In recent years, the Constitution has become asource of political controversy between conservatives and progressives. Whilethe right defends our founding document, the left argues that it's anantiquated plan of government that goes against basic principles of democraticsovereignty. What's missing from this debate is anappreciation for the Constitution's purpose. What kind of government were thefounders trying to achieve? In his new book, Democracy or Republic? ThePeople and the Constitution, Jay Cost provides insight into that question.He argues that the founders' vision was for a republic, not a democracy. In both types of government, the citizens havethe power to rule, but republics go further than this. A republic, as AbrahamLincoln put it, is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."But in a simple democracy, the majority can rule for the good of themselves,rather than the whole community. How do you place the people in charge withoutcreating a democratic tyranny? By the time of the American Revolution, nobodyin the history of the world had yet answered this question. But America's Founding Fathers did just that,and the Constitution reflects their ingenious solution--the idea of consensus.They created a government that would take action not because a narrow andfleeting majority demands it, but because a large, broad, and consideredcoalition of the people has found common cause with one another. This reflectsthe true opinion of the people, not just a faction that is temporarily inpower. That is how government of the people becomes government for the people. America, then, is not merely a democracy. It issomething greater. It is a republic, built on the ideal of consensus. And whileour country today has many problems, consensus remains the best way to solvethem. Far from being a liability for the United States, the Constitution isstill its greatest asset.