In the quiet of history’s library, a profound conversation echoes across centuries and continents. It is a dialogue between the cautious architects of the American republic and a brilliant Corsican soldier who sought to master the forces of revolution. Their shared subject – the inherent vulnerabilities of popular government – holds urgent lessons for our present, a time when the very foundations of democracy are shaken not by external armies, but by the internal corrosion of inequality and the unchecked influence of the moneyed class.
This article will explore the delicate balance required to sustain a system that is, as we shall see, often misunderstood and perpetually in peril.
Part I: The American Founders’ Fear of Themselves
The first United States constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was notably fragile, and the subsequent U.S. Constitution was deliberately designed to be a republic, not a pure democracy. The distinction was everything to the Founders. They saw democracy not as an ideal, but as a dangerous precursor to mob rule.
- A Republic, Not a Democracy: The word “democracy” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, which instead mandates a “republican form of government” for the states. For figures like James Madison, pure democracies had “ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.” John Adams warned that “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.”
- Insulation from Popular Passion: The initial design of the government was strikingly “elitist”. Institutions like the Electoral College and the appointment of Senators by state legislatures were intended to insulate decision-makers from the direct “whims” of the populace. The Founders believed this buffer was essential to adhere to the constitution’s limits and protect individual liberty from what they feared would be the “tyranny of the majority.”
Their primary safeguard was a structure of government designed to slow down and refine public opinion. However, they could not have fully anticipated a new tyranny that would emerge not from the masses, but from a concentrated few.
Part II: Napoleon’s Answer: Trading Revolution for Order and Glory
While Americans were building a republic, France was living through the turbulent aftermath of its revolution. Napoleon Bonaparte emerged from this chaos not as a philosopher, but as a pragmatist who channeled revolutionary energies into a new, potent force: nationalism.
He saw the endless revolutionary debates and the “never-ending revolution” as unproductive and destabilising. His remedy was to offer the French people a bargain: surrender a degree of political liberty for stability, glory, and national pride.
- The Authoritarian Bargain: Napoleon effectively ended the French Republic by first becoming First Consul for Life in 1802 and then Emperor in 1804. He centralised the state’s authority, creating a powerful administrative system that reached into every department, regularising tax collection and bringing the state’s authority to every corner of France.
- Channeling Energy Outward: The “unproductive” revolutionary fervor was redirected into the Grande Armée. This was not the old royal army, but a massive citizen army, inspired by the defense of the Revolution and a new sense of French nationalism. Napoleon’s military innovations, which emphasised speed, offensive action, and living off the land, required a motivated and nationalistic force.
- A Hybrid State: Napoleon created a hybrid system that retained some revolutionary ideals – such as equality under the law in his Napoleonic Code and careers open to talent – while building an authoritarian state with a new nobility based on service. He provided tangible achievements: he established the Bank of France to end inflation, built infrastructure, and made peace with the Catholic Church via the Concordat. In exchange, he demanded loyalty and an end to political dissent.
Napoleon’s model demonstrates that when a populace grows weary of chaos and inequality, it may willingly trade political freedom for the perceived efficiency and glory of a strong, centralised state. This is the siren song that democracy must overcome.
Part III: The Modern Challenge: The Tyranny of the Moneyed Class
Today, the threat to democracy is less the “mob” the Founders feared and more the overwhelming influence of a new oligarchy. The tyranny of the majority has been supplanted by the tyranny of the moneyed class.
- Wealth as a Political Weapon: Extreme wealth accumulation allows a small elite to distort policymaking, labor rights, and tax structures to their own benefit, often at the expense of the broader public interest. This is a global phenomenon; in Europe, the wealth of billionaires grows by hundreds of millions per day, while ordinary citizens struggle with the cost of living.
- Erosion of Trust and the Rise of Populism: This concentration of wealth and power deepens economic inequalities and erodes trust in democratic institutions. Research shows a direct link between rising inequality and increased support for populist parties, which further weakens the democratic fabric. This creates a vicious cycle where public disillusionment with the system makes Napoleonic-style “strongman” solutions appear more attractive.
Proposed Remedies: Reinforcing the Foundations
To prevent this downward spiral, democracy must be actively fortified. The remedies lie in restoring balance and ensuring the system works for the many, not the few.
- Wealth Taxation and an “Extreme Wealth Line”: There is growing momentum for policies that directly address concentration of wealth. A minimum tax on the ultra-wealthy could generate hundreds of billions for public coffers. Some economists and think tanks have proposed defining an “Extreme Wealth Line” – a metric to identify the point at which wealth concentration begins to harm democracy and the economy, guiding policy to mitigate its effects.
- Revitalising Civic Education and Media: The Founders believed an educated citizenry was essential for a republic to function. Today, this requires a renewed commitment to civic literacy and protecting the free press from being drowned out by funded misinformation campaigns.
