When I hear George Bush say he wants to make every country a democracy, like America, it shows that he knows less about America than I do.

Every founding father that I can think of was in favor of making America a republic and not a democracy. And since that time, everyone with lead in his pencil and ink in his printer has assiduously argued the point, in tracts, brochures, books, plays, movies, television, and websites.

I even took a swing at it myself. In a recent article to the web, I tried to make it as clear as possible that democracy means Rule by Man; and republic means Rule by Law.  Or, for short, Law Rule vs. Mob rule. I thought that I had explained the difference pretty well. But I was writing to the wind. The arguments go on.

Because the difference between a democracy and a republic is a huge, but subtle one, it behooves us all to keep taking cracks at comparing them. Because the difference is one of the reasons why America is on a down grade.

Did our founders know something we don’t know? Yes. Did it give them a good reason for making us a republic? You bet. What was the reason? The Rule of Law keeps the country free and productive; the Rule of Man eventually becomes tyranny and destroys the nation. History proves it. Rome degenerated from a republic to a democracy —from Law Rule to Mob Rule—and went down. Americanis headed in the same inglorious direction.

But if a republic is so good, why do we continue to call ourselves a democracy, and say it with pride and reverence, when you can’t even find the word democracy in any of our founding documents, but the word republic is all over the place?

Maybe you’ll think harder about the word democracy after you hear what Hans Hermann Hoppe has to say about it. In his book, The God That Failed, Hoppe makes this trenchant observation, “Democracy causes rulers to use policy for their short-term gains at the expense of the long-term welfare of the country.”

Read that line again and let it simmer.

A democracy, Hoppe reminds us, is ruled by temporary “caretakers” who have no proprietary interest in the country. Their interest is short-sighted. Their policies exploit the present at the expense of the future, and the country suffers.

Even hereditary lines of kings, with all their human frailties and bad judgments, usually did better than that, because, for the “family’s sake”, they had a vested interest in maintaining the cultural, social, and economic strength of their country. Human nature, being what it is, when you “own” something you’re apt to take better care of it

The really bad news, contends Hoppe, is that “the longer a democracy exists, the more damage is done to the country’s laws, property, culture, family, and moral values by the musical chair system of rotating rulers guided by short-term interest.”

The consequences of having “in today-out tomorrow” politicians, is devastating. Why? Because the incentive for businessmen and consumers to take a long-term view are reduced. Business horizons sink to a new low. Debt levels rise as short-sighted rule encourages government to confiscate more of the nation’s income and wealth.

No one, except perhaps the mensa-minds among us, can fully comprehend how democracy literally destroys a nation. But the consequence is not hard to see.

If we keep making the world “safe for democracy” we will soon find out that no one is safe anymore, anywhere in the world.