“The United States of America is a federal republic: a federation of states governed by written constitutions,” wrote Russell Kirk. The Constitution created a republican form of government. A foundational aspect of our system is representative government. “Representative government, or what we call the republican tradition, is the bedrock of American constitutionalism,” noted James McClellan. A republican form of government, as designed by the Founders, meant that sovereignty resided with the people who elected representatives. Further, the Founders designed a republican system based on the constitutional principles, which included limited government, checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, rule of law, among others. (RELATED: Constitutional Order and Existential Threats) The Framers understood political theory and systems, and the idea of a democracy was rejected. Democracy was associated with “mob rule,” which was fresh in the minds of the Framers with Shays’ Rebellion. (RELATED: Bad Presidents or Bad Government?) They also understood human nature and that humanity was fallen. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51: But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. The late historian of the American Founding, Forrest McDonald, argued that “the genius of the system was that the power of government, though great and emanating ultimately from the people, was divided rather than concentrated in any single representation of the people.” This was the balance that the Constitution achieved by rejecting democracy. (RELATED: The Cynical Talk About a ‘Constitutional Crisis’) The use of the word “democracy” is not just harmless horse swapping of terms. Although the Framers created a republican form of government, the term has been interchanged with “democracy.” Politicians, the media, and academia constantly refer to American democracy. The use of the word “democracy” is not just harmless horse swapping of terms. Decades of civic illiteracy, combined with ideological policy efforts to “save our democracy,” have been successful in not only confusing Americans but outright undermining constitutionalism. This is why our designation as a “republic” or a “democracy” is more than just an academic question. The more the United States forgets its republican heritage results in further erosion of constitutional principles. James Carville, a Democratic Party strategist who is famous for his “it’s the economy, stupid” advice, recently revealed what many liberals have been thinking about once they regain power. Carville not only predicts that the Democrats will win the presidency in 2028 but that they will then proceed to start reforming government by “packing” the United States Supreme Court. (RELATED: How James Carville Would ‘Save Democracy’) “I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen. A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is going to announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court,” predicts Carville. Carville argues that Democrats will “pack the Court by expanding the number of Justices from nine to 13.” The end goal, states Carville, is for the Democrats to make this “intervention so we can have a Supreme Court that the American people trust again.” The justification for this is to “save our democracy.” The term “democracy” is often used incorrectly to describe the American political system. This is especially true of the political left, which argues that revolutionary changes are needed in order to preserve democracy. Today’s Democrats are hoping they will succeed where President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed when he attempted to “pack” the Court. “We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself,” explained President Roosevelt in arguing for his reform plan. (RELATED: FDR’s Court-Packing Attempt) Similar arguments will be made that, as a result of President Donald Trump’s policies and recent decisions by the Supreme Court, constitutional reforms are needed to “save our democracy.” Carville’s argument for “packing” the Court is not new, nor is the progressive or modern liberal belief in advocating for substantial constitutional reforms. It is not just “packing” the Court, but also eliminating the Electoral College, reforming the Senate by either reforming the institution or outright elimination, and further limiting the sovereignty of states. (RELATED: Republicans, Go on Offense Against the National Popular Vote — Now!) In two opinion essays for Governing, Stephen Legomsky, a law professor emeritus at Washington University and author of Reimaging the American Union, argues that many of the political problems confronting the nation are a direct result of federalism. The root cause of the problem, Legomsky argues, directly resides with the states. Although Legomsky places the blame for the nation’s political ills on states, in reality, it is a larger attack on the Constitution. “Liberals have for many decades tried to replace the Constitution’s ideas of limited federal and presidential power, checks and balances, and federalism with majoritarian democracy, expanded and centralized government, and strong presidential leadership,” noted Claes G. Ryn, an emeritus professor of politics at Catholic University. Since the early 20th Century, progressives have attacked the American Founding as obsolete. Progressives argued that the Constitution could not solve modern policy problems, and in response, they called for a vast expansion of federal power. Since the 1930s, the federal government has expanded both in size and scope. This has come at the expense of federalism — the constitutional principle of power being divided between the national and state governments. “A dislike for the constitutional republicanism of the Framers has been integral to modern American liberalism. Liberals have long wanted an imperial presidency and a corresponding centralization and expansion of government,” argues Ryn. Legomsky and Carville are not offering new arguments. In fact, they are just echoing what progressive academics and politicians have been arguing for decades. These revolutionary reforms are being proposed as a measure to not only “save democracy,” but to “improve our democracy.” The term “democracy” is not only overused and misapplied but also misunderstood. “There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes,” warned President Calvin Coolidge. The Founding Fathers outright rejected democracy. The Constitution created a republican form of government, that is, a republic and not a democracy. This was once clearly understood, but as a result of the decline in civic education and the repetitive use of the term “democracy,” it is an important principle that has been lost. “The government of the United States is a representative republic and not a pure democracy,” wrote Senator Arthur Vandenberg. Further, Vandenberg argued that “this country is frequently spoken of as a democracy, and yet the men who established our government made a very marked distinction between a ‘republic’ and a ‘democracy,’ gave very clear definitions of each term, and emphatically said they had founded a republic.” Whether it is “packing” the Court, abolishing the Electoral College, the relevance of the Senate, or the further undermining of federalism, Americans need to realize that a serious debate over the Constitution is occurring. The crusade for “democracy” by those on the political left is an effort to fundamentally change the Constitution, which will have significant ramifications on policy. Senator Vandenberg warned that “the most serious of all modern dangers to the Constitution, and therefore, to the welfare of the American people, are traceable to neglect of these distinctions” in referring to the misunderstanding of “republic” and “democracy.” Benjamin Franklin, on the final day (September 18, 1787) of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, when asked about what type of government was created, he famously replied, “a republic, if we can keep it.” The future direction of policy will hinge on whether we remain a republic as the Founders intended or become a “democracy.” READ MORE from John Hendrickson: Iowa Does Not Need ‘Revolutionary’ Election Changes That Violate Voters’ Associational Rights Honoring Patrick J. Buchanan Iowa Needs to Constitutionalize Taxpayer Protections John Hendrickson is the Policy Director at Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation.