# Correcting my understanding of Liberalism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732 "2011-11-12T22:27:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/21 "2011-11-13T17:39:56Z")
> [@David42](#): > > C’mon now, sh1bu1. Isn’t the United States also a country with corrupt government which the people tolerate? BTW, we have a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. This is a very silly meme that has become common relatively recently, for reasons that are ideological but still unfathomable. It’s true that 200 years ago, the preferred word was republic instead of democracy. It is also true that the meaning of most of the words in the English language has changed, reversed, or accrued over those 200 years. Perfect, in “A more perfect union,” had an entirely different meaning back then, one that barely exists in modern language. (It meant “complete.”) Democracy is now defined as what the United States is. > [@](#): > > [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy) > > 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. > > 2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. That’s the common usage, and the correct usage in any level of writing, no matter how lofty. Saying the U.S. isn’t a democracy goes against every understanding of how the English language works. Using it not only exposes you as an ideologue, but as an ignorant ideologue. I’d advise against it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/22 "2011-11-13T17:41:16Z")
> [@shakabroh](#): > > He says that liberalism thinks a world of perfect justice is possible in a world where proof of perfect truth is impossible. Liberalism does **not** think a world of perfect justice is possible, only that we should be ever striving in that direction. Would your father disagree with **that?!** I mean, it sounds awfully Christian, don’t it?! And a Christian (while polemicizing as such) has **no** business complaining about the impossibility of “proof of perfect truth.” Liberals know **enough** of the truth, and somewhat more than conservatives do generally speaking, and that is sufficient to act on. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/23 "2011-11-13T17:43:59Z")
> [@David42](#): > > BTW, we have a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. A phrase which, IME, is **never** used in argument, but only in whining. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/24 "2011-11-13T17:54:24Z")
The US is a constitutional republic. The US is a representative democracy. These statements are not contradictory. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/25 "2011-11-13T18:39:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > A phrase which, IME, is **never** used in argument, but only in whining. pluralde·moc·ra·cies if protecting the rights of minorities against a majority is “whining” then maybe so, since that is the difference between a republic and a democracy, which you will note here: [http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html](http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html) “The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.” “A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.” ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/26 "2011-11-13T18:50:00Z")
> [@David42](#): > > pluralde·moc·ra·cies > > if protecting the rights of minorities against a majority is “whining” then maybe so, since that is the difference between a republic and a democracy, which you will note here: > > [http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html](http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html) > “The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.” > “A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.” For the rest of you, [lexrex.com](http://lexrex.com/) is this fringe nutjob site, and the poltical ideals are found on [this nutjob page](http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/). I feel violated just reading it. Ideological is one word for it. But I’ll stick with nutjob. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/27 "2011-11-13T19:25:08Z")
> [@F.U.Shakespeare](#): > > But American conservatives (with a few exceptions like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan) have invariably been more supportive of imperialism than American liberals have. Given how warlike both sides are that’d be a really challenging case to make imo. While both share similar goals I’d say in more recent times (post Vietnam) generally Pubs are more for displays of raw strength while Dems are for ‘smart’ war and imperial policies. As for the OP, I wouldn’t suggest trying to form an independent/democratic movement or resist us in any way. That’s a good way to get bombed by a flying robot or kidnapped and sent to one of our client state torture sites. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/28 "2011-11-13T19:34:46Z")
> [@shakabroh](#): > > He says that liberalism thinks a world of perfect justice is possible in a world where proof of perfect truth is impossible. And does your father write a _lot_ of fortune cookies in his spare time? ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/29 "2011-11-13T19:49:33Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Given how warlike both sides are that’d be a really challenging case to make imo. While both share similar goals I’d say in more recent times (post Vietnam) generally Pubs are more for displays of raw strength while Dems are for ‘smart’ war and imperial policies. It certainly would be more challenging to blame liberalism for imperialism, as it seems the OP is trying to do. And ‘liberal’ is not a synonym for ‘Democrat’: even though America’s involvement in Viet Nam was initiated by Democratic presidents, their stated goal was to fight world communism. Kennedy and Johnson were definitely liberal on many issues, but on that issue, they were in agreement with conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/30 "2011-11-13T20:06:54Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > For the rest of you, [lexrex.com](http://lexrex.com/) is this fringe nutjob site, and the poltical ideals are found on [this nutjob page](http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/). I feel violated just reading it. Ideological is one word for it. But I’ll stick with nutjob. I suppose the War Department were “nutjobs,” too? The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928. DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. REPUBLIC: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/31 "2011-11-13T20:26:11Z")
2011-1928=83. Obviously, it is impossible for meanings to change in a mere 83 years. Nothing else about the country or English has. If you put that training manual into Google you get [this list of hits](https://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=Training+Manual+No.+2000-25+published+by+the+U.S.+War+Department%2C+November+30%2C+1928.&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B7GGHP_enUS457US457&ie=UTF-8). Obviously, they have nothing ideological in common at all. Nothing. They’re all completely sane and politically balanced. Why, I would use them as backup for my positions at any time. How could they help but impress others? It’s hard to pick out a favorite, but [United American Freedom Foundation](http://www.uaff.info/republicanddemocracy.htm) is a candidate. > [@](#): > > In a Republic, you have natural, God-given rights. The natural rights of the minority are protected by the Bill of Rights from majority “mob rule”. In a jury trial, just one dissenting juror can prevent you from being deprived of your rights. > > In a democracy, the majority rule. Instead of natural rights, you have civil rights bestowed upon you as a “privilege” granted by the majority. If the majority, on any whim, decides to vote 51%-49% in favor of taking away any of your unalienable rights, so be it. A democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. > > Today’s Amerika is a fascist/communist state, not a Republic > > Actually Washington D.C., that 10 square miles you read about in the constitution, is area controlled by the Legislative Democracy known as the UNITED STATES. They incorporated in 1871 in England. The UNITED STATES, USA, WE THE PEOPLE, The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, etc., were titles copyrighted at that time under the English copyright system. > > The constitution was also made to be their bylaws which is why it is of no effect today. The Res Publica, the Public Thing, hasn’t vanished. It remains to be claimed. > > The citizens of that 10 square miles are known as the 1st Amendment citizens. They have no rights but only privileges administered unto them by the body politic you know as Congress. Congress has power only in that 10 mile square district of Columbia and territories. These words have different meanings than the ones you’ve learned in your ‘public,’ indoctrination, schools. > > In 1933 came the great Gold Swindle. In order to offset the bankruptcy FDR confiscated, made illegal to own, all 14th Amendment citizens gold. They are chattel and have no rights, remember? > > The rest of the states, thinking that they came under that clause, also went along with the swindle thus becoming 14th Amendment citizens in the process and giving up their power as sovereign nations unto the administrative legislative Democracy coined to administer the bankruptcy of the young republic. This was out and out fraud under international law. > > You must study these things and the way in which the bankruptcy (The original so called Revolution left the new Nation bereft of any real money.) The colonies had been using fiat money successfully for quite some time and had become rich and fat thus…the banksters had to bleed them dry thus…the phony revolution. > > Afterwards Hamilton established the first National (central) bank under the control of the British Crown banksters. And every 20 years thereafter the original loan came due unto this present fiasco of debt based currency. The dollar isn’t money and the federal reserve system is usury pure and simple. See who owns the Federal reserve System. It’ll open your eyes. > > You must take back your strawman interface in order to become, again, a sovereign individual, There is a process found in international law (The UCC) that will enable you to do this and become free of the Debt. Returning yourself to the Republic which still stands. Getting out from under the swindle, the Legislative Democracy in Washington D.C. is work for no one seems to know anything at all about the real history of this so called Nation. > > Incidentally the President is acting as the Captain of a make believe ship under Roman Law Merchant, or Law of the Sea. This means that you, the 14th amendment citizen (You must study the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments in sequence to understand unto whom the 14th amendment really applies (another eye opener) are chattel under the laws of capture. The laws of forfeiture also apply. > > IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/32 "2011-11-13T20:31:32Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I suppose the War Department were “nutjobs,” too? > > The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928. > > DEMOCRACY: > > A government of the masses. > Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. > Results in mobocracy. > Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights. > Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. > Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. > > REPUBLIC: > > Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. > Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. > A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. > Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. > Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. > Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world. I wouldn’t call them nutjobs, but they do seem rather uninformed, both on what democracy means and the relative stupidity of elitism. The idea that somehow elected officials are inherently better behaved than the populace is ridiculous, and the idea that people will not just vote for a representative that espouses their ideals, again based on “passion, etc”–they are both ridiculous. As I pointed out in another thread, it’s actually worse when you have to vote for the person who will vote for an idea you don’t like so they’ll vote your way on something you like. The number of people who agree with Democratic values but vote against them due to their being pro-choice is staggering. And the fact that anyone that is more style than substance has ever been elected is pretty bad too–and both sides agree that that has happened. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/33 "2011-11-13T21:39:07Z")
