It's the Economy, Stupid!

The following blog entry provides a summary of the material discussed in class over the last few days. It is designed to provide a point of departure for the consideration of current issues facing the United States today.

Some Background and Context

James Carville, Democratic political strategist for Bill Clinton came up with this slogan to help keep Clinton campaign insiders "on message" as their candidate stumped against President George H.W. Bush. Republicans have employed it somewhat this Fall against Democrats. Whether or not this strategy tracks with voters remains to be seen. However, the real story here is that overspending has been going on for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The History of Spending

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyneHFa07tQ&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Let's begin by looking at the way US government spending breaks down. It doesn't take much to see the problem. Just look at three snapshots of spending (2012, 2015, 2017) and you'll see a dangerously quick moving trend...

You'll note entitlements (i.e. government benefits paid out to citizens - namely Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) are growing steadily. This reflects the population distribution, where the older outnumber the younger considerably. In three years, these entitlements went from accounting for 41% of federal spending to 49%. That represents a $119 billion increase. Over time, this will make these entitlements unsustainable.

See the following video for a quick summary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfZyffw7U6E

Simply put, the nature of the changing population and resulting commitments in entitlement spending will soon put the US government in a position where the amount of money spent in these areas ALONE will exceed ALL the money the federal government takes in.

At the same time, the federal government continues to borrow more and more money daily in order to sustain its spending which results in higher and higher budget deficits and more and more debt.

The Problem of Debt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zPyZZIvwCc&feature=related

The Debt Limit: Made Simple

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yJRci2pARk&feature=related

These two forces - the growth of entitlements and the growth of deficits and debt will eventually make it impossible for the government to meet either its entitlement obligations or any other public needs like infrastructure. 

As John F. Kennedy noted in "Profiles in Courage," ultimately the public gets the government it deserves. Political leaders are unprepared to commit themselves to real solutions because they fear that those affected by any cutbacks will take it out on those who presented the solutions. And no one wants to tell a segment of the public that they can't have what others have had up until now. The pressure to be liked and the pressure to be re-elected prevails over the pressure to face reality.  

Another reality is that as we have become wealthier in the western world, we have become more materialistic and convinced that individual "needs" are higher and require greater expense. One outcome of this is a declining birth rate -- people are simply having less children. 

While there are many factors that can have an impact on the birth rate (see the article link below), there is no question that some make the decision to have children later or perhaps to have less children because they feel that to do otherwise would not allow them to satisfactorily meet either their children's or their own needs. 

https://www.moms.com/cdc-says-not-having-enough-kids/

https://www.insider.com/us-fertility-rate-hit-new-low-in-2017-2019-1

The overall financial impact of a reduced birth rate is that there will be less public support to pay for entitlements -- something that the architects of these programs might not have foreseen. 

See the following link for a more detailed analysis of the history of entitlement spending. 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/entitlement_spending

Another uncontrolled factor is the fact that people are simply living longer, committing the government to more payouts than previously. When Social Security was implemented in the 1930's, life expectancy was 58 for men and 62 for women. With eligibility being set at 65, many people were no longer alive to collect this entitlement. 

See the link below for a review of how life expectancy is changing and the relative impact on Social Security.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html


See the link below for an overview of the Social Security debate in the United States. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_in_the_United_States

Often, particularly over the last number of years, military spending is seen as the overriding cause of government deficits and debt. However, while a significant amount of money has been spent for security of the homeland and fighting terrorism abroad, more has been spent on entitlements and entitlement spending will continue to grow in  a way that military spending never has.

Another way to look at the numbers is to consider government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product -- that is all of the wealth created from all national economic activity in a given year.

More Recently

Clearly, there are choices that will need to be made over the next number of years in order to avoid a financial meltdown unlike anything that has ever been seen in world history. It is important to remember that the  American government is a partnership between the Congress (made up of the House and Senate) and the President. For example, under Republican Ronald Reagan, debt climbed, however Democrats generally controlled Congress. The Democrats in Congress increased social spending. Reagan increased military spending due to the Cold War. Together, they increased the annual deficit and consequently, the national debt, although Reagan wanted to reduce the size of government and spending in general. In the end, Reagan's economic policies which led to the longest peacetime period of growth in American history created enough revenue that tough political choices could be avoided -- for the time being.

