The origins and general approaches of the two major political parties speak a great irony when brought under true scrutiny based on application of the principles they individually espouse. This discussion must begin with a clear understanding of what exactly Democracy and Republic mean. The definitions of those words are actually closely related to the definitions of majoritarian and federalist.

Democracy at its most basic means government by the people. In a sense it boils down to true rule by the majority voice of the people. Hence it is merely a form of majoritarianism. Essentially under a true democracy, anyone who is able to pull together a basic majority will have total control of the law. This power increases with the size of majority. A 2/3 majority, or supermajority is enough in both houses of congress to override a presidential veto. Thus, as the voice of the people becomes more unified the majority can pass all sorts of laws and policies based purely upon the voice or will of the people. While the majority voice of the people usually isn't going to choose to follow a truly egregious path of self-government, that does not mean that such a rule will always meet out justice, nor that it will promote liberty and freedom for its citizens.

Republic is a term that escapes the understanding of most people. The simplest definition is a group of governments joined together under an umbrella government. Under such an arrangement, the smaller governments maintain some autonomy, but cede power to the greater governmental power. Essentially the larger government and the smaller governments divide the power of government. Federalism is the theory that those powers must remain separate and not infringe upon each others' express domains. The method by which such vertical separation of powers is maintained is restriction on the ability of the majority to rule at whim. In the United States the federal government is the umbrella under which the governments of the several states operate. The idea of federalism is to prevent any government from gaining too much power over the lives of individual citizens by subdividing that power into realms of jurisdiction. Republicanism is a strong shield against the potentially unjust will of the majority.

With those basic definitional principles in mind it is possible to extrapolate the principles which drive the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—or at least those which in theory should do so. The voice of the people should be the impetus that drives the Democratic Party. Restraint on the powers of government should be the impetus behind the Republican Party. Both of these ideas are founded in core pinciples of justice and self-governance. However, where a Democrat would argue that if it is the will of the people it must be just and it is self-governance and Republican would argue that the voice of the people cannot override the rights of the states and the people to be free from ultra vires governmental regulation. At least in theory that is how things should work.

A brief examination of how California's Propostion 8 came about will illuminate the irony inherent in the names of our political parties. Based on party platforms it is fair to say that generally the Democratic Party advocates for allowing gay couples to marry and the Republican Party advocates for defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. It seems simple enough on the surface, especially since the Democratic Party has a long record of pushing for social reform, and advocating for civil rights of minorities and the Republican Party has a long record of advocating traditional values and resisting dramatic paradigm shifts in society. That theory breaks down when scrutinized under the theories of Majoritarianism and Federalism.

Proposition 8 is the result of the California Supreme Court overturning a near supermajority of citizens voting directly on the issue of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This of course is skewed by the fact that not everyone actually votes, but it is as close to a majoritarian vote as the citizens of California have had in some time (the result of voting on Prop 8 excluded as this writing predates the election). The driving force behind this vote, however, was not that party founded in marjoritarianism, but that party founded in federalism. Indeed the Democratic Party and its representatives, such as Nancy Polosi, are the most vociferous critics of the result of this truly democratic law. That, however, is just one side of the coin. The Republican Party, rooted so strongly in federalism, defies the resulting California Supreme Court decision striking down the majoritarian law.

A quick note on horizontal separation of powers, that traditionally taught in school, will shed some light on this irony. Horizonal separation of powers is the separation of governmental authority into legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The legislative branch is designed to voice the will of the people. The executive is to oversee the execution and application of the law. The judicial is to judge violations of the law, and has taken upon itself the power to interpret the law to determine constitutionality. This structure creates an incredibly tedious process for changing the status of the law, particularly for changing the constitution. It serves to bind the government to acting only in those realms where the people have specifically empowered the government to act by allowing each of the three branches to react to the actions of the other two.

So, the Supreme Court of California had an obligation to scrutinize the laws passed by the people and by their representatives to determine whether it violated any portion of the state or federal constitutions. In the event that the court finds a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights, the court must strike down the law. This is true no matter how popular the law is with the people or their elected officials. When the court acts correctly in such situations the general result is increased liberty for the citizens, and decreased governmental regulation of the daily activities of the people.

Setting aside for now whether the California court was right or wrong the Republicans and Democrats seem to have come down on the wrong side of the line on this issue. If Democrats really believed in majoritarian rule they would embrace the voice of the people. If Republicans really believed in principles of federalism they would embrace the opinion of the court striking down legislation that did not comply with the dictates of the state constitution.

In conclusion, both major political parties are built upon strong foundations of self-government, and neither party adheres to its foundational principles unless it is conveniently in line with the party's actual agenda.