Yes, I’ve harped already about the United States being a representative republic and not a democracy, and I’ll continue to bring it up as long as the clueless talk about “our democracy.” Yes, I’m specifically calling President Obama and Elena Kagan, his pick for the Supreme Court, clueless.

Most recently I saw this mistaken idea of American democracy on Facebook. It was a simple link to saying, “Sick of corporate corruption? Join me and Stand for Democracy.” Ignoring momentarily the three planks that Stand For Democracy is calling for, here’s the list of partners:

Can you spot the common theme running through these groups? If you said that they are all liberal groups, you win the prize. So knowing their fellow travelers, let’s see what Stand For Democracy is standing for:

Overturn Citizens United:

Amend the Constitution to protect America from unlimited corporate spending on our elections by overturning the Supreme Court’s decision giving corporations the same First Amendment rights as people.

“Evil corporations. Evil!” I can almost see them holding up a crucifix and stakes to ward off the evil corporations. They don’t seem to understand that a corporation is nothing more than a group of people banded together. And people DO have First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court’s decision was a good one, but it means corporations can have a voice in government actions when those actions affect their business and their people.

Fair elections now:

Pass the Fair Elections Now Act, providing public financing to candidates who are supported by small donors so they can compete with corporate-backed and self-funded candidates.

Did you notice that there is no mention here of union-backed candidates? SEIU has emerged as a big player in the past two to three years. And the head of SEIU, Andrew Stern, was the leading visitor to the White House in the first six months of President Obama’s administration. But union money and influence is just fine for liberals because unions share their liberal vision. Corporations do not have the same monolithic political leanings, so they must be blocked. And this is fair?

Lobbyist Reform Act:

Pass legislation to end the overwhelming influence of corporate lobbyists by: prohibiting individuals from switching from corporate lobbying to government service, or vice-versa, within a 5-year period; stopping corporate lobbyists from giving gifts and providing free travel to government officials; and posting online the attendees and content of all meetings between lobbyists and government officials (or their staffs).

And here we have a third attack on corporations. Bad, evil, nasty corporations. Seeing a trend? Don’t get me wrong: I would love to have more transparency in government, but I don’t see it happening at all with this administration. Yes, President Obama talked a good talk about how his administration would be the most transparent, but his actions have put the lie to his words. I’m guessing that much like a stopped clock, this group has a good idea with transparency, but the idea of throwing more and more legislation at a problem is a quintessentially liberal big government idea. When confronted with a problem, I prefer the option of personal freedom over government restrictions.

But what do I know? Well, at least I know that we live in a representative republic and not a democracy.

Too often I hear some elected official saying that the United States is a democracy. But we are not. The U.S. is a representative republic. The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that a democracy is inherently inefficient and unstable. Do you really want every American to vote on every item that comes up before government? That’s a democracy. And once the majority of the people realize that they can vote money away from the minority, then that democracy is doomed and will shortly implode.

We are a republic because we vote for people to represent us in government. The founding fathers didn’t want the people to vote directly on bills; that is why they created the Constitution the way they did. The President is not elected by the people; the people vote for electors to the Electoral College, and they vote for the President. And the citizens of each district vote for their representative in the House, and the state legislatures used to select people to be Senators. This way there were Representatives who were in touch with the common people, and Senators who were in touch with the needs of the states. With the arrival of the 17th Amendment in 1913, Senators became elected by the people of the states, and so they became populist puppets like the Representatives and had less to do with representing their states.

But our elected officials continue to talk as if we lived in a democracy. I don’t know if they do it because it is easier to say “democracy” than it is to say “representative republic,” or if they honestly don’t know the difference. President Obama and his aides are guilty of this, as reported by

President Obama said Sunday that the United States is still “working on” democracy and a top aide said he has taken “historic steps” to improve democracy in the United States during his time in office.

The remarks came as Obama met with Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev — one of the U.S. president’s many meetings with world leaders ahead of this week’s nuclear summit.

The published press briefing at the White House identified the “top aide” identity: Mike McFaul, Senior Director for Russia and the Caucasus.

Q Hi, this is for Mike McFaul. When you were discussing the discussion between President Nazarbayev and President Obama about human rights and democracy, you seemed to be suggesting there was some equivalence between their issues of democracy and the United States’ issues, when you said that President Obama assured him that we, too, are working on our democracy. Is there equivalence between the problems that President Nazarbayev is confronting and the state of democracy in the United States?

MR. McFAUL: Absolutely not, Jonathan. To be clear, what the President was saying is that all democracies need to work to improve their democracies. And he’s taken, I think, rather historic steps to improve our own democracy since coming to office here in the United States. There was no equivalence meant whatsoever.

Really? Historic steps? Fine, Mr. McFaul: name three historic steps taken by President Obama to improve our own democracy.

Can anyone name three? I sure can’t, so I contacted the White House asking for three examples. I’ll post whatever response I get back.