I never understood why “democracy” and “republic” were treated as contradictory. A stable nation could be both, or neither, or either. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/34 "2011-11-13T22:26:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I never understood why “democracy” and “republic” were treated as contradictory. A stable nation could be both, or neither, or either. IME, generally the phrase “A republic, not a democracy!” is used to object to (1) any resented federal intrusion into states’ rights/local autonomy\* or (2) anything smacking of redistribution or welfare-state. - I even heard Jerry Pournelle, giving a panel discussion at an SF, argue that the U.S. is “no longer a republic,” because of excessive federal presence. Nonsense on which I stood up and called him out. How is France (unitary system) any less a republic than Germany (federal system)? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/35 "2011-11-13T22:54:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I never understood why “democracy” and “republic” were treated as contradictory. A stable nation could be both, or neither, or either. As far as I know, this conception of the meaning of “democracy” (either direct democracy or mobrule),and the opposition between “democracy” and “republic” is a purely american phenomenon. Someone mentioned that it is, in fact, ideological. I’d like to know which ideology has an interest in this arbitrary narrow definition of “democracy”, and why. Besides, “constitutionnal republic” tells nothing about the regime. Iceland is a “constitutionnal republic”, but so is Syria. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/36 "2011-11-13T23:00:22Z")
> [@shakabroh](#): > > You Americans are so lost in your eternal fight against good and evil that it is beyond the scope of your imagination to acknowledge the world outside of your paradigm of Heaven (American Liberalism) and Satan (American Conservatism.) I, for one, am rather surprised to hear that you and your father are not American. Your father’s views, that you tell us about in your original post, sound very much like the sort of thing that a bigoted American conservative might say about liberalism, as the word “liberalism” is used in the United States. In the USA, over the course of the 20th century, “liberalism” came to be used mainly as a sort of euphemism for what, in other countries would be understood as a (very watered down and politically centrist) form of democratic socialism. As “liberalism” is used in other countries (except where the US usage has started to influence them), what he says does not make much sense even as a conservative’s misrepresentation of liberalism. I think your father must have been picking up ideas from American conservatives (of the more ignorant and bigoted sort), ideas that probably do not have much relevance to the political situation in your country (wherever that may be). ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/37 "2011-11-13T23:14:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I never understood why “democracy” and “republic” were treated as contradictory. A stable nation could be both, or neither, or either. It is no doubt because the two primary American political parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. I first saw people being very careful to make the distinction in evangelical circles more than a decade ago, saying that democracy was a heathen value, but the republic was a christian value. Of course what they _actually_ wanted to say was “you should vote republican”, but then they wouldn’t be a tax-free church any more. But making claims about grand distinctions between “democracies” and “republics” and letting the faithful read between the lines was A-OK. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/38 "2011-11-14T00:13:38Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Way to win friends and influence people, dude! Insult his father. That’s the ticket!:rolleyes: > > ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ > > As to the OP, a dictionary might help. How about [The American Heritage Dictionary](http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/)? > > There is more - **liberal** is actually a complicated word with several, sometimes contradictory, meanings - but what I have quoted are the senses most relevant to the current meaning in political discourse. There is nothing there about people not being held responsible for their actions. (Liberals do tend to believe that people are not always responsible for the bad, or, indeed, the good, things that happen to them, but that is, like, you know, true. Good people can get run over by a truck; bad people can win the lottery. This has nothing to do with not being responsible for your _actions_.) For more depth, try this [TVTropes Useful Notes page.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/PoliticalIdeologies) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/39 "2011-11-14T00:16:46Z")
> [@leahcim](#): > > It is no doubt because the two primary American political parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. I first saw people being very careful to make the distinction in evangelical circles more than a decade ago, saying that democracy was a heathen value, but the republic was a christian value. [Interesting.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Name_and_symbols) > [@](#): > > The party’s founding members chose the name “Republican Party” in the mid-1850s as homage to the values of republicanism promoted by Thomas Jefferson’s Republican party.[11] The idea for the name came from an editorial by the party’s leading publicist Horace Greeley, who called for, “some simple name like ‘Republican’ [that] would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery.”[12] The name reflects the 1776 republican values of civic virtue and opposition to aristocracy and corruption.[13] IOW, ISTM, they chose the name “Republican” only because “Democratic” was already **taken.** Taken by **Jefferson’s** party, AKA the Democratic-Republicans, later simply the Democrats; and even in Jefferson’s day “Democrat” was used as an antonym to “Federalist.” Of course, the words “democracy” and “republic” and their associated systems of government were all invented by **heathens.** Greeks, Romans, all heathens. ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732/40 "2011-11-14T01:02:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Of course, the words “democracy” and “republic” and their associated systems of government were all invented by **heathens.** Greeks, Romans, all heathens. Yeah, I didn’t say it made sense, just that I’d heard it said. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correcting-my-understanding-of-liberalism/602732.md?page=3)