The Myth of the Popular Republic: Governance, Exclusion, and the Anti-Democratic Tradition

by Prof. Jesse Chanley

Introduction: The Persistence of the "Republican" Form

The historical trajectory of the United States government, often mythologized in civic pedagogy as a progressive linear march toward greater democracy, is more accurately understood as the successful maintenance of a republican structure specifically designed to impede it. The prevailing narrative—that the Founding Fathers established a "representative democracy" that has slowly opened its doors to wider participation—obscures the fundamental reality that their "republicanism" was rooted in a specific, articulate desire to insulate the minority of property owners from the majority of the population. This report provides an exhaustive examination of this governance model, tracing its lineage from the stratified society of ancient Athens through the debates of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and into the modern era’s rhetorical and institutional battles over the definition of American governance.

As established in the foundational analysis of the Framers’ intent, the United States was constructed not as a democracy, but as a specific antidote to it.¹ The Framers, heavily influenced by Plato and the social architecture of Greek antiquity, viewed "democracy" not as an ideal but as a pathology—a "spectacle of turbulence and contention" compatible with neither personal security nor property rights.¹ This report serves to complete the historical and theoretical examination of this governance model. It will exhaustively detail how this anti-democratic ethos was operationalized, how the rhetoric of "mob rule" has been weaponized across centuries to delegitimize popular political action, and how the modern insistence that the United States is "a republic, not a democracy" serves as a contemporary shield for minority rule.

The current political moment, characterized by intense polarization and institutional gridlock, is not a malfunction of the system but a fulfillment of its design. When modern political actors argue that "democracy isn't the objective," they are channeling the precise intent of the architects of the American system.³ To understand the present crisis of legitimacy in American governance, one must strip away the veneer of "popular sovereignty" and examine the machinery of exclusion that lies beneath.

Chapter I: The Athenian Blueprint – Slavery as the Foundation of Liberty

The intellectual lineage of the American republic is frequently traced to the democracy of Athens, yet this association is often misunderstood. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not look to Athens as a model to emulate, but as a warning of what to avoid. Their admiration was reserved not for the chaotic assemblies of the demos, but for the rigid stratification and aristocratic control that characterized the "republican" ideal, a model heavily reliant on the subjugation of a laboring class to enable the leisure and governance of a ruling elite.

Plato, the "Myth of the Metals," and the Justification of Inequality

The philosophical underpinning of the republican worldview can be found in Plato’s Republic, a text that the Framers drew upon to justify the exclusion of the majority from political power. Plato’s goal was to describe the "best society," a construct that required the strict compartmentalization of the populace into three distinct classes: rulers, soldiers, and workers.¹

Crucially, this model was predicated on the "Myth of the Metals" (or the Noble Lie), a fabricated narrative designed to convince the citizenry that their social status was biologically determined. As analyzed by Alan Bloom, Plato argued that a stable regime required a foundational falsehood: that the rulers possessed "souls of gold," the soldiers "souls of silver," and the workers "souls of bronze".¹ This myth served a vital political function: it justified the rule of the minority (the philosopher-kings/property owners) over the majority (the workers) by framing inequality as a natural, rather than political, phenomenon.

The Framers of the American Constitution, many of whom were steeped in classical education, internalized this lesson. They understood that a "good regime" could not be based on total enlightenment or truth, but required the acceptance of "conventional inequalities," primarily the inequality of property ownership.¹ For the Framers, the "gold soul" was synonymous with the capacity to acquire and manage property. Those without property—the "bronze-souled" masses—were viewed as lacking the requisite "virtue" to govern. Thus, the "republican" form of government was conceptualized as a mechanism to ensure that the "gold" minority could rule without interference from the "bronze" majority.

The Demographics of Exclusion in Ancient Athens

The "republican" model revered by the Framers was inextricably linked to a slave economy. In ancient Athens, the liberty of the few was purchased with the enslavement of the many. Modern scholarship confirms that the "democracy" of Athens was, in reality, a minority government floating atop a vast sea of unfree labor.

