# Is the U.S. a democracy or a republic? \[edited title\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860 "2006-02-23T23:16:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/21 "2006-02-24T22:25:08Z")
Technically, that just ensures that the several state governments are republics; not the federal government. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/22 "2006-02-24T23:22:15Z")
From Congress: > [@](#): > > (a) General.— The purposes of the corporation are as provided in its bylaws and articles of incorporation and include— > (1) securing the blessing of American democracy at every level of local, State, and national life for all United States citizens; > (2) upholding and defending the Constitution and the United States flag; > (3) fostering and perpetuating the principles of American democracy based on religious and political freedom for the individual and equal opportunity for all; > (4) fostering and enlarging equal educational opportunities, equal economic opportunities, equal justice under the law, and equal political opportunities for all United States citizens, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; > (5) encouraging greater participation of the ethnic minority represented by the corporation in the policy-making and administrative activities of all departments, agencies, and other governmental units of local and State governments and the United States Government; > (6) combating all practices of a prejudicial or discriminatory nature in local, State, or national life which curtail, hinder, or deny to any United States citizen an equal opportunity to develop full potential as an individual; and > (7) fostering and promoting the broader knowledge and appreciation by all United States citizens of their cultural heritage and language. [32 U.S. Code 210 § 21003](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode36/usc_sec_36_00021003----000-.html) Okay, but the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on U.S. law. So what do they say? > [@](#): > > The debate concerning this formidable power over debtors should be conducted and resolved where such issues belong in our democracy: in the Congress. [_Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/527/308.html), 527 US 308 (1999) (Scalia, writing for the majority). Now, I can’t prove that the U.S. is a democracy and not a republic, because as **Giles** stated, those two terms are not mutually exclusive. As to proving that the U.S. is a democracy, however, I’ll take it in ones, please. ---
**Author:** ![mudnducs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@mudnducs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mudnducs)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/23 "2006-02-25T02:18:16Z")
> [@chuckczrx](#): > > From John Marshall, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1801 to 1835: “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” > > From James R. Lowell, American poet: “democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.” > > From Ralph Waldo Emerson: “democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.” > > From British statesman Thomas B. Macauly: “I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” > > Lord Acton, another Briton: “The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” > > From the United States War Department’s 1928 “Training Manual No. 2000-25” we have this little gem of a definition of 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 of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. > > The training manual also stated that the Founding Fathers “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had formed a republic.” > > Somewhere between the late 1920’s and the early 1950’s the press had contorted the meanings of “republic” and "democracy, and we soon had this Orwellian twist of truth, printed in the US Army Field Manual 21-13, The Soldier’s Guide: “Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our Government will be organized and run…” > > This is inherently false. We elect representatives to make laws that guide us in our actions. We are ruled by law, not by the whims of a majority. > > England’s Duke of Northumberland, in 1931: “The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise.” > > Historian Charles beard, in 1939: “At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of “We, the People,” in the preamble… When the Constitution was framed no respectable person called himself or herself a democrat.” > > From the Dean of Notre Dame’s Law School, Clarence Manion, in the 1950’s: “The honest and serious student of American history will recall that our Founding Fathers managed to write both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without using the term “democracy” even once. No part of any of the existing state Constitutions contains any reference to the word. [The men] who were most influential in the institution and formulation of our government refer to “democracy” only to distinguish it sharply from the republican form of our American Constitutional system.” > > * * * > > A few notes from the “other side”… > > Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto: "the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy…: to “abolish private property,” to “wrest, by degrees, capitol from the bourgeoisie,” to “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.” > > Mao Tse-tung: “Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society.” > > Mikhail Gorbachev: “according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible… The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept… We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy.” Damn well said!! ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/24 "2006-02-25T03:06:26Z")
I think the OP is confusing the modern usage of “democracy”, which as **Giles** said pretty much just means significant electoral participation of some sort by the citizens, and the term’s original sense of **direct** (or “pure”, or “extreme”) democracy, where all the people vote on everything with no mediating representatives. Insisting that “democracy” has to mean **only** “direct democracy”, in defiance of recognized current usage, seems silly. Our President and other politicians all talk themselves blue in the face about the advantages of democracy and the importance of exporting democracy to other countries, etc. etc. Obviously, they’re not talking about **direct** democracy or mob rule, they’re talking about democracy in its broader sense as it’s currently interpreted. So **chuck** , if you can convince the President that he and his subordinates shouldn’t be calling the United States a democracy, then you can come back here and try to persuade Cecil. Otherwise, you’re pretty much just riding a crackpot hobby-horse that’s irrelevant to modern political discourse, and you’re not likely to convince anyone that they ought to care about it. ---
**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:** [February 25, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/25 "2006-02-25T03:52:14Z")
Does it matter? I recognize the amount of trouble chuck’s gone to, rounding up quotes and such, but isn’t this just an argument between competing, arbitrary and individually defensible definitions of “democracy”? For your next trick, try to prove what “blue” is. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/26 "2006-02-25T04:08:49Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > isn’t this just an argument between competing, arbitrary and individually defensible definitions of “democracy”? For reasons unclear to me, it seems to be considered a major issue by some conservatives, including many members of the religious right. They appear to be very invested in the notion that a “republic” is somehow associated with “natural rights” or “God-given law”, while a “democracy” is completely unrestricted by anything but majority rule. They seem not to recognize the possibility that a democracy could be founded on a constitution including protections for individual rights. To you and me, this seems like just arbitrary semantics, but some people apparently feel that the whole fate of civilization turns on this terminological distinction. Whatever. :dubious: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/27 "2006-02-25T06:05:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Insisting that “democracy” has to mean **only** “direct democracy”, in defiance of recognized current usage, seems silly. Our President and other politicians all talk themselves blue in the face about the advantages of democracy and the importance of exporting democracy to other countries, etc. etc. You mean like federal laws like the Support for East European Democracy Act (SEED), and the Exchange Program for Countries in Transition from Totaitarianism to Democracy, and the National Endowment for Democracy, and the establishment of the Democracy Corps, and the Support for Economic and Democratic Development of the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union Act, or the Central American Democracy, Peace, and Development Initiative, and the Act to Strengthen Democracy, Tolerance, and Political Independence in the Countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and the Act for Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD)? ---
**Author:** ![mudnducs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@mudnducs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mudnducs)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/28 "2006-02-25T15:58:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think the OP is confusing the modern usage of “democracy”, which as **Giles** said pretty much just means significant electoral participation of some sort by the citizens, and the term’s original sense of **direct** (or “pure”, or “extreme”) democracy, where all the people vote on everything with no mediating representatives. > > Insisting that “democracy” has to mean **only** “direct democracy”, in defiance of recognized current usage, seems silly. Our President and other politicians all talk themselves blue in the face about the advantages of democracy and the importance of exporting democracy to other countries, etc. etc. Obviously, they’re not talking about **direct** democracy or mob rule, they’re talking about democracy in its broader sense as it’s currently interpreted. > > So **chuck** , if you can convince the President that he and his subordinates shouldn’t be calling the United States a democracy, then you can come back here and try to persuade Cecil. Otherwise, you’re pretty much just riding a crackpot hobby-horse that’s irrelevant to modern political discourse, and you’re not likely to convince anyone that they ought to care about it. Semantics aside, you can split hairs all you want but the Founding Fathers knew (and liberals love to forget) that mob rule lies at the end of a democracy. We are a Republic…governed by the rule of law and our Declaration and our Constitution…not by the whim of people. