through representatives, how is it that such a representative should govern? What should we expect?

Should a member of the House of Representatives always seek to represent his district in his votes? Or is the ideal situation one where the representative votes according to his own beliefs, and – should the people of his district be dismayed – he can be voted out of office if the people find he is no longer representative of them? Should he take both into consideration, in some sort of mystical and delicate balancing act known only to himself?

If you recall, each situation will have its detractors, based upon one’s understanding of the republic.  George W Bush was seen by many as “out of touch, stubborn, and closed-minded” – meaning of course that he governed as he saw fit despite the will of the people – while a handful of commentators praised him as “resolute, confident” and sometimes even “serene”.

This was a major shift away from what the American people disliked about President Clinton. He seemed to turn on a dime, and you certainly never knew exactly what he believed. His “governance by focus group” was soundly derided, but many loved how he always seemed to feel their pain.

Although both Clinton and Bush were elected to a second term, it seems that 8 years of either style of leadership tires the people of America. After the Bush presidency, people were definitely feeling the need to have their government be more responsive.

In other words, the people had hoped that they could exercise more influence over the executive branch than they had been able to under the previous administration.  They wanted a more pliable president.

There is no longer any doubt, however, that Obama is not at all a Clintonesque President.  Even the “steadfast” President Bush was forced to back down on the “Dubai Ports Deal” due to nothing more than a concerted effort by the people.  The opposition to health care “reform” by the public was even more strident, but perhaps surprisingly, quite ineffective.

President Obama signed health care legislation today in what is really an amazing defiance of the will of the people.  The problem for Obama now lies in the fact that he was partly elected because people already felt alienated from their government.  People weren’t voting for a President Bush-like figure to be resolute in the face of public opinion… rather, they wanted to be “heard” and to “have a voice.”

After getting neither, it seems plausible that the American electorate will next vote for even more pliable representatives, in an effort to continue to democratize the republic.