Estimates of the slave population in classical Athens vary, but the consensus among historians indicates a society where slavery was ubiquitous. According to recent scholarship, the number of slaves in Athens during the 4th century BC ranged significantly, but consistently outnumbered the citizen class in terms of labor force contribution.

Sources: Derived from census data of Demetrius Phalereus and modern estimates by Hansen, Thorley, and others.⁴

As the data indicates, the "democracy" of Athens excluded the vast majority of its inhabitants. If one includes women and children of citizens (who were also excluded from political power), the percentage of the population with a voice in governance drops to single digits.

Historian Mogens Herman Hansen suggests that in the 4th century, even conservative estimates place the slave population at roughly 80,000 to 100,000, compared to a citizen body of perhaps 30,000.⁹ Others, citing the census of Demetrius Phalereus, suggest the disparity was even more extreme, with up to 400,000 slaves living in Attica.⁷ Regardless of the precise figure, the structural reality remains: Athenian "liberty" was a privilege of the few, supported by the forced labor of the many.

The Slave-Owner’s Definition of Liberty

This demographic reality profoundly shaped the Framers’ understanding of "liberty." For wealthy Southerners like Washington, Madison, and Jefferson, the Athenian model validated their own societal structure. They saw no contradiction in proclaiming "liberty" while holding human beings in bondage because, in the republican tradition, "liberty" was defined as the right of property owners to be free from the interference of the state or the mob.¹

In this worldview, "freedom" is not a universal human right, but a status that distinguishes the master from the slave. As the user's document notes, "Property ownership does not make people free... but if you have sufficient property, it gives you the power to control people who do not have property".¹ The "republican" government was thus designed to protect this specific power dynamic. When the Framers spoke of the "rights of the minority," they were not speaking of vulnerable ethnic or religious minorities; they were speaking of the minority of the opulent—the slave owners and creditors—who needed protection from the majority who might seek to redistribute that wealth.

Chapter II: The Framers’ Design – Insulating the State from the People

The institutional design of the United States Constitution was a direct response to the perceived failures of the Articles of Confederation, specifically the inability of the central government to suppress popular uprisings like Shays' Rebellion. The Framers convened in Philadelphia not to empower the people, but to construct a system that could effectively check the "democratic" impulses that had led to debt relief laws and paper money schemes in the states.

Madison’s Filter: "Refine and Enlarge"

James Madison, the principal architect of the Constitution, was explicit in his disdain for direct democracy. In Federalist No. 10, arguably the most important political document in American history, Madison distinguished between a "pure democracy" and a "republic." He argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property".¹

Madison’s solution was a "republic," which he defined not just as a representative government, but as a system designed to "refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens".¹² This concept of "refining" is critical. It implies that the raw will of the people is impure, dangerous, and lacking in wisdom. It must be processed, filtered, and diluted through a series of institutional mechanisms before it can be trusted with power.

This "refinement" was achieved through distance. The people would not elect the President (the Electoral College would). The people would not elect Senators (state legislatures would). The people would not elect Judges (the President would appoint them). Only the House of Representatives was directly elected, and even its power was severely checked by the other branches. The goal, as Madison admitted, was to ensure that the government was "administered by persons... whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country," protecting the public from its own "temporary errors and delusions".¹³

Hamilton and Adams: Fear of the "Beast"

While Madison spoke in the measured tones of political theory, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were more visceral in their rejection of democracy. Hamilton, speaking at the Constitutional Convention, famously argued that the people are "turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right".¹⁴ He advocated for a "distinct, permanent share in government" for the rich and well-born to check the "unsteadiness" of the masses.

Hamilton’s fear of "ochlocracy" (mob rule) led him to support a strong executive and a lifetime senate (essentially an elective monarchy and aristocracy) to provide stability against the democratic element. He viewed the "voice of the people" not as the voice of God, but as a "disease" and a "poison" to be contained.¹⁴

John Adams, though often considered more moderate, shared this profound skepticism. He studied the history of republics exhaustively and concluded that "democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself".¹⁵ Adams believed that "the mob" was incapable of reason and that without a strong executive to balance the legislature, the majority would inevitably tyrannize the minority. He noted in his Defence of the Constitutions that "democracy while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy".¹⁶ This belief justified the creation of a system with heavy checks and balances, designed to paralyze the government rather than allow the majority to act swiftly.