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/29 "2006-02-25T16:08:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > For reasons unclear to me, it seems to be considered a major issue by some conservatives, including many members of the religious right. This is a point I’ve never understood, either. _Why_ is it important that the US isn’t a democracy? What agendas/policies/aspects of society that the advocates of “Republic Only” wish to pursue or prevent depend on the US _not_ being a democracy? What would they be able to do, or prohibit, if Congress (or the President, or the Supreme Court) made a definite statement, “The United States of America is now now, and has never been, a democracy” that they can’t do now? Is it just opposition to the DNC? Or are there more radical reasons? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/30 "2006-02-25T16:23:33Z")
> [@mudnducs](#): > > Semantics aside, you can split hairs all you want but the Founding Fathers knew (and liberals love to forget) that mob rule lies at the end of a democracy. We are a Republic…governed by the rule of law and our Declaration and our Constitution…not by the whim of people. Firstly, what democracy has ended in mob rule? Secondly, are those who wrote and enacted the laws, the Declaration and the Constitution not people? Are the members of the Administration, the Congress an the Supreme Court not people? What are they then? Gods? ---
**Author:** ![chuckczrx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@chuckczrx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chuckczrx)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/31 "2006-02-25T16:58:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > For reasons unclear to me, it seems to be considered a major issue by some conservatives, including many members of the religious right. … Before we go too far down the religion path, let me say that I consider all “religions” a joke with no basis in reality. I am not an atheist, and am not hedging my bets by being an agnostic. I think that “religion” is one of mankind’s greatest scams. (I’m not talking “God” or “god” here - only religion.) As far as politics goes - I would never join, or register to vote as, either of the two major parties, and do not consider myself either a “conservative” or a “liberal”. I agree with some “liberal” ideas, and I agree with some “conservative” ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/32 "2006-02-25T18:38:38Z")
> [@mudnducs](#): > > We are a Republic Very true. And, according to the standard usage of the term “democracy” in modern political theory, we are **also** a democracy, meaning simply a state in which citizens have some degree of electoral control over the government. We do not currently use the word “democracy” to mean **only** “direct” or “pure” or “extreme” or “mob rule” democracy. I’m afraid the only useful advice I can give you on this is just to get over it. The accepted meanings of terms change with time, and that’s all there is to it. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/33 "2006-02-25T18:47:00Z")
Great, we’re being subject to a minor board raid by a band of Founding Father idolatrers. How about answering **Tevildo** ’s question? What is the _practical_ effect of using the terms “republic” and “democracy” in an everyday-English c. 2006 AD sense, or we use them in a strict Academic Philosophy c. 1780AD sense? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/34 "2006-02-25T18:50:41Z")
Might as well put in my claim for ten bucks. Asking if the United States is a democracy or a republic is like asking if somebody has red hair or a moustache. The two terms - democracy and republic - are not mutually exclusive because they describe different things. The United Kingdom is a democracy but not a republic. The People’s Republic of China is a republic but not a democracy. Saudi Arabia is neither a democracy or a republic. The United States is both a democracy and a republic. ---
**Author:** ![chuckczrx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@chuckczrx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chuckczrx)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/35 "2006-02-25T20:06:50Z")
George Washington, in his 1789 inaugural address, said he would dedicate himself to “the preservation of the republican model of government.” When did this change? Why did it change? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/36 "2006-02-25T20:23:47Z")
> [@chuckczrx](#): > > George Washington, in his 1789 inaugural address, said he would dedicate himself to “the preservation of the republican model of government.” > > When did this change? Why did it change? It changed when he died, at which point he ceased dedicating himself to anything. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/37 "2006-02-25T20:26:34Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > It changed when he died, at which point he ceased dedicating himself to anything. That Washington. Just couldn’t follow through on _anything_ after 1799. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/38 "2006-02-25T21:31:56Z")
