democracy, and the author argues that democracy is not what we think it is cracked up to be and we should get rid of it. >> the people have spoken, and this newest book. the case against democracy. where the people wrong about? >> they are wrong about everything at some point. so that is a problem. which is okay, we are all wrong about a lot of things, but more importantly when we are wrong we coerce others to have to act a certain way or upset social norms. what we do, democracy becomes a problem. >> in what way? >> we are undermining people's freedom because of coercion and democracy is essentially the tyranny of the majority. so the larger government grows, the more it intrudes on our everyday lives and our decisions and the more democracy matters and the more that we need to stop it and defuse it and

compartmentalize it and try to do away with it. >> are you talking specifically about campaigns? >> no, i'm talking about the growth of federal government, mostly. intruding on the rights of states. there's a philosophical problem as well as democracy, but specifically in america we have to remember the federalist roots as we talked about in the book and allow people to make decisions in their own communities rather than having someone from faraway be able to decide because of a good campaign, how your health care, for instance, or. amy: >> if not democracy, then what? >> well, the world is not perfect place, but the people have decided that democracy does look like what health care looks like, that it's like what our community look like.

i think you have to look like that. and you have to defuse democracy as much as possible. there is no perfect system and i think that we do have the structure of the best system available. but i think that we are giving away from what makes that system grave. >> how would we do that and accomplish our? >> well, we have to make our decisions. we don't always have huge product like obamacare and other things. i'm not just pointing the finger at democrats. programs like no child left behind and other control of other things, thus it has created this gigantic centralized democracy rather than localized democracies. >> what is a the quote from john adams that you use in your book way back there never was a democracy yet that had not committed suicide? >> yeah, i think that's what we're doing in a way. i am more hopeful that we can sort of turnaround. because we are not really a democracy but a republic.

i think people have to remember that. people say it all the time. but i think that there's a lot of truth in it. >> where do we go we might. >> we will be headed in the wrong direction for a wild, i think. as you see fight over religious liberty where you have washington deciding what needs elsewhere by pressuring governors and essentially forcing people to participate. i'm for the government getting out of the marriage business completely because what kind of relationship i have in my personal life is not the governments business it is being hurt. i'm a libertarian and i think democracy consistently undermines. >> we recently interviewed an author at georgetown law at the bit of time to do away with the constitution. >> i think that's a terrible idea, obviously. it's provocative. i don't know what he wants to

replace it with. constitution was written by men. it didn't come down from mount sinai. if you want to change it, you can. there are ways to do it. and it's been done many times. i'm not sure what he believes, but i think the constitution generally speaking is a fine document to defuse democracy and centralized government and to get people the most individual freedom possible as far as governments. >> when you talk about defusing, do you still see a need for national elections and a congress and a senate? >> yes, i do. i'm not an anarchist but i think that the politics to have a role in our lives. it's not just the politicians fall but we are not educated on the topic that we are voting on. and what we are so passionate about sometimes. 40% of people don't know the difference between medicaid and

medicare. yet they are voting on health care policies essentially when they vote for the president. when the voters are problem, the politicians are a problem. but i don't know if there's a better system to sort of keep centralized government in place. i don't know that parliamentary systems work any better. i like the systems that we have. but i think that there are a lot of things that we can do to fix it. >> can you name another example of how to fix it or not. >> well, just education policy. as i have mentioned in passing before. i think every president that has come in legally once a national education policy as if the kids in mississippi have the name needs of the kids in vermont and that's just not the case. within a state, and i lived in colorado for many years, there is boulder, colorado, which is maybe the most liberal city, but there's also colorado springs, which is one of the most conservative city in america. and i believe in school choice as well, to be able to teach

their kids with whatever their values are. and i think that -- i don't think people would live in those communities and teach their kids witchcraft or something. so i think generally people would choose to do the right thing without government. but if you want to teach your kids creationism, you should be able to. >> when it comes to defusing, as you say, does that mean get rid of the department of education, get rid of the energy department and etc.? remark i live in one world and a theoretical world and the real world. and i see that there is no need for the department of education specifically. but that's not what happened. let's be honest. i think the best we can do is rely on federalism for our everyday votes. starting with obamacare, which will probably never be repealed. but that is reality. moving forward laboratories of democracy in the states and i

think they should stay that way. >> what about the direct election of senators? >> again, it is not going to change. but i think that there would be far more if the state legislatures elected the senators and i think you have a lot of senators less concerned about national profits in the need to worry about their states. and i think that's what the founders intended. we can't even pass a bill to do anything, so we are not changing the constitution in the near future. but yes, i think that the original way was far superior. >> david harsanyi, you talk about the bandwagon effect and the people have spoken. what is that about? >> let's talk about gay marriage. there's always been a debate in this country. but for many years it was relatively unpopular with direct elections in states. then all of a sudden the president said that he is for it. all of a sudden they're sort of

the bin laden effect and everyone says oh, the president says it's okay, so it must be. so the gather around the issue and change their minds. and people are guilty of that in culture and music and everything. so i don't know why they would be immune when it comes to political issues, which they know very little about in reality, typically, as most americans. we also read a lot of crazy things. tons of americans believe in ufos and astrology and all kinds of things that make me not want to trust them to make decisions for me. >> what does the constitution say about democracy? does it address the imax. >> no, it is not mentioned in the constitution. the federalist papers talk about it. i hate to disagree with the founders, i think they actually have a rosy view of what democracy could be like. but it's not mentioned in the constitution and they have no thought that democracy centralizes list to be this

powerful i don't think they ever imagined that. >> is your view shared across the spectrum? >> you would be surprised. when i told my parents what book i was writing, they said, what? we don't think that democracy is a process that reflects our ethics and morals but something that is just very positive area meaning freedom in all of these things. the democracy that we see in russia and elsewhere, it doesn't necessarily manifest in more levity or individual liberty. so what was your original question? >> what does the constitution care about democracy? >> the people across the political spectrum, okay. you'd be surprised how many people secretly tell you that they think sometimes one person should be running something. giving an example here, the fed where they want people in the federal reserve to open up their files and let everyone sort of participate. but can you imagine having

everyone talk about the federal reserve when even the federal government probably doesn't understand why things are happening. i think sometimes you just have to say that people know more about something and we have to allow them to run whatever institution that we are talking about. >> we've been talking here on booktv went david harsanyi. his most recent book is "the people have spoken (and they are wrong): the case against democracy." david harsanyi is also the author of the nanny state. thank you for your time. >> anytime. >> visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs that you see here online. type the author or book title in the search bar in the upper left side of the page and click on search. you can also share anything you see on booktv.org by clicking share on the upper left side of the page and selecting the format. the tv streams live online for 48 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors.