Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, advocates mob rule government


I’m not sure if Tucker Carlson actually supports “democracy” in its classical sense ___ which is comparable to mob rule government ___ or he simply hasn’t taken the time to learn the fundamental differences between our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” and that of a democracy in which a majority of what the people want they should get, i.e., mob rule government!

Let us listen to Tucker Carlson’s VERY OWN WORDS and you decide what he wants.

“I want a democracy where the majority of voters get to decide what their country does.”

This is the classic definition of a “democracy” as distinguished from our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives, restrained by a written Constitution, set public policy.

Perhaps Tucker Carlson, and other hosts on Fox News Channel, who constantly refer to our system of government as a “democracy”, will expound upon their referencing our system as a “democracy” instead of the constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government’ which our constitution guarantees under Article 4, Section 4.


John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed out that “democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel…”.


I watch him regularly and it’s my opinion that Carlson, when he uses the term democracy, MEANS a Constitutional Republic in which representatives are chosen by democratic (small d) means. There s no question that he understands we are a Republic and NOT a “democracy.” What he was doing in that piece was explaining to a Mexican apologist and illegal immigrant activist that he and HIS group shouldn’t get to decide what’s “best” for Americans…that AMERICANS should get to decide.


I agree with Dave. The word “democracy” always bothers me. I immediately visualize those hordes of savages chanting “Show me what democracy looks like? This is what democracy looks like.” I don’t like the fact that Rush refers to himself as “the doctor of democracy” but I’m not sure I even know what he is intending to convey. He is certainly a strong supporter of our constitutional Republic.


Democracy = Mobocracy


If you ask children or young adults if we are a democracy, they will answer “yes” because they’ve not been taught what a constitutional republic is in public school. I don’t know how the term “democracy” became so convoluted in its meaning, but my guess is that it was used (and is still used) to signify a free country as opposed to communist or fascist governments. My former students know the difference.


Good guess, although the Dems use it to get the mob on their side.


The TERM isn’t used anywhere in our founding documents because the Founders wanted no one to mistake what sort of a government they envisioned and formed.


Tons of confusion and misinformation in this thread.

The word “democracy” is all over the original colonial documents. For example, the original covenant of Rhode Island specifically said they were founding a “democratic” government. By the time of the revolution, many American political philosophers, especially the Federalists, started using the term “pure democracy” in opposition to the word “republic.” That is, to them, a “republic” was a form of democracy that sought to contain the “mischief of faction” found in “pure democracy.”

However, others, particularly Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists, were still prepared to defend even the “pure democracy” condemned by Madison and the Federalists.

Thomas Jefferson argued that “republic” and “democracy” essentially mean the same thing, and that a government was “more or less republican” according to the extent to which the government behaved in a traditionally “democratic” manner; i.e. direct action by the citizens to vote, with rules and laws established by the majority.

“It must be acknowledged that the term “republic” is of very vague application in every language… Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.” --Thomas Jefferson to J. Taylor, 1816.

Here, Jefferson is basically calling for exactly what Madison condemned as “pure democracy.”

The point is: the framers were divided about just about everything, including the meaning of the words “democracy” and “republic,” and to what extent “pure democracy” was desirable.


Then why does he constantly refer to our system as a democracy? I have never, ever, heard him refer to our system as a constitutionally limited Republic or Republican Form of Government, as contrasted by Hannity who does!

Tucker Carlson has the opportunity to educate his audience and inform them of the differences between a “democracy” and our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” which is intentionally guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they

…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 have been violent in their deaths. 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.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate “the evils we experience,” saying that those “evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy…”

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out “democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel…”

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.”. . . “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’”

And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” intentionally guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

Thank you, but no thank you Tucker Carlson, for your sophomoric constant references asserting our system is a democracy, which is nothing more than mob rule government.


Civil rights ought not be based upon the perverted desires of sexual deviants who now impinge upon the inalienable right of mankind being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.


There’s another thing which shocked me about Tucker. On Sep 7, 2018 he seemed to be promoting the socialist nonsense of a “living wage” while condemning Amazon’s owner because some of his employees are receiving food stamps.

But under our free enterprise system, everyone working for Amazon, or any other company, are blessed to have the constitutionally protected right to personally negotiate the value of their own labor, while business owners likewise have the right to negotiate what wage will be paid for a particular job being offered. Our system is based upon a mutual consent between business owner and employee.