Jefferson: The Agrarian Republic vs. the Urban Mob

Thomas Jefferson is often cited as the most "democratic" of the Founders, yet his vision was also deeply exclusionary. Jefferson’s ideal republic was agrarian, composed of independent yeoman farmers. He viewed cities—and the landless workers who inhabited them—with deep suspicion.

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson wrote, "The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body".¹⁷ This biological metaphor—the city as a disease, the worker as a sore—reveals the limits of Jefferson’s democratic faith. He believed that "virtue" resided in the soil and that those who depended on wages or commerce were "subservient and venal," the ready tools of ambition.¹⁹

Jefferson’s "republicanism" was thus geographically and economically determined. It was a democracy for the owners of land, but not for the inhabitants of the "pestilential" cities. While he was more tolerant of "a little rebellion now and then" than Madison or Hamilton ²⁰, his vision ultimately relied on the expansion of territory (and the displacement of Indigenous peoples) to ensure that every white man could be a landowner, thus preventing the rise of a European-style proletariat that he believed would destroy the republic.

The Constitution’s Anti-Democratic Mechanisms

The theoretical preferences of the Framers were codified into hard institutional realities that continue to govern the United States today. These mechanisms were designed to prioritize land, property, and existing power structures over the numerical majority of the population.

1. The Senate: As noted in the user's provided document, the Senate is the most potent republican filter. By granting every state two senators regardless of population, the Framers created a permanent structural advantage for small, rural polities.¹ In 1787, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was roughly 13 to 1. Today, it is nearly 70 to 1 (California vs. Wyoming). This malapportionment ensures that a minority of the population can block legislation supported by the vast majority.
2. The Electoral College: Designed to be a deliberative body of elites who would select the President based on merit, the Electoral College was explicitly intended to prevent a populist demagogue from rising to power via the direct vote. It serves as a mechanism where the "sense of the people" can be overridden by the structural weight of the states.¹³
3. The Judiciary: The Supreme Court, appointed for life, was designed as a bulwark against the "innovations" of democracy. It has the power to invalidate laws passed by elected representatives, acting as a final veto point that is accountable to no one.²¹
4. Absence of Voting Rights: The Constitution of 1787 did not guarantee a single citizen the right to vote. It left the determination of suffrage to the states, which almost universally restricted it to white, male property owners. This omission was not an oversight; it was a design feature intended to keep the "mob" away from the ballot box.¹

Chapter III: The Rhetoric of Reaction – "Mob Rule" and its Etymology

To maintain a system designed for minority rule in an era that increasingly values equality, the defenders of the republican model have relied on a powerful rhetorical strategy: the weaponization of the "mob." By conflating democratic assembly with violent chaos, elites have successfully delegitimized popular movements for centuries.

Mobile Vulgus: The Etymology of Class Warfare

The term "mob" itself is a linguistic artifact of class warfare. It is a contraction of the Latin phrase mobile vulgus, meaning "the fickle crowd" or "the movable common people".²² The term entered the English lexicon during the late 17th century, specifically around the time of the Glorious Revolution and the Exclusion Crisis, as a way for the aristocracy to dismiss the political agency of the lower classes.²⁴

The mobile vulgus was viewed not as a group of citizens with legitimate grievances, but as a mindless, fluid mass that could be swayed by passion and demagoguery. When Samuel Johnson compiled his dictionary in 1755, he noted the word was a "cant" term, yet it stuck because it served a vital political utility.²² It allowed the ruling class to categorize any gathering of the poor—whether a riot or a peaceful petition—as illegitimate.

By the 18th century, "mob" had become the standard pejorative for the people out of doors. When Madison wrote of "the mob" in Federalist 55, he was tapping into a century of aristocratic disdain. He was asserting that the nature of the common people was fundamentally unstable, and therefore, they required the "straitjacket" of a republic to prevent them from destroying themselves and their betters.

