Glenn Beck Claims that America is not a Democratic Society

Glenn Beck Claims that America is not a Democratic Society
Glenn Beck Hates Democracy
On the Monday edition of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck claimed that America is not a democratic society. While smearing the mother of a woman who died without healthcare, Beck said, “Well, we’re not a democratic society. I think that was the Soviet Union. I believe it is the democratic socialist republic in China as well.” Beck appears to be calling for the abolition of democracy in the United States of America.

Here is the video courtesy of Media Matters (Relevant video at 4:00):

Beck said, “Boy there are pesky phases that one that we should point out, social justice, shared community, and collective responsibility. Let’s not forget truly democratic society. Well, we’re not a democratic society. I think that was the Soviet Union. I believe it is the democratic socialist republic in China as well. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, everybody, all of the Founders repeatedly said because they knew democracies do not work, they never have, but Progressives, Marxists, really led by the Communists at the turn of the 1900s, they knew democracy was the way to get people to vote for dictators, and you hear it all of the time, how democratically elected Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin, the democratically elected leadership in Iran.”

Beck was intentionally distorting the terms democracy and Democratic in his little rant. The United States is in fact a democratic society. The Founders designed a system of government called a representative democracy. Perhaps, Glenn Beck, the expert on the Founding Fathers has never heard of this portion of their work? Beck was also intentionally confusing the democratic election process with open multiparty democratic elections. Of course of the elections that he referred to were democratic, in process, but with the exception Chavez, none of his examples were multi-party elections.

The message that Beck was sending to his viewers is that they should hate and distrust the democratic process which our political system is built upon. Beck was advocating for a totalitarian type of ruler, and the abolition of democracy in the United States of America. These are the words of the styled patriot and freedom fighter. If democracy is used in the United States to elect tyrants, it is obvious that Republicans like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were also tyrants because they were democratically elected too. Beck argued for the demise of democracy, and one really can’t get more un-American than that.

5 Replies to “Glenn Beck Claims that America is not a Democratic Society”

  1. How if there is one man I would like to punch in the nose, with all my might, its Beck and his bs.

    So the other 47 million in this broken system don’t count?

  2. Dear Bleck
    here is the definition Democratic you jackass
    1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
    2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
    3. Believing in or practicing social equality: “a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords” (George du Maurier).
    4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.

  3. Love, we’re not a democracy. We’re a constitutional republic. That’s why the people did not vote for US Senators til the 20th century. That’s why we don’t vote directly for president.

    A democracy does the will of the people. A constitutional republic does the things to which it is limited by its constitution. A democracy is based on changing whims. This constitutional republic is based on the unchanging natural law. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. A constitutional republic based on natural law only forbids things that would violate another’s rights.

    The founders were frightened of democracy. They called it “mob rule.” They argued valiantly against tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the people wanted the money or life of the 49%, should the government give it? The founders read Plato, who argued that democracy was the fourth of five states that a government reaches as it devolves, the only state above tyranny. That’s why there are so many hurdles, so many checks and balances in the constitution. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial all check each other, the states check the people and the people check the states. And the Constitution checks all of them.

    And though power flows ultimately from the people (for it is a social contract), the people have chosen to set up this constitutional republic. To change to a democracy proper, the people would need to change the constitution altogether. You cannot change something by ignoring it. Do we have democratic processes? Some. Kinda. But those are limited by the Constitution. If 99% of the people wanted to elect a 15 year old president, they could not immediately do so. They would need change the Constitution by replacement or amendment. The people themselves (and their “democratic processes”) are limited by this document to which they have agreed.

  4. @Andrew,
    You can call it a constitutional republic or a democratic republic but you still cannot defend Bleck for he is equating it to countries that actually do not practice democracy. Their form of democracy is in name only and that is the point to the article. Below are some quotes to help you.

    “Though a constitutional republic is not a pure democracy it necessarily has some democratic elements, such as ability of the people to elect a president (in the U.S. the majority of the population is checked here too, as popular vote of the people does not necessarily decide the winner). Nations where the head of state is not elected, as in a monarchy, as not elected but has a parliament with elected representatives that govern according to constitutional law protecting individual rights are called constitutional democratic monarchy)”.

    “In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world this is known as representative democracy. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1828”.

    “In contemporary usage,

    the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.

    The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister”.

    “The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy,

    which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy;

    James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.