If a person is not earning a “living wage” at their current job, the solution is to find an additional job or increase their skills to a level which will demand a “living wage”.

Tucker Carlson’s inner socialist tendencies seem to be getting the best of him by attacking the owner of Amazon rather than the problem___ the problem being unskilled employees being delinquent in improving their skills, or taking on an additional job in order to earn a living wage.

CLICK HERE for Tucker’s attack on Amazon’s owner.

Instead of Tucker attacking Amazon’s owner because some employees are receiving food stamps, why not attack government force being used to provide government cheese, which is the real problem? One of our forefathers addressed this issue as follows:

“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress” February 3rd, 1792


The Democrat Party Leadership’s offer for free government cheese is really not free. It first addicts and then enslaves participants on an iron fisted socialist run plantation.


Just to illustrate my point, read the speeches by Patrick Henry, from June 5th and 7th 1788, speaking for the anti-federalists (you can find it in the “anti-federalist papers”). Henry and the anti-federalists directly oppose the Federalists (led by Madison and Hamilton), taking the opposite position: openly calling for “democracy” and arguing that the form of republic laid out by the Federalists will leave individual rights insecure:


The truth—with full nuance and without all of these polemical over-simplifications going on in this thread—is that American political thought in the colonies and through the revolution was deeply divided on the definitions of “democracy” and “republic,” to what extent the two were related, and to what extent one or the other (or both!) were desirable or undesirable. The attempt to paint American political thought during the post-revolutionary phase as in lockstep unison in their definitions of these terms, and their preferences, is just very poor scholarship, and not at all accurate.


And yet, right there in our Constitution, the guarantee is for a “Republican Form of Government”.

So why not refer to our system of government as it is stated in our Constitution? Could it be our Fifth Column social democrats find the description repulsive and have cleverly brainwashed children for generations into using the word “democracy” as distinguished from a democratic Republic, or “Republican Form of Government” to identify our system?

In my personal library I have a number of books dating back to the 1800s through early 1900s, some used in public schools, and the reference to “Our Republic” is the common theme as opposed to “Our Democracy”. Exactly what has cause the change to reference our system as a “democracy”, and why?

Back in the early 1950s when attending grade school, I still remember our teacher explaining a characteristic of democracy being majority rule, and asking the class if the majority should rule? I was the nitwit who raised their hand and yelled yes, to which the teacher then asked, so it is ok if a majority of the class votes to spend your lunch money? As I recall she went on to explain some of the fundamental principles of our system of government.



I don’t think you’re understanding my (fairly simple) argument.

Your ranting about this is bizarre and uninformed.


Sorry, Bub, but the “RI covenant” is no more a part of our “founding documents” than are a few letters from Thomas Jefferson, or his letter to an obscure Baptist church declaring that there is a “separation of church and state” in the Constitution.


Oh dear. Please excuse me for defending what is stated in crystal clear language in our Constitution.


“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”


The constitution does not support your position that the United States is not a “democracy.” Nor does it support your grossly disingenuous attempts to demonstrate that the “Founding Fathers” were all opposed to “democracy.”

The questions of whether the constitution established a “democracy,” and what the founders of the United States thought about “democracy,” are extremely messy and complicated questions, and not at all answered usefully by your black and white distortions and oversimplifications.


Of course not! But, they weren’t educated in the American public schools!


There’s a great deal of ideological confusion in the fact that it’s so often people on the right who bellow about the founders supposed hatred of “democracy” given that, by taking what’s essentially the side of the original Federalists, they’re taking the big government side of the old debate. I’ll explain.

As many of you know, the original debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists centered in large part around just how strong and centralized the federal government should be. The Federalists wanted a relatively large and powerful federal government. The Anti-Federalists favored sticking with something more like the Articles of Confederation; i.e. a far weaker federal government, with more power to local and state government. When the Anti-Federalists were talking about favoring “democracy” over a more “republican” government, they were arguing for small government and increased state power. Federalist attacks on “pure democracy” were designed to support the creation of a powerful centralized federal government by discrediting the more decentralized and local “democratic” governments favored by the Anti-Federalists.

And of course, the Federalists ended up winning the fight, hence the bloated federal government monstrosity we’re currently stuck with.


There’s no “confusion.” What came out of the founding was a Constitutional, Representative Republic and in no way a “democracy.” Nothing could be clearer. “Democracies” are notorious for steamrolling minorities to their detriment. The Founders KNEW this and that’s the primary reason why they added the Bill of Rights to our Constitution.