Deconstructing the Mob: Arendt and Mundy

The intellectual dishonesty of equating democracy with mob rule is exposed when examined through the lens of modern political theory. Hannah Arendt, in her seminal analysis of totalitarianism, draws a sharp distinction between "the mob" and "the people"—a distinction the Framers deliberately obscured.

For Arendt, "the mob" is not synonymous with the working class or the citizenry. Rather, the mob is the "refuse of all classes"—the disaffected, the criminal, and the marginalized who have fallen out of the social structure.²⁶ Arendt argues that the mob is often the ally of the elite, used to disrupt the political order and pave the way for authoritarianism. "The temporary alliance between the elite and the mob," she writes, rests on the "genuine delight with which the former watched the latter destroy respectability".²⁸

In Arendt’s view, "the people" in a revolution fight for representation, law, and a genuine public sphere. The "mob," by contrast, shouts for a "strong man" or a "great leader" to smash the existing order.²⁶ By labeling all majoritarian movements as "mobs," the Framers delegitimized the concept of "the people" as a rational political agent. They conflated the desire for representation with the desire for chaos.

Talbot Mundy, writing in The Devil's Guard, offers another philosophical counterpoint to the Federalist view: "Mobs never rule".²⁹ Mundy argues that the mob is an illusion of power; it is always an instrument of someone else’s will. "Cozened and flattered and betrayed, a mob does murder that the rogues who rule may profit".²⁹ If "mobs never rule," then the Framers’ fear of "mob rule" was a fear of a phantom. What they truly feared was not chaos, but the organized, rational rule of the majority—a force that could rule, and would likely rule against the interests of the opulent minority.

The Spurious Jeffersonian Defense

In the modern era, the desperation to maintain the narrative that "democracy equals mob rule" has led to the fabrication of historical evidence. A quote widely attributed to Thomas Jefferson—"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine"—is a complete invention.³⁰

Research by the Monticello Foundation confirms that this quote does not appear in any of Jefferson's writings. Its earliest known appearance is in 2004, yet it has proliferated on conservative websites, merchandise, and political arguments.³⁰ That opponents of democracy must invent quotations to bolster their case suggests that the actual historical record, while elitist, is not visceral enough for modern propaganda. The fake quote simplifies the complex views of the Founders into a soundbite that justifies the disenfranchisement of the modern electorate. It is a rhetorical weapon forged in the 21st century, retroactively placed in the mouth of a Founder to lend authority to anti-democratic sentiments.

Chapter IV: The Modern Resurrection – "We Are A Republic, Not A Democracy"

The phrase "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" has transitioned from a pedantic distinction in high school civics classes to a partisan rallying cry used to justify minority rule. This resurgence is not accidental; it is a strategic response to shifting demographics and the realization that the conservative coalition is increasingly a structural minority in the United States.

From the John Birch Society to the Senate Floor

The modern popularization of the "republic, not a democracy" slogan tracks back to the mid-20th century far-right, specifically the John Birch Society.³² In the 1950s and 60s, this group used the slogan to oppose civil rights legislation and social welfare programs, framing them as "mob rule" excesses that violated the republican strictures of the Constitution. They argued that the civil rights movement was an attempt to "democratize" the US into socialism.

For decades, this rhetoric remained on the fringe. However, in recent years, it has migrated to the center of Republican political thought. Senator Mike Lee of Utah became a central figure in this revitalization during the 2020 election cycle. In a series of controversial statements, Lee tweeted, "Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that".³ Lee went further, stating explicitly, "We are not a democracy".³

Lee's argument relies on a specific definition of "rank democracy" as unchecked majoritarianism that threatens "liberty" (which, as established earlier, often serves as a euphemism for property rights).³⁵ By framing democracy as the enemy of flourishing, Lee channels the original Federalist anxiety: that a politically active majority will eventually demand economic redistribution.

The Partisan Linguistic Divide

Data indicates that this rhetorical shift is deeply partisan. A 2024 study by the Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) project found a massive divergence in how Americans view these terms.

