Democracy vs Republic: Why a Trump Voter Says We’re Failing Slower

Mac and Mike Show Transcript

Mac: Hey folks, welcome back to the Mac and Mike Show. You probably know by now which one is Mac and which one is Mike.

Mike: I don’t. He gives me hell all the time, so you don’t have to say which is which.

Mac: So we didn’t do a lot of pre-planning for this. We’re out on the porch, and actually most of the day we talked about various religious topics, which we try not to bring into this particular podcast. We tend to do the Mac and Mike Sundays for the more religious stuff. But I mentioned to Mike that a friend of mine recently reached out and asked if I would participate in a study that one of his friends is doing. His friend was specifically looking for a Trump voter to ask some questions. What they’re trying to discern and research is a question more liberals are talking about than conservatives: individual views on democracy—whether it’s working or not, and if not, what needs to be fixed.

They had plenty of left-leaning survey participants but not enough right-leaning ones. Since this was a friend, I said yeah, sure, I’ll do it as a favor. So what I thought Mike and I would talk about beforehand is: What is democracy? Is democracy in America working? And if it’s not, what needs to be fixed? There’s a whole lot of passionate political debate going on—sometimes it even crosses the line into deadly territory. We could look at Charlie Kirk being shot, or the multiple attempts on the president’s life.

Mike, do you want to jump in? Is there a particular part of democracy in America that is or isn’t working?

Mike: Well, like I said on the back porch, democracy is not really what we are. We are a representative republic. And you know, that’s often overstated. Some people say, “Oh, we already knew that.” But there is a difference. The Greeks tried pure democracy—everybody gets a vote. The Romans had a republic, where you elect representatives. That’s what we have at almost all levels of government. Even locally—you vote for town mayor, town council.

Mac: Roman Senate was infamous.

Mike: Right. And there’s no perfect government. I said the worst form is pure democracy because the have-nots always vote to take from the haves to give to themselves. Getting back to religion, we are sinful, selfish creatures. Whether you believe in a religion or not, we pretty much understand we’re all selfish in some sense. The majority of us have a tendency to vote to make our own lives better, and as Thomas Sowell pointed out, everything is a tradeoff. You take somebody else’s money in the form of taxes to improve your lifestyle—healthcare or whatever.

But the thing I guess you’re driving at—and what this study is driving at—is really the political division. It doesn’t have so much to do with democracy or representative republic per se. It has to do with the division of ideas. It’s been heightened under President Trump, yet it always existed. If you look back to colonial days, there was some really nasty stuff being said. We have it in written form—it’s not historians pulling it out of their butts.

It used to be understood that good people can differ. You’re a Christian of one flavor, I’m another. We’re both good people, but we differ. The same used to be true about politics. I used to accept—and still do for the most part—that people who are Democrats or somewhat liberal are well-meaning good people overall. You get on social media or watch the news, and they show you the extremes, and those extremes exist. But if you get out in the street—like my neighbor and I were talking the other day—she hates Trump, I voted for him, I’ve got the Vets for Trump website. Yet she knows she can trust me to watch her house, and I’d trust her and her husband the same.

So if we’re looking for a solution, there is no good solution until people get off the internet, stop taking what the extremists on both sides say so seriously, and actually meet people. It used to be that we all identified the same problems and just had different ways of solving them. Today it seems we can’t even agree on what the problems are. So if you can’t agree on the problems, you can’t come together to work toward any compromise. What do you think?

Mac: Well, you know, democracy in its basic raw form is nothing more than mob rule. The people who shout the loudest and push the hardest usually get their way. You pointed out that we’re a representative republic, not a true democracy, but earlier you said representative republic is just a slower form of failure. I thought that was an interesting way to describe it, because I have higher hopes for our republic than that.

I’m sure what this guy wants to talk about are some of the divisions we have today. But in my estimation, there is right and wrong. There just is. Some people say “this is my truth”—no, there is absolute truth. The drive should be to arrive at the truth, whatever that is.

We heard a political debate excerpt the other day about the mayor’s race in California. One guy said it’s wrong to support drug addicts and people abusing the system by giving them more drugs. The way to handle it is more policing and getting people off drugs. The other view was to continue supporting them and make drugs available. I don’t know that you can argue against the absolute truth that the human condition is better if you’re not a drug addict. That’s obvious.

So to the people arguing we should give them more drugs—how can that possibly be the correct answer? In a democracy, we hold these truths to be self-evident: all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. So if somebody wants to choose to be a drug addict, does government have the right to say you can’t? There’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed by the organization versus individual rights. But individual rights have limits too—the old English law idea: you have an absolute right to swing your fist until it hits my nose.

