That’s elitist.
No, it’s not.
Next you’ll suggest that we leave out the clergy when we write biology books.
Related question: Why does the evangelical right want to describe the U.S. government as a “constitutional republic” rather than “democratic”? The only reason I can see is that “Republican” includes the word “republic.” Surely there’s a more profound reason than this.
Bricker addressed this in this very thread already.
I just can’t buy it, though. While it may be superficially true, the timing is far too suspect. The demonization fervor against liberals and Democrats just keeps on growing.
I think it’s more an issue that the wacko-left wants to describe the country as a democracy, when it simply isn’t. A democracy is where the people all get together to vote on law. A rep-ublic is where rep-resentatives are elected by the people to do the deciding of laws on their behalf. That everyone (but children) in the nation is enfranchised to be able to vote on our representatives doesn’t make us any less a republic. When we get rid of that whole congress, senate, and president thing, then we can start calling ourselves a democracy (maybe).
Bull. We’re a representative democracy and a constitutional republic.
Cite?
Indeed. I still see no reason why the words "democratic republic"are inaccurate nor why they should be removed from text books. It is a democratic republic.
There is no sense in which this definition does not apply to political systems in the U.S. It might behoove Sage Rat to learn a little more about what democracy means, and who advocates it.
Well yeah, because “representative democracy” means “republic”. You just said “We’re a republic and a constitutional republic.” Which is redundant.
Say that I’m a member of PETA. I come up with this idea to call fish “sea kittens” because I want to discourage the hunting of fish for food and I think this phrase will work towards that purpose. So, I convince university professors to start calling them sea kittens in scientific literature and in their classes, and by the time 50 years have passed there’s a whole body of thought that fish are called “sea kittens”.
Now, one guy (who we’ll name Fred) stands up and says, “Dude, they’re not kittens. That’s just a loaded term someone made up 50 years ago to advance a particular political position and it’s misleading.”
In reply, another guy named Bill stands up and he says, “Dude, what’s up with you righty-tighties trying to get them called just ‘fish’? They’re ‘fish’ and they’re ‘sea kittens’.”
Personally, I’d vote on Fred’s side. There’s no need to have two terms for the same thing. And if you’re going to choose just one, choosing the one that means what it says instead of using some loaded words that entirely mislead the audience into thinking something else, makes sense to me. But hey, that’s just me.
We aren’t a democracy. Or at least the number of laws that need to be directly passed by the populace is sufficiently small that it’s not really worth mentioning. We could dump that aspect and nothing would change for the entire country except California.
You can add the term “democracy” to a phrase that is then defined to be synonymous with “republic”, but it simply ain’t so.
Either you composed this on WordPad, or you’re suggesting that there is some relation between the words republic (which comes from res publica) and represent (which comes from re presentarae).
Ah, tortured analogies. You do realize that by making this one, you’re suggesting that it’s those crazy lefty Democrats who are insisting that the term democracy be used as a description of the nation, when it’s already been used as such for god knows how long in the textbooks. In fact, you are making the exact accusation that could more correctly be leveled at the education board, who are actively making the change. This is supported by your first post I responded to.
Like I said, it may be technically correct, but the timing is suspect as all hell. Just like the tea partiers who are “suddenly” sick of how the government’s been fucking them over, but they only started making themselves heard as soon as a Dem took office. It’s pure propaganda bullshit.
If you want to make the argument that weasel words are okay so long as they have enough history, then I guess you’re just fine with ceremonial deism? Personally, I don’t like that either.
One group wants to advocate populism, the other one wants to advocate state religion. The fact remains, we’re meant to be a secular republic. Slipping something in there and getting it legitimized over the period of decades or centuries doesn’t make it any less dishonest.
I don’t really care about ceremonial deism, to be honest.
No, it’s just that you’re being dishonest by saying:
The “wacko left” isn’t doing jack shit. It’s Republicans who are changing it, as if by removing the term democracy they can delegitimize the Democrats. You admitted yourself that a constitutional republic is simply a modified form of democracy, so why take it out?
And don’t whinge that “it’s correct.” Taken in conjunction with the other changes made, it’s obvious that there’s a major right-wing bias at play. The correctness of the term is just an excuse.
In my experience, anyone who says “America is a republic, not a democracy,” is not arguing but whining. Or, sometimes, screaming.
Where in the world did I say that? I said that calling a fish a kitten does not make it a kitten.
It’s right-wing in the sense that it’s fighting the populist movement and is trying to preserve the republic as a republic. If you want to live in a democracy, then by all means you should oppose this attempt to preserve the republic as a republic. But if you’re going against it simply to support your favorite team and antagonize your enemy, without having actually thought about the difference and why the founding fathers set the nation up as a republic, then that seems rather asinine. More importantly, it’s self-destructive.
Personally, I would recommend reading about why we are a republic:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed10.htm
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed39.htm
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed14.htm
This is downright Rovian. Do X and then turn around and accuse the other side of doing X.
Quoth you: “it’s obvious that there’s a major right-wing bias at play”
Am I interpreting that wrong? It sounds to me like you’re discounting the argument because of where it came from. If that’s not so, then great, I’m glad that you prefer democratic principals over republican. But, even still, I’ll note that the founding fathers advocated republican principals and since we are talking about what the country was set up to be, and the people who set it up were the founding fathers…
I suggest getting your story straight.
But you and the Texas BOE already have your story straight, don’t you? You’re trying to push the idea that the Democrats want a democracy (those oh-so-befuddled inferences that I’d rather the US be a democracy are just idiotic and disingenuous), which is apparently now nothing at all similar to a republic. But, by god, the US was created as a republic, and all the Republicans are trying to do is keep the Democrats from changing this sniff great country of ours into something totally different.
That’s all this is. It’s a push to associate the Republicans with Real America, since Real America is a republic and, gosh, Republican has the word republic in it! That’s uncanny! I don’t know what this “democracy” business is, but it sure ain’t Real America, so I wonder why those Democrats have it in their name…I mean, golly gee, I’m just askin’ questions, that’s all.
Founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Aquinas?
I’m not seeing a lot of love for our actual founding fathers, or their principles, in the board’s actions.
A representative democracy is a kind of republic where each person has equal political rights.
So, America can be called a democratic republic, or a representative democracy, or a constitutional republic, or a constitutional democracy, etc. They overlap.
If America is not a democracy, why did conservatives cling so closely to the term through the Bush years and TWAT, only to insist that it’s a “republic” now? In fact, it’s not even a matter of an anti-democratic sentiment, it’s far shallower.
Like Bosstone said, this is nothing more than getting rid of a word with “democrat” in it and inserting the word “republican.” These people are not even bright enough to conjure up the argument against majority rule.