The main strategy, it seemed, of the Democrat party for the mid-term election was the “attack on democracy.”  I think I understand them correctly when I say they refer to a spin on January 6, 2020 and then the so-called “election denial” or “election denialism.”   January 6 was this amazing attempt to overturn the election.  It was so close to seeing Donald Trump in the White House, just razor thin.

You’ve got to have people, when it’s announced that they lost, that they concede.  You give a gracious concession speech where you agree that you lost.  If not, you’re attacking democracy.  If later, you say something in the nature of the election being rigged against you, that will bring violence and a 1930’s Nazi takeover around the corner.

Most of the Democrat attempt to impede the expected red wave revolved around saving democracy.  Based on a very general definition, the United States is a democracy.  It is in the sense that legal voters elect their representatives.  In that way, the people rule the country.  However, the founders didn’t think they were founding a democracy.

If you google “federalist papers,” you’ll get a discussion on democracy.   Speaking of democracy, Alexander Hamilton (yes, Hamilton), wrote:

Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

He continued in the next two paragraphs:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

In the answer by James Madison, the Father of the United States Constitution, he writes:

The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory.

They write much more.  Their words stand on their own to repudiate the claim of American democracy.  Both Hamilton and Madison argue against it.

I think the Democrat strategy won’t work.  I don’t think most people even comprehend their point.  “Please elect people who support your right to elect them.”  If they couldn’t vote for who they wanted, it would be obvious.

If you’re thinking like me, you see an irony in the Democrat strategy.  Elon Musk bought Twitter, because the Democrats who controlled the company took away the right to express an opinion.  In justifying his overbid for Twitter, Musk wrote:

Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.

The threat to free speech comes from the Democrats.  People know they could lose their job over their opinion.  Parents lost their say over the education of their children.  Those with a different opinion than the Democrats can’t work in Hollywood.  The mainstream media censors stories that hurt their favored political party.

The United States wasn’t founded as a democracy.  Even if it was, only one political party threatens the democratic values behind the American Republic.  It isn’t the Republicans.