At the end of the Clinton era, a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) and a Republican congress (Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert served as Speakers of the House while Bob Dole and Trent Lott served as Senate Majority Leaders for the majority of the Clinton presidency) had their challenges, but in the end actually created surpluses in excess of 200 billion dollars a year. However, these surpluses were achieved by dipping into the Social Security trust fund, which was money already committed for that purpose.

The George W. Bush Era 

The 2000 election between Texas Governor George W. Bush and Clinton's Vice President, Al Gore came down to a choice between how the surpluses would be spent. Gore promised to spend more government money on environmental causes and other social spending. Bush promised to cut taxes and return the surplus to those who had earned it -- the American taxpayer. Otherwise, the world seemed relatively peaceful to Americans, so foreign policy was not a major consideration for voters.

September 11 would change all that. President Bush, who was almost entirely focused on domestic issues such as education and growing the economy through tax cuts and reducing regulatory burdens, now found himself as a wartime president. After 9/11, President Bush worked together with the firm support of Democrats who controlled Congress to make America safer and strike out aggressively against Islamofascism.

These initiatives included, but were not limited to:

• Invasion of Afghanistan (House vote: 420-1 in favor; Senate vote: 98-0) Cost: $171.7 billion between 2001-2008
• Invasion of Iraq ( House vote: 297-133 in favor; Senate vote 77-23
  39% of House Democrats, or 82 members joined with Republicans on the vote and 42% of Senate Democrats, or 21 senators supported the authorization) Cost: $13 billion initial outlay - plus $9 billion a month or roughly $589.3 billion between 2001-2008

• Creation of the Department of Homeland Security (House vote: 295-132 in favor; Senate vote: 90-9) Cost: $385 billion between 2001-2007
• Passage of the Patriot Act (House vote: 357-66 in favor; Senate vote: 98-1) Cost: $340 million between 2001-2008

Other major expenditures in the Bush era included:

• Prescription drug coverage for seniors - Medicare Modernization Act of 2003(House vote:220-215; Senate vote: 54-44) Cost: Roughly $740 billion between 2001-2007
• Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 Cost: $773 billion

So what happened to cause that economic crisis at the end of the Bush presidency anyways?

The Mortgage Crisis 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPI8XFfBxHk

Even here, the analysts disagree. Liberals want to blame it on "capitalism run amok" -- essentially too much "deregulation" and conservatives want to blame the Democratic Party controlled Congress for ignoring requests from the Bush administration to look into the lending practices of government sponsored Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association - FNMA) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation - FHLMC), who were making loans to high risk clients.

The Obama Era 


For the first two years of the Obama presidency, Congress was firmly in Democratic hands. The President was able to win favor for his agenda, which included a massive health care package and a stimulus plan that, by the President's own admission, had not produced "shovel ready" employment.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Cost: $787 Billion (House vote:246-183); Senate vote: 60-38 - only three Republicans in the Senate supported the bill and none in the House)

There is no real idea of what the cost of health care legislation will be. Democrats claim that it will eventually reduce the debt, Republicans claim it is a major tax grab that will increase the debt and destroy the quality of the health care system.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is seen as a non-partisan agency of the government had initially projected that the ACA (Affordable Care Act also known as Obamacare) would reduce the deficit because it included major cuts to Medicare and new tax increases. However, recently the CBO has stated that because the interpretation of the law and its original provisions have been changed so many times since its original acceptance that there is not way to reliably predict the effect of the ACA on the deficit.

Here is an example of how the same information can be viewed differently, depending on your point of view:

CBO Quietly Drops Forecast That Obamacare Will Cut the Deficit

Obamacare Is (Still) Fiscally Responsible

So what is the ACA projected to cost anyways? According to a CBO report in March of 2015, it was expected that the federal government would spend significantly less on Obamacare than had been projected. Instead of $1.35 trillion in costs from 2016 through 2025, Affordable Care Act-related expenditures were expected to be $1.207 trillion, the CBO said.