At what point do drug addicts living in tents in public parks deprive everyone else of walking down the sidewalks or enjoying the parks? There has to be some process, compromise, or set of rules that allows both sides without one taking from the other.

Mike: When I do the interview for the research project, I’ll give my opinions. I don’t consider myself MAGA, though I did vote for Trump. In 2016 I didn’t support him in the primary, but I ended up voting for him because he aligned more closely with my views. In 2020 and 2024, I found it very difficult to support Joe Biden, who was clearly showing mental fatigue if not outright dementia. Now Trump speaks of himself in the third person, and I hate that.

Trump is bombastic. It’s not that we have a good economy—it’s “the best economy the world has ever seen under my presidency.” That’s not entirely true either. But yes, I support Donald Trump because I think his policies are better for me, and more importantly for my children, grandchildren, and their children. This grand experiment in self-governance—this representative republic—is going to fail too. Just slower.

Mac: The only perfect form of government for efficiency and care of the people would be a benevolent monarch. The problem is very few benevolent monarchs exist, and even they seldom stay benevolent. So this representative republic is the best form humans have agreed to be governed by.

Mike: It may be the best besides benevolent dictatorship, but the next dictator might not be as good. We’ve seen the polarization increase over our lives. Representatives are acting more like the mob. They can’t agree on what the problem is, let alone a solution or compromise. We’re seeing the same kind of crescendo as before the Civil War. We can’t even agree on what a woman is. That’s the starkest example. A Supreme Court nominee couldn’t—or wouldn’t—define what a woman is because of politics.

How can there be debate if there’s no agreement on truth? We know the truth. We may ignore it or pretend it doesn’t exist, but truth always exists and is seldom changed.

Mac: There are other things we can’t know the full truth about because we’re predicting the future—like the situation with Iran. One side says they’re going to get a nuclear bomb and destroy the world. The other says they’re not likely to do anything. Tariffs are another example—opinions flip depending on who’s supporting them. Some extremists say tariffs could replace income taxes. They can’t. Simple math shows it’s impossible without massive price increases.

Mike: Did the sun come up this morning? Yep. Will it come up tomorrow? Likely. We believe that based on past history. Same logic applies to judging future threats based on past behavior.

Mac: Where do we find common ground? Maybe the question isn’t whether democracy is working or what to fix. Maybe we should just deal with truth. When I do the interview, I should come at it from: What’s true and what isn’t? Can we at least agree on the truth as a foundation?

Mike: Take the homeless problem—many addicted to drugs, mentally ill, or both. Closing mental institutions doubled the problem. Giving them money to live on the streets isn’t the solution. Should we reinstitute mental institutions? Then come the legal questions about voluntary vs. involuntary commitment, judges, courts, etc. No easy answers.

Mac: Our neighbors to the north have assisted suicide policies. Maybe for some people the options are: get help and straighten out your life, or the ultimate option. I read about a healthy actress who sought assisted suicide because she didn’t think her life was worth anything. Who decides if a life has value? Life is precious.

Mike: I’m looking forward to the interview. It’ll be interesting to see what boundaries they set—am I allowed to use religious views or conservative thought? Funny how things once considered liberal are now conservative, and many liberals now call themselves progressive. Thomas Jefferson called himself a liberal. Words evolve.

Mac: One solution-oriented idea from my military background: Don’t just bring problems—bring options. For politicians, maybe require passing something like the ASVAB test, or a minimum credit score to show they can handle money before they can run for office.

Mike: I understand the logic, but “all men are created equal” with inalienable rights kind of obviates those hurdles. We’re not all created equal in talents and abilities—God makes each of us individually with different strengths. The ASVAB wasn’t just about being smart enough; it was about finding your highest and best use. America used to be called a melting pot. Now some call it a salad bowl. Culture is often the real divider, not just race or creed. We need to be more accommodating of cultural differences while protecting the Constitution.

Mac: We run into very difficult times accepting certain things like Sharia law, which claims supremacy over the Constitution. That belief makes it incompatible with taking the citizenship oath or upholding freedom of religion for everyone else.

Mike: Even if born here, you can hold personal beliefs but can’t enact them if they violate the Constitution.

Mac: After the interview, once I know the boundaries, maybe we’ll come back for a second conversation. Time flew by—we beat this up pretty good.

Mike: Mac and Mike out.