I think that the framers of the United States Constitution (and most of the
participants in this list) would agree that equality, self-determination,
deliberation, and the concept of self-rule, as Prof. Lipkin has defined it,
are all important aspects of just government, as is democracy, provided that
democracy is subject to certain checks and balances that prevent the
subordination and oppression of underrepresented minorities.
My point was that the more one builds all other aspects of just government
into one's conception of "democracy", the less useful the term "democracy"
becomes, except as a slogan.
The essence of democracy is majority rule, and majority rule can lead to
oppression, in the absence of republican checks and balances.
I think that Professor Lipkin would agree with this, and I admire his project
of trying to clarify both the historical and contemporary uses of such terms
as "democracy" and "republic". The latter term seems to me to be a better
description of the sytem of government established by the United States
Constitution, and to represent a substantively more desirable ideal (the
common good of all citizens) than does democracy (as majority rule).
Democracy is one of several useful techniques for achieving republican
government.
I agree with Professor Sellers on all points here, and would add only a bit of a nance. Checks on democracy are needed not only to prevent subordination and oppression of minorities. For Madison and Wilson, such checks were also necessary in order to achieve the one legitimate end of all government, the public good. Popular, contemporary conceptions of the antimajoritarian concept have whittled the multiple problems with pure democracy down to the one concern about majoritarianism, but that focus plays into interest group politics by leaving the focus on groups and turning it away from the common good.
Marci