Source: Derived from PACE Civic Language Perceptions Project Data.³⁶

This linguistic divide reflects a divergence in legitimacy. For the modern "republican" movement (in the ideological sense), legitimacy flows from the Constitution’s structural constraints—the "checks" on the people. For the "democratic" movement, legitimacy flows from the consent of the governed expressed through the ballot. When a political faction realizes it cannot win the latter, it retreats to the fortress of the former.

The Strategic Utility of the Distinction

The "republic not a democracy" argument effectively grants moral permission to ignore the popular vote. In the context of the 2000 and 2016 elections, where the winner of the presidency lost the popular vote, and in the context of the U.S. Senate, where a minority of the population can control the majority of seats, this rhetoric normalizes the idea that the majority should lose. It recasts the disenfranchisement of millions not as a flaw, but as the system working as designed to prevent the "tyranny" of the 51%.³⁰

As legal scholars have noted, this rhetoric is often a precursor to justifying the disenfranchisement of voters. If democracy is a threat to the republic, then restricting access to the ballot box becomes a patriotic act of "saving" the republic.³⁸ The argument provides a constitutional veneer for voter suppression laws, gerrymandering, and the rejection of election results that do not favor the minority.

Chapter V: Institutionalizing Minority Rule – The Current Crisis

The Framers did not rely solely on rhetoric; they built a machine. The "Republican Government" described in the user's uploaded document was engineered with redundancies to ensure that even if the "mob" organized, it could not rule. Modern political science confirms that these mechanisms are not only intact but have become more exclusionary over time due to demographic shifts.

The Senate: A Fortress of Malapportionment

The United States Senate is the most potent republican filter in the Constitution. As noted in the user's text, the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures, shielding it entirely from the direct vote. While the 17th Amendment introduced direct elections, the structural malapportionment remains and has worsened.

Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their analysis of the "Tyranny of the Minority," argue that the U.S. Constitution is dangerously outdated compared to other democracies that have modernized their upper chambers.⁴⁰ Because the Senate allocates power by geography rather than population, and because partisan affiliation has become highly correlated with population density (the urban/rural divide), the Senate effectively subsidizes the political power of rural, white, conservative voters at the expense of the multiracial urban majority.⁴¹

This is not an accidental byproduct; it is the "republican" design functioning as intended. By requiring legislation to pass a body where Wyoming has the same power as California, the system ensures that the "rights of property" (land) supersede the rights of people. This structure allows a political minority to consistently block legislation supported by the majority of the American population, from gun safety to climate action to healthcare.

The Judiciary as the Final Veto

The user's draft correctly identifies the judiciary as a branch insulated from "direct elections." However, the role of the Supreme Court has expanded into a super-legislature that actively dismantles democratic expansions.

Legal scholar Robert Dahl, in How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, critiques the judiciary as a blatantly anti-democratic force.²¹ The Court has the power to strike down laws passed by democratically elected majorities based on interpretations of a document written by long-dead aristocrats.⁴² Dahl notes that the U.S. is unique among advanced democracies in the power it grants to its high court to overturn national legislation.

Recent jurisprudence, particularly Shelby County v. Holder (gutting the Voting Rights Act) and Citizens United (allowing unlimited corporate spending), aligns perfectly with the "republican" goal of protecting property and narrowing the electorate. By treating money as speech and voting as a state-regulated privilege rather than a fundamental right, the Court upholds the Madisonian view that the "first object of government" is the protection of the "diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate".¹

"Tyranny of the Minority"

The cumulative effect of the Senate, the Electoral College, and the Judiciary is what Levitsky and Ziblatt term "Tyranny of the Minority." In most democracies, the party that wins the most votes governs. In the U.S., it is possible—and increasingly common—for a party to win the presidency, control the Senate, and appoint the Supreme Court while receiving fewer votes than their opposition.⁴¹

This disconnect threatens the stability of the nation. A political system that consistently produces outcomes that contradict the will of the majority loses its legitimacy. The "republican" safety valves are no longer "refining" public opinion; they are silencing it.

Chapter VI: Economic Republicanism – Liberty for Property, Coercion for Labor

The user's text posits that "Capitalism is the economic face of republicanism." This insight requires deep elaboration. The republican structure does not just distort elections; it distorts the distribution of wealth by insulating economic power from democratic accountability.

