Conservative Blogs

Before they just said they had a divine right to it. - Roger Russell

Interesting thought. One with much behind it in history, in tyranny, and repression. Democracy has been said to be a tyranny of 51% denying the other 49% of their rights. But is that really true? We see elections in “Peoples Democratic Republics” all the time it is a favorite name in communists countries, they like being “Democratic”, they even have elections in many of them, although only “Party Members” can run for office, and they even have election officials to count the ballots and many methods of insuring a “fair election”.

An elected dictator is still a dictator, no matter how benevolent he wants to be, and a benevolent dictatorship will only work if I am the dictator; I do not trust anyone else with that power, and anyone who would trust me with it is a fool.

Now we were never meant to be a democracy but a Republic. Two different forms of government. Greece in the Peloponnesian era had a true democracy, every person had a chance to go to the seats of government and represent their interests, a right to speak and be heard before a vote was taken on laws and treaties., no one represented another, all were equal.

In a Republic we elect those who will represent our interests and values in the halls of government. All are equal before the law, but only those elected get to speak and be heard before the voting takes place on laws and treaties.

In a Monarchy the Emperor, King or whoever is often a hereditary ruler, considered to be the “Elect of God” and having divine rights to his office, as such he was not accountable to mere men for his actions but only to God.  A very powerful dictatorship, maintained by the right of force.

By allowing our country to fall into a democracy; this was done by the 17th Amendment and the direct election of Senators, we have removed to protections of States Rights ; we have allowed our elected officials to become dictators over us. Rule of law has devolved into rule of man and the force of the government becomes Right.

While this is not a problem caused by Democrats alone, they are in the forefront of pushing it to its logical limits, a Hereditary Government, exemplified by the Democrats claim to the “Kennedy Seat” in the Senate

Family Ties Playing A Big Role On the Hill

Some Offices Appear Inherited, Not Elected

By Dana Milbank

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, January 23, 2005;

It came as little surprise last week when Doris Matsui announced, four days after her husband's funeral, that she would run for his seat in Congress.

If the widow is successful in succeeding her late husband, Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif.), she will join a long list of lawmakers to follow relatives into office. With at least 18 senators, dozens of House members and several administration officials boosted by family legacies, modern-day Washington sometimes resembles the court of Louis XIV without the powdered wigs.

Blue blood is not required for political legacies; a number of those in Congress now are black or Hispanic: Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), son of former congresswoman Carrie Meek; Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), son of former congressman Harold Ford; Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Tex.), son of former congressman Henry Gonzalez; Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), daughter of former congressman Edward Roybal; Rep. William L. Clay Jr. (D-Mo.), whose father was a congressman; and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), daughter of former Georgia state representative Billy McKinney.

In the Senate, no fewer than six current officeholders have followed their fathers in that body: Murkowski, Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.), Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn), Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). Five others had famous relatives in other high places: John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), whose father was governor and White House chief of staff; Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), whose father was governor; Mary Landrieu (D-La.), whose father was New Orleans mayor; John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), whose uncle was vice president; James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), whose father was chief justice of the state supreme court; and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), whose father served in the House.

With the power to pass laws that they exempt themselves from, pass on hereditary seats I wonder do we really elect them? Or do they claim a “Devine Right”?

God Bless.

Just my thoughts for today.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of The Constitutional Conservatives to add comments!

Join The Constitutional Conservatives


  • Our founding were concerned about the aspects of a pure democracy. They also knew instinctively that the push towards it was inevitable. That is why I believe they tried to set up a Republic with checks and balances. The checks and balances are not working and will disappear even more. There are reasons it is disappearing and we all know most of them.

    The strange thing is what exactly does equality mean across the board for every living human either domestically or globally? It can not realistically be defined. It simply never will. To invoke the term the motivation behind is meant to illicit an emotional response  and carries with it for some guilt as well.

    No pure democracy is undesirable but that is where we find ourselves. The most pressing question now is what to do about it.

  • "Democracy" always meant that influential people and entities DECIDE what the voters should "CHOOSE"!

  • Good point on the difference between democracy, republic and monarchy.  I get steamed every time I hear newcasters and politicians throwing about the word democracy in relation to the United States.  I often wonder are they that ignorant or just too lazy?  Probably a little of both.  It's well beyond pass time for every conservative to point it out each time someone uses it.  So many sound bites used today, it's hard to get the time to do so.

    Yes, we do have a monarchy with so many claiming rights to positions simply because their father, mother, husband or wife held the position.  It's pass time to point this out as well.

    I seem to recall a Mark Udall serving in Colorado.  Isn't the present day Udall related?

    • Yes the father and now the son. In fact Udall is quite dependent on this to win reelection.

  • Hugh, You are spot on with this piece. We are living in a 'true democracy' and also one where dynasty's have been allowed by the voters. The dynasty issue resides with the voter because they vote them in. Of course money backs those dynasty's.

    While many sons and daughters follow in the footsteps of a parent I do think in politics this is not desirable. The parent serving in a elected office and now their son or daughter (or a wife or husband) have powerful connections to Washington special interests and this has to come in to play. Also the parent who served for years in office had in most cases powerful alliances with colleagues oft those are maintained with the offspring.

    • Adding on to the above.

      The Paul's are an example where a father was marginalized and the son as well. In most cases the opposite is more true. Of course  this is an example that supports the supposition that what the head of the dynasty behavior's where the voter assumes those will be  carried forward by the offspring and advantage by those of long time holders of office  assume the offspring will behave the same. The truth is that they do. The offspring's election is interpreted. perhaps, bu their election it is a voter mandate to keep on keeping on, business as usual. No one sees change.

      Of course the fix is not only throw the bums out  but reject dynasty as well. While Rand Paul tries to be his own man, clearly some ideas of the father resonates in the son.The expectations are expected by the voter and elected.

      Voters are a lazy bunch the familiar is intoxicating and convenient. Sometimes because  of the voting public's knowledge the behavior of the head is desirable in the offspring.

      Dynasty's may, in most cases, not work for all states and when the dynasty resides in the office of the Presidency it can not turn out well. The 2016 election may very well end up as a choice of two indiviuals who represent a dynasty.Very different idealogically in most ways.

      Rand Paul represents for the most part what I expect, so to his father.

      If Hillary or Jeb run we have examples what to expect.

      Whats the answer? Perhaps it lies in the legislative process or failing that with the voter.

This reply was deleted.

Only search 912communique

Un-check to search the web

Note to contributors:
Don't forget your tags.  Tags in an article are INCREDIBLY important!    They're the internets way of finding your post in a search.

Without tags - your article is INVISIBLE on the web!

Use keywords found within your post and/or use phrases which a person would enter *IF* they were searching your topic.

For examples click here.

Blogger Terms Of Service

TCC Blogs provide original opinion, discussion and research on a particular area of interest, person or party.  They are an ever-growing tool for discussion generation and opinion forming; especially for political consultants, news services and candidates to reach their constituents and express opinions on war, corruption and other issues. 

  • Minimum 400 characters (that's only a few sentences guys)
  • No more than 20% of the blog entry may be copy/pasted from another site although back links to research are encouraged. 
  • All blog entries will require Editor approval. 
  • Once published, increase your presence and readership by posting your blog directly to Twitter, Facebook, Google+.

See full FAQ here



Follow TCC


Shop The TCC Store

All content is subject to TCC Guidelines ** TCC Disclaimer ** TCC Terms of Service