Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic

Since non-MAGA civil servants are decrying President Cankles as anathema to democracy (for myriad, obvious reasons), that old canard, "we're a constitutional republic, not a democracy!" rears its stupid, ugly head yet again.  I have over the years on numerous defunct blogs addressed this misapprehension, and figured I might compile some items from those posts into a one-stop-shop for future reference.

We begin with our friend, Montesquieu, in The Spirit of Laws (1748):

CHAP. II.: Of the Principle of different Governments.

I have already observed that it is the nature of a republican government, that either the collective body of the people, or particular families, should be possessed of the supreme power; of a monarchy that the prince should have this power, but in the execution of it should be directed by established laws; of a despotic government, that a single person should rule according to his own will and caprice. 

This enables me to discover their three principles; which are thence naturally derived. I shall begin with a republican government, and in particular with that of democracy.

CHAP. III.: Of the Principle of Democracy.

There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue.

What I have here advanced is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of historians, and is extremely agreeable to the nature of things. For it is clear that in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of virtue than in a popular government, where the person intrusted with the execution of the laws is sensible of his being subject to their direction.

Clear is it also that a monarch who, through bad advice or indolence, ceases to enforce the execution of the laws, may easily repair the evil; he has only to follow other advice, or to shake off this indolence. But when, in a popular government, there is a suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corruption of the republic, the state is certainly undone...

When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community. The objects of their desires are changed; what they were fond of before has become indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of laws, but they would fain now be free to act against law... 

Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now this has become the patrimony of private persons. The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the license of many.

Everybody ought to read that very closely.  But what is this 'virtue' which he declares to be so important? 

It is in a republican government that the whole power of education is required. The fear of despotic governments naturally rises of itself amidst threats and punishments: the honour of monarchies is favoured by the passions, and favours them in its turn: but virtue is a self-renunciation, which is ever arduous and painful.

This virtue may be defined the love of the laws and of our country¹. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of all private virtues; for they are nothing more than this very preference itself.

This love is peculiar to democracies. In these alone the government is intrusted to private citizens. Now, government is like every thing else: to preserve it, we must love it.

Ah, so that's why you don't want to elect a narcissist.  Anyway, when you understand what our Founders knew to be "republican virtue", you then can better comprehend John Adams' observation in 1798:

In virtuous Republicks, it is a Maxim sacred and fundamental, that the Will of the Majority shall be the Will of the whole. But in all Republicks vicious and criminal, the Minority always resorts to foreign Influence for support, and for assistance. To overthrow and take Vengeance on the Majority.  

Yeah, no, that doesn't sound at all familiar.  Now I wonder if his nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, had any opinions on this subject?

[A] representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable. 

That was 1777.  Here he is again at New York's ratifying convention in 1788: 

Democracy in my sense, where the whole power of the government in the people...Whether exercised by themselves, or...By their representatives chosen by them either mediately or immediately and legally accountable to them...

This representative democracy as far as is consistent with its genius has all the features of good government...All this done in the proposed Constitution.

Wait, so that means...America is a floor wax AND a dessert topping?  Who knew²?

Selah.

1 - He also wrote: "[V]irtue...is not a moral, nor a Christian, but a political virtue; and it is the spring which sets the republican government in motion..."

2 - Abe Lincoln in 1861 called the United States "a constitutional republic, or democracy--a government of the people by the same people."

PS - Post title comes from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835).

PPS - Upon reflection, I should have probably included this definition, and do so now for good measure: "[A] republican government is that in which the body or only a part of the people is possessed of the supreme power: monarchy...When the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, this is called a democracy."  Just in case it wasn't clear.