Is President Obama the biggest spender in history or just more of the same and not that much different from other recent presidents? Depends on who you ask…

 Read the following articles and see for yourself… We Report, You Decide

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Bottom line, the national debt under Obama climbed from 10 trillion to about 19.7 trillion dollars. The US also had its credit rating diminished and in polls near the end of Obama's presidency more than 65% of the population believed the country was on the wrong track.

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates

http://www.usdebtclock.org

The next elections will be about choices and consequences. Although both parties have a different narrative on the topic, the mathematical realities are not really debatable. The Trump Era is three years along now. It is still too soon to say what will happen to spending and revenue at this point. However, it is easy to see that the option of kicking the can further down the road will no longer be possible. The article below provides one opinion of how things are going in the Trump Era so far. The US national debt is now at 22 trillion dollars.

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-plans-to-reduce-national-debt-4114401

There Is No Such Thing As American History - Only a Frontier

For yesterday's class, you were asked to watch the clip below from the series, "Mad Men," in which Sterling Cooper's creative head, Don Draper speaks suddenly and extemporaneously to his staff which has been pressed into working the weekend to craft an advertising campaign for American Airlines -- desperate to get out a message to counter the bad publicity surrounding a recent crash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-iWbrT-nvI

You were required to provide an analysis of Draper's message by applying basic concepts of American Exceptionalism as studied in class. Remember that we will have more activities such as this to apply and deepen your understanding of American Exceptionalism.  Hopefully, these activities will help deepen your understanding of the concepts we are studying and assist you in completing the assignment on American exceptionalism. Below is complication of some possible responses. 

American Airlines is no more about the past than America is---

In this line, Draper appeals to a sense of patriotism – equating the company with the nation.  At its core, American patriotism is based on freedom.  American Airlines represents freedom (Religiosity - source of utopian aspirations). On an individual level, the airline industry represents freedom to travel which is a means of exerting power over one's own life. In a larger sense, the power of flight broadens interstate commerce and allows America to do for itself and to expand by doing business in foreign lands (Industriousness - self reliance - getting ahead). This idea comes back full circle to patriotism because when Americans do business abroad, they instinctively bring their rugged individualism, their drive, their passion for freedom and their nation with them. As Conrad Hilton said, "It's my purpose in life to bring America to the world whether they like it or not." In this vision, American Airlines is at once America's chariot and ambassador.  

Ask not about Cuba, ask not about the bomb. We are going to the moon.

Here, Draper goes beyond optimism to conviction. In 1962, reaching the moon was yet to be done, but Don Draper is convinced that it WILL come to pass. America does not await a fate - America has a DESTINY as long as people dream and are bent on defeating the impossible. 

Build it and they will come – Field of Dreams 

America is a nation of DOERS -- take action and have dreams – Ted Kennedy, in his eulogy to his brother, Bobby said," As he (Bobby Kennedy) said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream of things that never were and say why not."

Utopian aspirations and getting ahead tied up in one  -- 

There is no such thing as American history – only a frontier – 

Colonization was the frontier in America. This was followed by expansion west through the Louisiana Purchase, the exploits of Lewis and Clark, culminating in Manifest Destiny and extending on to the moon. There would always be another frontier for Americans because they refused to limit their imagination and as a people embraced man's inner need for challenges.

This line is also a bit counterintuitive – isn’t America’s history something to be proud of? Isn’t it the story of who they are as a people? What Draper means is that in the context of the post World War II era – America IS the future.  Why? How can Draper be sure? Because America saved the world from Nazi tyranny. America had rebuilt Europe and fed the hungry. America was the leader of the Free World and protected the world from Soviet hegemony.

American Republic Test Review

Below you will find a summary of the review for the upcoming American Republic Test, which will take place on Friday, November 1, 2019.