"Economic Democracy" vs. The Republic

If political democracy is the rule of the people in the sphere of government, "economic democracy" is the rule of the workers in the sphere of production. Unions represent the primary vehicle for economic democracy, allowing the "mob" (workers) to exert power over the "minority" (owners).

Throughout American history, the "republican" legal structure has been used to suppress economic democracy. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of the New Deal era was a brief attempt to introduce democratic principles into the workplace.⁴³ However, this has been steadily eroded by legislation framed in the language of individual liberty—specifically "Right to Work" laws.

The Constitutional Weaponization of "Right to Work"

"Right to Work" laws, which prohibit agreements requiring employees to pay union dues, are framed as protecting individual freedom. However, their origins and effects are deeply tied to the preservation of economic hierarchy and racial segregation.⁴⁴

Research indicates a strong correlation between "Right to Work" laws and lower voter turnout. A study published in Perspectives on Politics found that the passage of Right to Work laws leads to a significant decrease in Democratic vote share and overall turnout.⁴⁵ This creates a feedback loop: weak unions lead to lower political participation among the working class, which leads to more republican/elitist election outcomes, which leads to further anti-union legislation.

This confirms the hypothesis that the "republican" form of government is fundamentally incompatible with economic democracy. The "Right to Work" is, in effect, the "Right to Undermine Collective Action." It utilizes the state’s power to atomize the workforce, ensuring that the "bronze-souled" workers cannot combine their strength to challenge the "gold-souled" owners.

The Absence of Positive Rights

The user's draft notes the Constitution’s omission of a "right to work" (in the sense of guaranteed employment).¹ The U.S. Constitution is a charter of negative liberties—it protects citizens from the government (e.g., "Congress shall make no law..."). It does not empower the government to protect citizens from economic destitution or corporate power.

In a true democracy, the majority could vote to guarantee healthcare, housing, or employment as rights. In the U.S. republic, such measures are often framed as unconstitutional infringements on the liberty (property) of the wealthy. The "republican" constitution is thus a straitjacket on the economic imagination of the majority, rendering the "general welfare" subservient to the "rights of property."

Chapter VII: Conclusion – The Path to Democratization

The historical and political analysis leads to an inescapable conclusion: The United States government was not designed to fail at democracy; it was designed to succeed at republicanism. The "problems" often cited by reformers—the Electoral College, the filibuster, the lifetime appointment of judges, the difficulty of passing redistributive legislation—are the system functioning exactly as the Framers intended.

The "Republic" was built on the foundation of the "Myth of the Metals" and the "Myth of the Mob." It posited that a specific class of men—white, property-owning, and ostensibly "virtuous"—possessed a "gold soul" that entitled them to rule, while the "bronze-souled" workers required containment.¹ This system relied on the exclusion of women, the enslavement of Black people, and the displacement of Indigenous nations to function.

The Breaking Point

The tension between the republican design and the democratic aspirations of the American people has reached a breaking point. The violence of January 6th, 2021, was a manifestation of this conflict. In a bitter irony, the insurrectionists believed they were acting to save the Republic from the "mob" of voters who elected Joe Biden.⁴⁶ They viewed the valid exercise of majority power as an act of tyranny, a belief nurtured by the rhetoric that "democracy is mob rule."

As Levitsky and Ziblatt warn, a government that consistently acts against the wishes of the majority cannot claim to be "popular" in any meaningful sense. The "republican" safety valves are no longer protecting the nation; they are suffocating it.

Democratizing the Constitution

To finish the document of the American experiment, the nation must move beyond the Framers' design. We must recognize that "republican government," as conceived in 1787, is incompatible with the modern values of universal human rights and equality.

Scholars like Sanford Levinson and organizations advocating for reform propose "Democratizing the Constitution".⁴⁷ This would require:

1. Abolishing the Electoral College to ensure the President represents the majority.
2. Reforming the Senate to reduce the extreme malapportionment of power.
3. Ending the Filibuster to allow the majority to govern.
4. Establishing Positive Rights to economic security, breaking the link between property and political power.