- Embracing the Founders’ Wisdom, Not Their Prejudices: We must return to the Founders’ core principle that government’s primary role is to protect liberty, which includes freedom from oligarchic control. This does not mean disenfranchising the people, as they initially did, but empowering them against concentrated power in all its forms.
Conclusion: The Never-Ending Work
The contrasting paths of early America and Napoleonic France reveal a timeless truth: democracy is not a static achievement but a perpetual struggle. It is threatened both by the unchecked passions of the people and, as we see today, by the unchecked power of wealth. The remedy is not to end the democratic experiment, as Napoleon did, but to continually reform and rebalance it.
We must channel the energy of the people not into nationalism and war, but into the vigilant defense of a just and equitable society. The preservation of democracy requires us to confront the myth of its inevitability and do the hard work of strengthening its institutions against all forms of tyranny, old and new.
Also by Andrew Klein:
The Sleeper Awakes: how a century-old dystopia mirrors our world today
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
A comparison of the French approach to the US approach is of interest, but let’s not kid ourselves that they provide lessons to be learned.
Unless its lessons in what not to do.
Both resulted in oligarchy and war.
From the final paragraph — “We must channel the energy of the people not into nationalism and war, but into the vigilant defense of a just and equitable society.”
Which is exactly what the Chinese have done.
The Chinese have made the general good the foundation of every public activity — commercial, economic, political.
But hey, they’re only Chinese!
Why, they’re not even white! Not really white, like us!
It’s Western civilisation that is the fount of all wisdom!
What can we possibly learn from the Chinese?!
The Chinese success in dragging millions out of poverty while we increase poverty is down to (take your pick) authoritarianism, loss of liberty for the people, lack of democracy, fear in a surveillance state…
Every one, a lie.
The rise of the oligarchs in many countries shows the greatest weakness for “people power” in democracies, as it is essential to have so much money behind any candidate who has a chance of success – and then the elected candidates owe respect and favours to those who have supported them.
I agree: “Revitalising Civic Education and Media: …. today, this requires a renewed commitment to civic literacy and protecting the free press from being drowned out by funded misinformation campaigns.” Unfortunately, as H.L. Mencken stated: “Freedom of the Press is limited to those who own one”. Our major sources of information are owned by those same oligarchs who own our political representatives.
Steve and Lyndal..completely agree.Since the almighty dollar assumed control through rampant consumerism,and the puppet governments that act as the executive of multinational,non tax paying corporations,we have been subsumed into the failed neoliberal experiment.
Materialism has , by and large trumped sprituality.Add to this the tsunami of misinformation, and people are caught between accumulating useless bling and empathy for the less fortunate.Not hard to see what’s going on around us.
Something’s gotta bust.
Sorry about the rant.It shits me to tears.
Unfortunately the oligarchs not only rely on divide, conquer and slavery they also rely on wars!
Very profitable and as you can tell from the following link, history does repeat, so its up to us all to resist in ways that our skills allow us to.
Another independent publisher BTW:
https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/10/the-armistice-of-1918-and-the-ceasefire-of-2025/?
response to Steve Davis:
“From the final paragraph — “We must channel the energy of the people not into nationalism and war, but into the vigilant defense of a just and equitable society.”
“Which is exactly what the Chinese have done.
The Chinese have made the general good the foundation of every public activity — commercial, economic, political.”
Which is why the right and the wealthy are demonising the Chinese and insisting on calling its government communist. China is not communist in the traditional sense but identifies as a socialist state with a market economy with significant private enterprise.
The US and most western governments can see that the rise of China has been facilitated by its form of government where the state makes decisions based not on who gives the highest donations to which party but on what is best for the future of the country and its people, and this threatens multi party governments where most of their energy is spent not in working for the people and the future but in staying in power and smoothing the way for donors to accumulate more wealth and power.
re. Steve’s comments, my partner (Yi ming zhongguo nuzi) showed me a video the other day of a young American man being interviewed in China. He’d lived there for several years. The key point that came across was that his education in the USA had taught him nothing of consequence or usefulness about China; most of what he had been told about that country was wrong. He said that an attitude of deliberate ignorance exists, in relation to China and the Chinese people. He also said that the prevailing propaganda about Chinese people suffering under the yoke of an autocratic regime is the opposite of his experience, that he’d only experienced freedom of movement, of discussion and exchange, of hospitality and generosity, and that he’d been astounded at the extent of the material development and sophistication of Chinese culture and technology.
The moribund western societies have few arrows left in their quivers to aim at the rising dragon, and most of them are untipped. Little wonder that all that’s left are bitter words and sabre-rattling.
…the rights of property…
And that is the issue, isn’t it? They were more concerned with the ability to amass and retain wealth than with human rights or equity. And are even more so today.
A huge thank you to everyone for expanding my comment.
I was not sure how my frustration, bitterness and sarcasm would come across via the written word, but it seems I did not cross any red lines.
🙂
Kanga, please give my regards to your partner.
It must be difficult to see one’s country of origin constantly under attack.
Harry — not a rant.
Leefe — hammer hits nail on head.