Bob Bird: Democracy-schmocracy — America is a republic

By BOB BIRD

Democracy-Schmocracy. We are a republic, not a democracy. Notice how Democrats/socialists/communists/leftists have made “democracy” their oft-repeated mantra. It fits right in with “People’s Democratic Republic of China” and other such euphemistic titles, disguising state terror and genocide under sweet-sounding blather.

The point is, true democracy is unwieldy. American “progressivism” (which is really regressive) has held sway since the 1890s. In the name of “democracy” they have enlarged the right to vote. In early U.S. history it was guarded in a very niggling way, and for good reason. But since then it has become quite generous, and now — they are trying to enlarge it to include all “residents”. Not citizens, but residents. This means, as we all know, illegal immigrants who cannot even speak the language, have no intention to enculturate themselves and reside here only to enjoy the fruits of someone else’s hard-earned and over-taxed labor.

“Universal suffrage” used to mean including women, minorities and the poor being granted the right to vote, but now it is understood to mean something else — and something quite sinister.

In Homer, Alaska’s plantation for all-things-liberal, the socialists actually invited me to speak this spring on “democracy” for the 250^th anniversary of our independence. They quickly withdrew the invitation when I said that I was going to point out that, even on the local level, the USA is by and large a republic.

Horrors! We’re not a democracy? What’s the difference? Apparently, they were too scared to learn.

In a republic, we have hard and fast rules about limiting government power, as well as who gets to vote for our representatives. Pure democracy seldom works, although we do use it for things like referendums and initiatives. Notice that this is never used on the federal level, rarely on the state, and only sometimes on the very local levels.

How do you want your borough or municipality to pass laws and regulations? Even there, we really don’t use “democracy”, we elect our assembly members, and their authority is bound by charter (“constitutional”) limitations. I don’t think we would like a massive town-hall meeting, going on endlessly into the night or conducted in the streets, such as is done sometimes in certain Swiss cantons.

Socialist tendencies existed for centuries before Marxism. In the 1600s the English had “Levelers”, a euphemism that wanted universal suffrage and basically DEI. They were destructive of private property and wanted, um, “No Kings!”. The French Revolution, which began in 1789 as an earnest desire for a “constitutional monarchy”, quickly accelerated into proto-communism, dictatorship, genocide and ultimately self-destruction.

America’s founding fathers, keen observers of history, wanted no part of this madness. There was to be no citizen voting for U.S. Senators, who were to represent the states, not the people. Presidents were to be chosen by the state legislators’ electors. 

Thus, they wanted to make sure that the right to vote, which meant electing only their state leaders and their representative to the U.S. House, remained in the hands of the productive and responsible members of society. Thus, they instituted a property requirement, in most places about a $200 threshold, before granting the right to vote.

If this seems harsh, as schools have taught us, think again. Americans were 95% farmers, and it was a cinch for a farmer’s collective property to be worth more than that: in land, livestock, buildings, fences and household goods.

So, why did they limit the right to vote? Because there existed, as in all societies, groups of bums, itinerant wanderers, drunkards, snake-oil salesmen, pick-pockets, beggars and the like. If they were granted the universal franchise, they would be pandered to vote for unscrupulous politicians, who would play on their easily conjured resentments, and a sense of injustice that “the world owes me a living”. Most of these tramps were quickly and easily warned to get out of town. That there would be an occasional innocent victim needs no proof. It’s a fallen world, and true injustice does exist.

And women? You are right, wives didn’t vote, but of course she had influence, and anyway voting to her made little difference. The average woman back then had eight pregnancies in her lifetime. Living on a farm, she simply could not make the day-long trip to the nearest polling place with her husband. If she was expecting a baby, it was dangerous. If she was nursing, it was barely possible, and late autumn weather was an obvious hazard. There were kids to monitor at home, chickens to feed, food to cook. The older children certainly helped when Dad was away. Her hard-working husband knew her opinions. What he was actually doing on election day was casting a household vote.

When women began to demand the franchise, it was always in a town or city, where the polling place was right down the street. The husband earned a non-agricultural livelihood. And when they did get the franchise, by and large husband and wife thought alike. When the 19th amendment was passed (at precisely the time when the majority of Americans were no longer farmers), electoral outcomes did not change drastically. 

Feminists will grind their teeth and hiss, but the reason women did not vote in the 18th and 19th centuries was because they couldn’t, and did not need to. And as soon as the majority of society became urbanized in 1920, they won the franchise. 

And happily, race was justly erased as a qualification.

But there was and is the political class … as in the bureaucracy. It is always in their vested interest to expand government services, create new departments and ensure their own perpetual livelihood.

Go ahead and be shocked, but someone should ask: should state employees be allowed to vote in state elections? Borough employees in borough elections? Teachers and school staff in school board elections? (They already cannot run for the school board as active teachers.) Or federal employees in federal elections? (See the Hatch Act about promotional activities in federal contests.) 

Any conservatives who fall into these categories might have their feelings hurt. Years back, I was one myself, but I would not have complained about being prohibited to vote for school board candidates. These are built-in constituencies to promote socialistic tendencies, and while there are exceptions, of course, most government employees know on which side their bread is buttered: with the “more government” party and its candidates. If you are puzzled as to why anyone would vote for the lunatic asylum that the Democratic Party has become, there is your answer. 

But I maintain that we need to re-institute a criteria for voting eligibility, to begin restricting it to the productive and responsible classes, and to make sure that the bureaucracy does not feather its own nest. 

And if you want a different opinion on these demographic truths, you can always enroll in a local college course or purchase a textbook authored by Gloria Steinem.

Then think for yourself.

Conservative talk radio host Bob Bird anchors the “Talk of the Kenai” show for KSRM, and was named the 2025 Broadcaster of the Year by the Alaska Broadcasters Association. He was chairman of the former Alaskan Independence Party.

Bob Bird: Bear attacks are reminders for Alaskans, warnings for tourists

Bob Bird: 70th Anniversary of the Andrea Doria/Stockholm Disaster