Republicanism means support for a republican form of government. This article has nothing to do with party politics in the United States. A republican government is one in which the people elect officials to the government. These officials then use power to run the government and exercise authority as necessary. Republics are sometimes called indirect democracies or representative democracies, though these terms carry a specific connotation.

This system should sound familiar to you. America, meaning the United States, is a republic. The United States Constitution sets forth a republican government. Famously, when a bystander at the Constitutional Convention asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the infant country was adopting, he responded, “a republic, if you can keep it.”

There are two ways to view republics. I make no claim as to which way the Founding Fathers viewed the republic they shaped; I am not convinced that there was a consensus even amongst themselves. These two ways of viewing republics have fundamental differences. The way in which one views republics will shape much of their opinions on the most basic underlying responsibilities of the public, politicians, and the self.

I will delay no further in setting out what these two views are. The first is that republics are a form of rule by the people. The will of the majority should be reflected in government action and inaction. Elected officials represent the will of their constituents. This view of republicanism sees the elected official as merely a mouthpiece for citizens. In a country as large as the United States, it would be difficult to get each citizen to vote on every government action, so we elect officials whose job it is to interpret the will of the people they represent and act on their behalf. This is the view of Locke, Rousseau, and many Enlightenment thinkers. The people are in charge of themselves; it is merely convenient for officials to run the government on their behalf.

This view of republics could truly be called indirect democracy or representative democracy. Elected officials are representatives of the people, acting as intermediaries between

the people and government action. The people are trusted to have the best opinion on any given issue, and politicians are mandated to act in accordance with that opinion. I think I am correct in saying this is likely the view the majority of Americans identify with today. Americans view government as being beholden to the will of the people, at least insofar as it reflects the will of the majority.

The second view is quite different. In this view, the people transfer their power of government into the hands of chosen agents. These agents are then trusted to discern what is best for the public and act accordingly. Government officials are not bound to the public will but rather the public good. The people do not rule themselves but instead choose who will rule them.

This view might be called an elective aristocracy. The people are not trusted to be expert enough to steer a nation toward prosperity. The people will not have the best opinion on all issues. Elected officials possess wisdom greater than the people’s and are better disposed to make sound decisions. Elected officials are given the trust of the people. It as if the people say, “Madam, I trust your judgement more than my own. I trust you to make decisions with better foresight and wisdom than I can. Even when I do not understand or agree with your decisions, I trust that you are acting in my best interest.” As my friend Noel recently said, “You trust your mechanic to fix your car, and you trust your doctor to give you the right treatment. You should trust your politician to run the government.”

Today, people would like to have it both ways. We want the people we voted for to be beholden to our will. We say, “I am her boss; she represents me. She ought to do as I want, or she is a bad and selfish politician!” Yet when our chosen candidate is not elected, we look at the winner, and we say, “How can she do this? She must surely know that what she is doing is wrong! I don’t care what her voters want; they are idiots.” Or we say something to the same effect. Can people not see this incoherence? When people are in the minority on an issue, they want an official to vote according to what is good and virtuous, yet when they are in the majority, they are outraged when an official votes in accordance with her own opinion rather than the public’s.

I am sure people will argue that republics are meant to be a mix of these two views. I have no idea how that would work. Does an official act in accordance with the majority on minor issues but with her conscience on major issues? Does she flip a coin to decide whether she trusts her constituents or her own opinion? What would such a situation even look like? I say that this is an unreasonable expectation, and it is incorrect to think it feasible.

If you identify with the first view, you must accept that when you are in the minority, your opinion should not animate government action. If you identify with the second view, you must accept that your elected official will sometimes act against your opinion, and she has a right and responsibility to do that. Either way, there will be tradeoffs for you as an individual, but it is irrational, and frankly annoying, to complain because you want to have it both ways. These two views give rise to many important differences that cannot all be considered in this article. I hope this article has guided you toward a better understanding of these concepts and motivates further thought.