We are not a democracy, but we should be. The choice facing the nation is whether to cling to the "republic" of the slaveholders, with its fear of the "mob" and its reverence for property, or to finally build the democracy of the people, where the "gold," "silver," and "bronze" distinctions are cast aside in favor of true equality. The "Republic" was a mechanism for a specific time and a specific elite; Democracy is the unfinished work of the future.

Works Cited

1. Republican Government AI.pdf
2. In Federalist No. 10 James Madison wrote that direct democracies have generally been short-lived and always been disastrous. What democratic states was he thinking of? : r/AskHistorians - Reddit, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f6fyl2/in_federalist_no_10_james_madison_wrote_that/
3. Republican senator says 'democracy isn't the objective' of US system - The Guardian, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/08/republican-us-senator-mike-lee-democracy
4. accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/what-is-a-slave-society/ancient-greece-as-a-slave-society/36448B5E8DA87C5C413418A6476A353A#:~:text=In%20this%20chapter%2C%20I%20have,%2C%20political%20system%2C%20and%20culture.
5. Ancient Greece as a “Slave Society” (Chapter 2) - Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/what-is-a-slave-society/ancient-greece-as-a-slave-society/36448B5E8DA87C5C413418A6476A353A
6. accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/what-is-a-slave-society/ancient-greece-as-a-slave-society/36448B5E8DA87C5C413418A6476A353A#:~:text=Modern%20estimates%20of%20the%20total,range%20from%2030%2C000%20to%20250%2C000.&text=Historians'%20estimates%20of%20the%20proportion,estimates%20of%20the%20total%20population.
7. In 317 B.C. there were 21,000 Athenian citizens, 10,000 free foreigners, and 400,000 slaves living in Attica. How usual was this huge disparity in slave-owners societies? : r/AskHistorians - Reddit, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aipp5s/in_317_bc_there_were_21000_athenian_citizens/
8. An Update on the Shotgun Method - Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, accessed November 22, 2025, https://grbs.library.duke.edu/index.php/grbs/article/download/951/1031/3851
9. Choice of slavery institutions in Ancient Greece: Athenian chattels and Spartan helots, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-institutional-economics/article/choice-of-slavery-institutions-in-ancient-greece-athenian-chattels-and-spartan-helots/DA904BD5451B7DD8741DBDDFA5BC7DFF
10. accessed November 22, 2025, https://carlos.emory.edu/exhibition/confronting-slavery-classical-world#:~:text=Estimates%20suggest%20that%20in%20Athens,25%20percent%20of%20the%20population.
11. The Federalist Papers No. 10 - The Avalon Project, accessed November 22, 2025, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
12. Federalist 10 (1787) - The National Constitution Center, accessed November 22, 2025, https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/james-madison-federalist-10-1788
13. Federalist No. 10 - Wikipedia, accessed November 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
14. DEMOCRACY AND PUBLIC OPINION: TWO VIEWS, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www1.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/public.html
15. Is the United States a Republic? Or a Democracy? | United We Pledge, accessed November 22, 2025, https://unitedwepledge.org/is-the-united-states-a-republic-or-a-democracy/
16. "Democracy while it lasts is more bloody..." - John Adams [664x968] : r/QuotesPorn - Reddit, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/QuotesPorn/comments/24omwj/democracy_while_it_lasts_is_more_bloody_john/
17. Thomas Jefferson's Prophetic Anti-City Sentiments - Abbeville Institute, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/thomas-jeffersons-prophetic-anti-city-sentiments/
18. Thomas Jefferson quote: The mobs of the great cities add just so much, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.azquotes.com/quote/570551
19. What's Ailing Us? This Is What Jefferson Would Say. - History News Network, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/whats-ailing-us-this-is-what-jefferson-would-say
20. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 30 January 1787 - Founders Online, accessed November 22, 2025, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0095
21. "How Democratic Is the American Constitution?" by Dahl | Free Paper Example, accessed November 22, 2025, https://demoessays.com/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution-by-dahl/
22. accessed November 22, 2025, https://dailybritain.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/15th-april-1755-johnsons-dictionary/#:~:text=Johnson%20was%20prejudiced%20against%20'Americanisms,vulgaris'%2C%20the%20common%20people.
23. 10 Pieces of Mob Lingo You Should Know - Mental Floss, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.mentalfloss.com/language/slang/10-gangster-pieces-mob-lingo
