Technically, that just ensures that the several state governments are republics; not the federal government.
–Cliffy
From Congress:
Okay, but the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on U.S. law. So what do they say?
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 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.
Damn well said!!
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.
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.
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:
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)?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
That Washington. Just couldn’t follow through on anything after 1799.
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”).
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.
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.
My theory is that they seek to define America as a republic because it then naturally follows that a republic should be governed by Republicans. 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.