Format - 5 points - Multiple Choice, 17 points - Matching, 33 points - Short Answer (4 questions) 

American Republic Test Topic Breakdown

Republican Government Structure

·      Legislative Branch – Congress

·      Executive Branch – President, Cabinet & Government Agencies

·      Judicial Branch – Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, District

Heritage

·      Parallels between structure of British parliamentary system and American Republicanism

·      Differences in power of federal government in US vs. British model

·      The British theory of balance in the body politic vs. American accountability and differences in perception regarding the role of government in society

Function (i.e. How a bill becomes a law)

·      Requirement for bill to be passed by both houses

·      Requirement for bill to go through committee (sometimes several)

·      The Process – Introduced, referred to committee, committee hearing, tabling, reported out, calendared, floor reading, debate and amendments, role of conference committee, engrossed bill vs. enrolled bill  

·      Importance of bipartisanship and compromise

·      Veto and overriding veto

Elections, Terms and Responsibilities

·      Term of office for congressman, senator, president

·      Number of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate

·      Role of President as Head of State as well as leader of the Executive Branch

·      Role of the Vice President in the legislative process

·      Rationale for terms of office as outlined

·      Representation by population, equal representation and rationale for each

·      The electoral college  - structure, rationale, role of electors

Checks and Balances

·      Between Legislative Branch and Executive Branch
     Between Executive Branch and Judicial Branch

     Between Judicial Branch and Legislative Branch

Upcoming Dates To Pay Attention To

October 30 - We will hold a make up class at lunch on this day.

October 31 - You will be expected to write an in class essay in response to material that will be applied to the elements of American exceptionalism. Class will continue through lunch. Make appropriate arrangements. 

November 1 - American Republic Test (Material will be based on the blog entry "Crash Course in the American Republic") Review blog entry to come soon.

As always, let me know if you have any questions.

What Happened - The 2016 Election

The 2016 election was quite the ride for the American people. Below, we will explore some facets of the election and through this consider the way in which voters make their decisions. In order to do so, you will need to examine your own decision making matrix and how those tendencies influence what you believe to be true and real.

As a place to begin, take the test below. Save/print your results and bring them to class for October 17:

https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

Here's some analysis on what the test means.

http://curiosophy.org/2014/01/27/mbti-in-a-nutshell/

Here's a breakdown on the personality types.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/type

Issues

1. Complete the survey to determine your own political profile and who you line up with on the issues of the 2016 Presidential campaign. Print/save the results and bring them to class for October 17. 
2. Then review the article below to identify the importance voters placed on the top issues. What were the top issues?  http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/
3. Examine the gap between Republicans and Democrats regarding the importance they placed on various issues.What does this say about the priorities of a Trump or a Clinton voter? What are the likely differences between these voters? What are the similarities? http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/4_2-4/ 
4. Examine the gap between age groups regarding the importance they place on various issues?What are the likely differences between age groups? What are the similarities?  http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/4_3-4/

Personality

Read the personality profiles of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-situation-lab/201610/the-personality-hillary-clinton

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-situation-lab/201509/the-personality-donald-trump

Read the following article for a different take on their personalities.

http://www.personalitypathways.com/article/trump-clinton-mbti-type.html

For October 17,  answer the questions below:

1. If you were only voting on personality AS DEFINED BY THE ARTICLES ABOVE, who would you vote for and why?
2. If the American voter was voting on personality AS DEFINED BY THE ARTICLES ABOVE, how do you think the vote would break down by age and gender?

The following information is to be considered after the October 17 class.

Voters and Voting Blocks

Take a look at the web page below. This page allows you to make use of actual data with respect to demographics and voting patterns to run some "what if" scenarios. Experiment with the data and come up with three takeaways from your scenarios with an eye to explaining how the election  "turned out".

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

The Horse Race and Strategy

Use the interactive map below to help you build a prediction model for how you think the next presidential election will turn out.

http://www.270towin.com

Polls, Schmols - We Don't Need No Stinking Polls

Sometimes things can be a lot less complicated than they seem. In the article below, a college professor has come up with thirteen key True/False questions that have correctly predicted the US presidential elections for 30 years where "True" is positive for the party in power and "False" is positive for the challenger.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/

Crash Course in the American Republic

Below you will find a summary of our look at the structure of US government and how it operates as outlined in the Constitution.