24. The London “Mob” in the Early Eighteenth Century | Journal of British Studies, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/london-mob-in-the-early-eighteenth-century/5A48705B6DBD8D05F6B35AD2D269627D
25. Mob rule - Wikipedia, accessed November 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule
26. Quote by Hannah Arendt: “The mob is primarily a group in which the resid...” - Goodreads, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8329386-the-mob-is-primarily-a-group-in-which-the-residue
27. accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.hannaharendt.net/index.php/han/article/view/565/906#:~:text=Canovan%20traces%20Arendt's%20various%20uses,of%20the%20class%20order%20(Canovan
28. Quote by Hannah Arendt: “The temporary alliance between the elite and th...” - Goodreads, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9085998-the-temporary-alliance-between-the-elite-and-the-mob-rested
29. 0607701.txt - Project Gutenberg Australia, accessed November 22, 2025, https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0607701.txt
30. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule...(Spurious Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rulespurious-quotation/
31. Spurious Quotations | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/category/spurious-quotations/
32. (PDF) America: Republic or Democracy? - ResearchGate, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392713369_America_Republic_or_Democracy
33. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT AND THE PERILS OF POPULAR ORIGINALISM - Arizona Law Review, accessed November 22, 2025, https://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/53-3/53arizlrev827.pdf
34. Sen. Mike Lee clarifies after 'We're not a democracy' tweets met with criticism | KSL.com, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.ksl.com/article/50027459/sen-mike-lee-clarifies-after-were-not-a-democracy-tweets-met-with-criticism
35. Of Course We're Not a Democracy - Mike Lee US Senator for Utah, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.lee.senate.gov/2020/10/of-course-we-re-not-a-democracy
36. We no longer have a shared view of 'democracy.' Should we abandon it? - The Fulcrum, accessed November 22, 2025, https://thefulcrum.us/democracy/what-does-the-word-democracy-mean
37. Democracy or Republic? | American Enterprise Institute - AEI, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.aei.org/articles/democracy-or-republic/
38. The Context of Democratic Discourse: Deliberation and Debate in Online Discussion Spaces - University Digital Conservancy, accessed November 22, 2025, https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstreams/ce6798a8-97d9-40d1-9f5a-15a82e5263e5/download
39. What's The Difference Between A Republic And A Democracy (And Which Is The US)?, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.iflscience.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-republic-and-a-democracy-and-which-is-the-us-77839
40. Tyranny of the Minority by Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt: 9780593443095 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/706046/tyranny-of-the-minority-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/
41. Scholars warn of danger in an outdated Constitution - Harvard Gazette, accessed November 22, 2025, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/09/scholars-warn-of-danger-in-an-outdated-constitution-democracy-tyranny-of-the-minority/
42. American Democracy: A Model Oxymoron or Who Knew the Constitution Enshrined Affirmative Action for States? Book Review Of, accessed November 22, 2025, https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1799&context=concomm
43. Confronting Structural Inequality in State Labor Law, accessed November 22, 2025, https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2195&context=fac_articles
44. An American Approach to Social Democracy: The Forgotten Promise of the Fair Labor Standards Act - University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository, accessed November 22, 2025, https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3030&context=articles
45. Kate Andrias* Labour and Democracy - Constitutional Governance, accessed November 22, 2025, https://constitutional-governance.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/SSRN-id4575059.pdf
46. Remarks by President Biden on Standing up for Democracy | The White House, accessed November 22, 2025, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/11/03/remarks-by-president-biden-on-standing-up-for-democracy/
47. Re-Framers: Proposals to Rewrite the U.S. Constitution, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.constitutional-change.com/re-framers-proposals-to-rewrite-the-u-s-constitution/
48. Democratizing the Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government (review) | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254935206_Democratizing_the_Constitution_Reforming_Responsible_Government_review