Homer conservatives recently invited me to be their representative at a Democracy love-fest, sponsored by the usual parade of liberals in Homer. Eileen Becker, a long-time conservative and Republican activist, asked me to present the alternative voice in what was being touted as the Democracy Fair: Democracy and the Constitution.

Becker understood correctly that their entire premise is false. “Democracy and the Constitution” is an oxymoron, akin to saying “dry wetness” or “round square.” The federal constitution makes accommodation for a republic, not a democracy. She asked if I would present a politically incorrect viewpoint on this.

Nothing warms me up better than a good, old-fashioned Lincoln-Douglas debate with a worthy and knowledgeable opponent. I have had such an opportunity before with Dr. Forrest Nabors, as we debated Lincoln’s legacy at the Loussac Library, moderated by former Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell. I then debated with former State Senator John Coghill, over the need for Alaska to hold a constitutional convention at a packed venue in Wasilla. I also teamed with another former Lt. Governor, Loren Leman, for a televised debate on the convention question, opposing RINOs and Democrats who feared – ahem! – change!

I never look for a “win” or a “loss” in these affairs, but rather an honest airing of the viewpoints that would allow the audience to think for themselves. The respect between myself and the opponents has led to friendship, rather than animosity.

Becker doubted that the offer would be accepted, but when it was, it was not to be a debate, but rather to make a presentation, complete with the opportunity to use PowerPoint slides to emphasize our points. Jeff Meyers and Ginny Espenshade were the other presenters. I was just as eager to accept.

Here were the conditions, according to the invitation by organizer Marcia Kuszmaul:

We are emphasizing and reviewing with all presenters that the objectives of the Democracy Fair are to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, to educate about the various levels of government and to encourage civic engagement at all levels. Presentations are to be positive and encouraging, nonpartisan, not issues-based, not editorials or opportunities for opinions, not critiques — and we appreciate that everyone is following these guidelines.

This was an admirable statement, and I was enthralled at the possibilities. It would allow me to properly define the difference between a democracy and a republic, then analyze the undisputed facts about the Constitution. I was going to analyze the Electoral College, especially with the very recent and alarming law passed by the radical-Left Virginia legislature.

Virginia will abandon the millions of majority voters who might have voted for Candidate X for president, and instead award its electoral votes to Candidate Y, if Y won the overall national popular vote.

Imagine such warped thinking! It amounts to disenfranchising the opinions of the majority voters in their own state, and surrendering it to the national popular vote, and calling it “more democratic!”

Alas, almost predictably, things began to unravel.

In a fair-minded tactic to keep me informed, Kuszmaul shared by email how my presentation would be characterized in the program:

Bob Bird — What is a representative democracy (or a democratic republic) — how the U.S. federal system is both a democracy and a republic.

This would never do. This was my email response:

Marcia:

Please note: It would be inaccurate to say that I will speak about how the federal system is both a democracy and a republic. This is because I am using the classical definition of “democracy,” whereas people believe that the term “democracy” somehow means popular participation in elections, increasingly extending the voting franchise, etc.

Republics have always had popular participation in elections, but have jealously guarded the franchise: as in “Who gets to vote?”

If the federal republic were a true democracy, we would be having people vote on federal laws on the basis of citizen initiatives, recalls and referendums, such as we – sometimes – have on the state and municipal levels.

I will be talking about how the system of a republic has been eroded in various ways. Below is how I would prefer to characterize the few minutes I will have.

Why the Founding Fathers created a Republic, not a Democracy, and why a classical Democracy works best on the local level.

Thanks for all you do,

Bob Bird

So, when I gave a public talk a few days later in Kasilof about the Alaskan Party, the District 6 Republican Chairman George Hall was in attendance. He regretfully informed me that the Democracy Fair people would not approve my presentation, after I had corrected their false characterization. He asked why, and they showed him the exact email seen above.

His reply was the same as Eileen Becker and Waynette Coleman: “What’s wrong with that?!”

Then he explained to me what I already knew. Liberalism is a mental madness. “Tolerance” has become “Intolerable.” “Democracy” actually means “Cancelled,” whether it is the presidential vote in Virginia or a brief lecture in Alaska.

We live in a time where the American Republic is disappearing, as in a dot-matrix photo, erased one dot at a time. I do believe that the District 6 Republicans ought to organize their own 250^th anniversary celebration. If they do, I would like to offer a debate, not a presentation, and then let the people think for themselves.

George Hall said, “That’s the problem. I doubt they would accept. Liberals don’t like being confused by facts, and don’t want people to think for themselves.”

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.