Heritage

Remember the context of America's birth. There was widespread opposition to the heavy-handedness of British government and hostility to the concept of a class society. Americans were suspicious of power that was too easily concentrated and wielded in the hands of a few.

They rejected the British theory for a need to "balance" the democracy of the common people with the "wisdom" of the aristocracy and the monarchy. Canada's political system was developed with this British mindset in the wake of the Civil War, which most British parliamentarians agreed was the result of "rabble rule". In short, too much democracy made people think that they had "rights" to break up the country. From the British view, this was the fatal flaw in the "Great Experiment" of America.

Consequently, our political structure in 1867 had the House of Commons as our parliamentary body. Members were elected through representation by population. The executive function of the government was concentrated within parliament -- the Prime Minister and cabinet, who were chosen directly from the political party with the most seats.

The Senate was an appointed body and was to offer a "sober second look at legislation". Clearly, the Senate was designed as a place for a Canadian aristocracy, which had to be developed. As such, once appointed senators were immune to public accountability. Once legislation passed the Senate, it was signed into law by the head of state, the Governor-General (the Crown's representative).

The Canadian system mirrors the British model and thereby concentrates power in the hands of the government, and indeed in the most populous provinces, as higher population means more power. The government with a majority can pass whatever it pleases during its term regardless of opposition maneuvering. The rules of parliament support this, as the consequence of losing a vote is the fall of the government. So once a decision has been made, everyone in government must support it or risk losing everything.

The Canadian system reflects the balance of the body politic -- democracy in the House of Commons, the aristocracy in the Senate, and the monarchy in the Governor-General.















How a bill becomes a law in Canada...











http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoR14KLq_kg&feature=related



US Government - A System of Checks and Balances








The United States government retains the same basic structure as the British model. There are two parliamentary bodies that create and pass legislation (the House of Representatives and the Senate) and a head of state that signs legislation into law (the President). However, this is where the similarities end. Americans rejected appointed positions almost entirely, save from the federal cabinet.

The House of Representatives is elected every two years and is chosen through representation by population, like our House of Commons. However, executive function of the Prime Minister does not exist in the House of Representatives. Instead, the position of President holds these executive powers. This clearly dilutes the power that would otherwise be concentrated in the House and as such is a check on the power of Congress.

Unlike the Governor-General, the President serves as more than just head of state. In the position of President, Americans combined many of the functions of Prime Minister with the functions of the Governor-General. As well, the President is Commander in Chief -- the senior military officer of the country. Although even with this power, the Constitution does not give the President the authority to declare war. He must have the support of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) to declare war. This is a check on the power of the President.

The President also has the power to pick anyone to sit in his cabinet and he has the power to make appointments to various positions including the Supreme Court. However, once again Congress has a check on this power because they have the constitutional responsibility to review and approve presidential appointments.

The Senate has a special place in the legislative process. It is designed to provide a more unifying view that is somewhat removed from the political opinion of the moment. While congressmen (members of the House of Representatives) have two year terms, senators have six year terms. As such, they are expected to be more motivated to take positions with a view of what is best for the country rather than a congressman, whose political survival is tied to his responsiveness to the local public who elects him and will pass judgement on him very soon again. The compliment of the Senate is also different from the House. The Senate is filled by equal representation by state. Therefore, North Dakota with a small population will have the same amount of power as California, which is considerably larger. With 100 senators today, the framers wisely set up a solution to a potential tie -- the Vice President casts the deciding vote.

Bills can and do start in either legislative chamber of Congress, but ultimately have to be agreed upon in both chambers before going to the President's desk to be signed into law. Here again, the President has the ability to check the power of Congress, as he can withhold signature and veto any legislation. Congress may only override a Presidential veto if in fact it can produce a two thirds majority in both houses with respect to the bill in question. If this is achieved, the President is obligated to sign the bill into law - another example of congressional ability to check the power of the President.