> [@chuckczrx](#): > > I have an Enclycopaedia Britannica, 11th edition. This work provides the proper explanation. First it says that the idea that a republic is a government of elected representatives is a “notoriously modern interpretation”. A couple of points on this claim: First, the 1911 Britannica was a (brilliant) series of monographs, not a compilation of consensus. So, before we bow down to worship that particular explanation, we need to know who was the author of that particular piece and what his specific biases might have been. Second, the fact that _that_ author considers the meaning to have a “notorious” component to it means little regarding the actual meaning of the term–it simply means that that author considered the change in meaning (nearly 100 years ago) to have arisen more recently than he believes his audience is aware–yet he does not actually deny that meaning in the quotation you provided, merely clucking his tongue at the passing of the old ways. Third, regardless of the author’s _feelings_ about the definition, it is clear that 95 years ago the word “republic” had already taken on the meaning of a government by elected representatives, so using that word in a way that has been in common parlance for a century or more is quite legitimate. (If you choose to ignore that point, I will be forced to monitor your posts, calling attention to any misuse of the words “plastic,” “access,” “presently,” “contact,” “impact,” or "hopefully,’ (among others) that do not conform to mid-19th century usage.) Similarly regarding your claims that “the press had contorted the meanings” of the words between the 1920s and the 1950s: you have done nothing but point to anonymously written Army manuals that say different things and then invented a claim that the (I suppose evil) “press” had made the change in meaning, ignoring the fact that the press is more likely to reflect changes in meaning than to coin new expressions. (In fact, stylebooks are pretty notorious for resisting changes that reporters might wish to instigate.) So you are ascribing a simple change in language to (ostensibly sinister) forces rather than simply acknowledging that words do change meanings. If I were to hazard a guess–and I have not actually invested the energy to look this up, yet–I would think that the use of “democracy” to indicate American political philosophy arose around the time of WWI, when the “good guys” were perceived as deriving power from the people while the “bad guys” were portrayed as monarchies, autocracies, and (after the overthrow of the Russian government) small bands of revolutionaries. It may be a change of meaning that you reject (long after the fact) or deplore, but it is not a “contortion” and it was not imposed by any sinister forces (such as that evil “press”). > [@mudnducs](#): > > Semantics aside, you can split hairs all you want but the Founding Fathers knew (and liberals love to forget) that mob rule lies at the end of a democracy. Actually, this is simply an appeal to (anonymous) authority. Aristotle made a claim similar to this in his _Politics_, based on one interpretation of a limited history of the _polis_ of Athens. Since Ari is “the authority” for most of classical literature, his words have been repeated and enlarged upon by many lesser authors (such as the author of the 1928 Army training manual noted earlier). However, I join with other posters in asking you to provide evidence that demonstrates that democracy _always_ degenerates into the rule of the mob. It would be interesting to see you actually provide more than one or two isolated examples that are clearly demonstrations of that phenomenon and not merely selected events taken out of context. Beyond that, of course, since the word is no longer used only to indicate a direct rule by popular vote, using Aristotle’s thesis to attack the use of the word with its new meaning is rather pointless. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/39 "2006-02-26T04:15:01Z")
> [@](#): > > George Washington, in his 1789 inaugural address, said he would dedicate himself to “the preservation of the republican model of government.” > > When did this change? Why did it change? It didn’t change. The United States had a republican government in 1789 and it has one in 2006. But it also had a democratic government in 1789 and in 2006. You’re the one who invented this false dichotomy. ---
**Author:** ![ayalabmaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/54ee81/32.png) [@ayalabmaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ayalabmaj)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860/40 "2006-02-26T13:23:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > For reasons unclear to me, it seems to be considered a major issue by some conservatives, including many members of the religious right. My theory is that they seek to define America as a republic because it then naturally follows that a republic should be governed by **Republic** ans. Democrats should only govern a democracy. Therefore, in their mind, since America is not a democracy, Democrats should not govern. These conservatives like this argument because even if their policies and ideas are inferior, the natural superiority of the Republicans as the party of government is affirmed by semantics and logic. The truly advanced then dump a whole lot of quotes on message boards showing that American Patriots support a republic, and hence Republicans, and conversely, the only people who support democracy (and hence Democrats) are a bunch of commies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic-edited-title/345860.md?page=3)