Thomas P.O. Box 27217 Washington, D.C. 20038 (202) 462-0757 December 1, 1991 ****name**** Commission for Responsive Democracy ************ ************ Dear ****: I have read, with great interest, a collection of literature -- fact sheets, resolutions, etc. -- which was transmitted to me through an attendee to your conference of September 13, 1991. Particularly heartening was a flyer entitled "Charge to Commission for Responsive Democracy. The fact that this document ended with twelve thoughtful questions seems to promise that by "progressive" you mean "open-minded." In keeping with my working hypothesis ("Understanding demands that words be assigned identical meanings"), my first question is, what do you mean by "democracy"? "Democracies," according to Federalist Paper # 10, "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property...." As opposed to "(a) republic, by which (Madison meant) a government in which the scheme of representation takes place." Assuming Madison's definitions, although you refer to "responsive democracy," the tenor of your 12 questions appears to reflect a desire for "responsive republicanism." While Federalist Paper # 10 sets out some rather compelling arguments against democracy, your questions imply that there may also be some strong arguments against a republic. Your paper quotes Rep. Dan Glickman as saying, "It is very difficult to have ideological differences when the same people are giving you money." Which raises the question, how does the Commission for Responsive Democracy imagine that the creation of a third party will alter the axiom, "power corrupts," or, if the Commission does not consider such an alteration to be necessary, why? As I am anxious to enter your discussion, it is hoped you will make an effort to answer these questions. For Unity and Harmony,