Dear editor:
Important ideas are often lost by civilizations over generations. Sometimes the result is the decline and disappearance of a civilization, and sometimes the principles are rediscovered centuries later and put back into practice, rescuing the civilization from destruction, a renaissance if you will.
The article describing the Casper gravel pit fight is a clear example of a lost principle in our own modern-day concept of government. Until we recover this principle, leaders and citizens alike, the mess in Washington that ultimately seeps down to the local level will continue unabated. That principle is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
The Founding Fathers were clear on this – we were supposed to be a Republic, and a pure Democracy was anathema to their thinking. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin, when asked by a citizen what form of government the Continental Congress had given them replied, “A Republic if you can keep it.”
According to the website U.S. Constitution dot net, “Key figures such as James Madison, often referred to as the 'Father of the Constitution,' brought a wealth of knowledge about historical forms of government and their pitfalls…The historical perspective on desiring a republic over a pure democracy was clear: the founding fathers feared the potential for tyranny in both majority rule and monarchy.” (See Madison’s Federalist Papers #10)
What is the difference? The founders drew good ideas from previous forms of government, such as Democracy’s representative feature, incorporating it into the Constitution, but made that good idea subservient to the higher principle of Republican government, preventing the government from becoming either form of tyranny they feared.
(In Washington DC today two of those branches are dangerously close to these two forms of tyranny, a Congress bent on forcing us to the will of a majority that can be counted on the fingers of one hand out of hundreds of representatives, and an executive bureaucracy bent on forcing us to its will via Executive Orders.)
Yes, we were given a Republic that incorporated principles of Democracy where appropriate and balanced by the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.
Curt Meier’s quote, “You figure maybe 25% of the people of Natrona County are making decisions not only for Natrona County, but for the whole state” may be true – and appropriate – but it begs the question of does a majority have the right to force its will on the minority?
In a Democracy yes, but not in a Republic.
The proper overarching function of government in a Republic is not to force the majority’s will on the minority, but to protect the rights of the minority from injury by the majority or its elected or appointed authority figures.
It's too easy and common to fall back on "Well, we're the majority so we win" thinking today to justify one's position.
Until the State Land Board can see the Casper gravel pit issue in this light, instead of presuming that a pure (potentially tyrannical) Democracy is the only available mindset (think outside your box, folks), no proper solution will be found.
And we have failed to heed and keep Benjamin Franklin’s warning because we’ve forgotten we’re supposed to be a Republic and -- worse -- what one is.
Personally, I’ve not “picked a side” in this argument, mostly because of lack of information from this perspective in reporting.
Little has been said about if and how that 25%’s rights are potentially being injured by the majority. If they will be, the answer is clear in a Republic.
The proper function of government is to protect the rights of the 25%. So the better question is… will their rights be injured by this gravel pit, and how?
Sincerely,
James Ingram
Clark, Wyoming