How a Bill Becomes a Law










http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TI8xqLl_-w



The key to making this system work is bipartisanship and compromise. Americans expect their government to get along and get things done. When the atmosphere in Washington D.C. is poisonous, it is easy to see how the work of government can be ground to a halt. The present public dissatisfaction with both the President and with Congress has been their inability to get along and solve the problems confronting the country. In future elections, Americans will have to decide who is likely to not only have the right prescription for what ails the economy, but perhaps more importantly who can build the consensus required to move forward.

Elections

As previously stated, the Constitution requires elections be held every two years for the entire House of Representatives. These members are elected within congressional districts much like our ridings for individual MP's. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives.

Senators are up for election every six years, but only one third of the Senate is up for election at one time. With two senators per state, there are 100 senators in total. In the event of a tie vote, the Vice President casts the deciding vote. Senators are elected statewide.

The Presidency has a unique process for election. While every person of voting age is eligible to vote for President, not every vote counts the same. That is to say, the President is not elected by popular vote; the President is elected through the Electoral College.




Each state has a number of electoral college votes equal to its congressional representation in both houses. Actual "electors" are chosen by the states to formally vote for President and Vice-President. In fact, they vote based on the popular vote held on election day in their respective states. Except in the cases of Maine and Nebraska, it is a "winner take all" proposition. In other words, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state wins all the electoral college votes for that state.

The system was initiated at a time when a cross country campaign was not really very practical and as such the electors chosen were those who would know something of the candidates up for election. In recent elections, there have been serious criticisms of the system and calls to repeal it. Most seriously in 1968, Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey 301-191 in the electoral college, but Nixon only won the popular vote by a little more than 500,000 votes. Although there was a move to make a constitutional amendment that was supported by Nixon as well, it died in committee in Congress and was never raised again legislatively.

In 2000, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore 271-266. However, Bush lost the popular vote narrowly. Bush received 50,456,002 votes while Gore finished with 50,999,897. While there was some criticism of the system, it did not rise to the level of action during Nixon's era.






Ultimately, the system has stood the test of time because it provides a balance between large and small states. Without the electoral college, presidential candidates would likely ignore certain states and indeed entire sections of the country because they would be inconsequential to their election. The electoral college makes the interests of small states a matter of some importance and ensures that their concerns will not be left out of the national discussion. This approach is in line with the spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville's that America must put safeguards in place that work against the "tyranny of the majority".

http://fivethirtyeight.com

http://www.270towin.com

America as a Republic

There's a couple of things America got right… See the video below. At various points, I will post items found in popular culture that help to illustrate core American values and the roots of American Exceptionalism. This one seems to be a good fit based on the blog title "Crash Course in the American Republic" -- How can one not think of cars and freedom with a title like that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqWxgCZ1TQE


Republicanism in America means more than just being democratic -- it avows that the people have unalienable rights. This is non-negotiable, constitutionally. Theoretically, in a pure democracy, if majority rules, then the majority can vote to take away the rights of a minority.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the potential "tyranny of the majority," where dominant or more conventional opinions might discourage people from considering other opinions.


I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America. ... In America, the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion: within these barriers, an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them. ... Before publishing his opinions, he imagined that he held them in common with others; but no sooner has he declared them, than he is loudly censured by his opponents, whilst those who think like him, without having the courage to speak out, abandon him in silence. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.

Fetters and headsmen were the coarse instruments which tyranny formerly employed; but the civilization of our age has perfected despotism itself, though it seemed to have nothing to learn. Monarchs had, so to speak, materialized oppression: the democratic republics of the present day have rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind, as the will which it is intended to coerce. [When] the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul ... the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it, and rose proudly superior. Such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The master no longer says, “You shall think as I do, or you shall die”; but he says, “You are free to think differently from me, and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow-citizens, if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you, if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow-creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence worse than death.”

Exerpt from Democracy In America by Alexis de Tocqueville

(ed. Richard D. Heffner; New York: The New American Library, Inc., pp.117-118)de Tocqueville strongly argued for the need to protect unpopular minorities from inevitable efforts to use democractic means to legislate against them.

Although the root word of "Republicanism" is "republic", but the former is different from the latter. Webster's dictionary defines a "republic" as, " a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president... while "republicanism" refers to an ideology.