There is a reason why you do not find the word “democracy” in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of these United States.

It is the same reason that, until the adoption of the 17^th Amendment in 1913, the only Federal officer elected by a direct vote of the public was their local member of the House of Representatives.

Senators were elected by state legislatures. Presidents were, and still are, elected by the Electoral College.

The underlying reason for the absence of the word “democracy” in our founding documents, and the reason for the very limited role given to ordinary voters in Federal elections was the same: for all their anti-monarchy rhetoric, our founders did not trust the ability of ordinary Joes to make wise decisions on matters as important as selecting senators or presidents.

In the latter part of the 18^th century, the word “democracy” connoted rule by the rabble, by the mob. Prior democracies in history had had only short-term success, and often ended badly, not to mention, violently.

The critics of democracy argued that what usually happened to democracies was that the citizenry grew tired of actively participating in the drudge work of maintaining a democracy, and were only too willing to leave the work of governance to would-be autocrats, flimflam artists, and false prophets.

Moreover, the concern was that the rabble would be motivated by appeals to their passions, and not to their reason. Factions would appear that would make the success of their own agendas paramount, the health of the commonweal be damned.

It is for this reason that the founders were very careful to establish a “republic,” and not a democracy. Inherent in this idea of government-by-elected-officers was the unspoken expectation that such representatives would come from the ranks of the social, economic, and political elites.

These expectations have not come to fruition. As the years passed, more democratic institutions gained ascendancy. The nomination of candidates passed from caucuses composed exclusively of members of the political aristocracy, to nomination by convention, to political primaries wherein candidates are selected by direct vote of ordinary citizens. In addition to the direct vote for senator, political exercises such as initiative, referendum, and recall increased the role of ordinary citizens beyond that originally foreseen by the founders.

But the basic question remains: Can government be left in the hands of the governed?

The answer is still in flux.

Increasingly, our default response to political debate is to retreat into our political faction—our tribe—rather than engage in rational conversation with the other side. This leads to grotesque pronouncements such as a state official taking the position that, even if the charges are true, the official would rather vote for a child molester than a Democrat.

Such blind adherence to faction is why, despite rating Congress slightly above, or below, cockroaches, we continue to return congressional incumbents election after election—creating a class of permanent career officeholders more attentive to the wishes of their donors than the folks they allegedly represent.

The fear of losing, or perhaps sharing, political points is why on major issues such as health care or tax reform, the emphasis is on jamming a partisan plan through the process rather than regular-order consideration and debate—which is what the framers had in mind.

Politicians pay attention to two classes of citizens: those who can help them and those who can hurt them. Those who opt out of active participation in the political process get what they deserve: ignored.

In creating this country, the founders got a lot of things right, but we can hope they got a few things wrong—such as their low estimation of the capacity of ordinary citizens to constructively contribute to their own self-governance.

We are in a period of trial. The outcome is, unfortunately, still in doubt.