Why do tea-baggers harp on the "The USA is a republic, *not* a democracy" line? What point are they

attempting to shove down our throats to justify their neighborhood militias?

and which these foolish people want to fight again.

That mantra goes back to the Thirties if not earlier. The Hearst Press frequently editorialized (ranted) on it. They wanted to return to when the US Constitution was first framed, and before it was later "corrupted" by the Bill of Rights, and later Amendments. Simply put: it was in behalf of White, Male, and Propertied (and also Christian.)

slavery along with the white, male, Christian domination. One benefit of that set-up: no Palin. ;)

Something tells me that you don't handle contrary opinions all that well.

Thanks for your responses, eShirl.

The statement is invariably given in response to some other statement to which no intelligent response is forthcoming.

D: Corporations shouldn't be able to spend without limits to influence our elections. The citizens in our democracy should have the power in who governs us.
R: The USA is a republic, *not* a democracy

That's why have a republic. It's a situation where we cede a little bit of authority to others to make decisions on our behalf.

have to do with it? They were commies."

I laughed, thinking he was joking. But he wasn't. And the discussion began to slide further downhill from there. Fortunately, it was just about time for the second set and so I had a great excuse to quickly bow out of the inane so-called conversation.

Good thing, too, as this was a well-paying gig with the possibility of repeat business. It wouldn't have gone over well if I'd let him get to me. Sometimes it's a struggle for me not to just say, "You're an idiot," and be done with it. It's hard to believe what passes for thinking with some of these people.

Iran is a republic too.

They want to make the rules for the rest of us. Funny thing is that we want them to have their rights and have ours and somehow that is forcing something on them. No, it's just that what you believe is just that, not the rule.

And in wingnut world not all of us are equal.

and they associate democracy with mob rule. But, in reality, we are a democratic republic, which is a form of democracy, just not a direct democracy.

Arguing that our indirect democracy is not a democracy is as silly as arguing that indirect lighting is not lighting.

They are very simple minded folks. You don't have to scratch the surface much to figure them out.

Only I might add that they are simple minded and ignorant.

They get democracies, and we get a republic?

China is a Republic, and so was the Soviet Union. They don't like it when you respond with those tidbits.

republic = republican = good

democracy = democrat = bad

idiots.

but Republic and Republican Principles go back to the American Revolution and the Home Spun movement... it also harkens to what they think the Constitution established and very technically a democracy it was not.

It was a system of private property, private rights. and landed aristocracy.

It is also about state's rights...

By the way most of these guys do not understand that these Republican Values they want to go back to... demand a tax for inheritance, as well as ... small property and corporations with a limited life span.

Now don't try to tell them this though. They won't believe you, you lib'rul you.

From : http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm There are others, but pretty close.

"A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. "

I think that whole "I can be an individual and ignore your big government stuff" is very appealing - right or wrong, I have heard similar characterizations from more than one person.

The other goes to the whole meaning of language - Republic sounds more like Republican. Anything starting with "democra..." _should_ be replaced. A guy in Louisiana told me this one.

That second thing sounds a little out there, but the conservatives have paid much attention to how language can persuade and frame discussions, and they drive discussions by framing their positions to focus on the emotional, not thoughtful, and often not factual. Progressives, otoh, generally seem to "think" through things, and use reason to persuade. My take, anyway

A Republic is just a form of government chosen by the people. In the traditional sense it just means a non-monarchical government. A Democracy is a form of government chosen by election. It can be a direct democracy, where the people make each decision, or a representative democracy, like ours, where the people choose their leaders and the leaders make decisions. How responsible the leaders are to the people is based on how the democracy is set up. Frequent, open elections means more responsive, where rare, closed elections means less.

We have a Republic and a Representative Democracy. The terms don't describe exactly the same thing, nor are they exclusive, so all those "We are a Republic not a Democracy" statements are just ignorance, probably based on James Madison's rhetoric in the Federalist Papers (whose name was misleading and rhetorical, too).

All that stuff about Republics investing individuals with power and Democracies investing the collective with power are nonsense, since a Republic can technically be a dictatorship. The strength of an individual's voice in a government is always going to be weakest in a large populace and strongest in a small one, but other factors--such as the rule of law, the equality granted each individual, the number of representatives for each individual, and the strength of the courts--play a role. In America, Republicans are against anything which would strengthen the individual--courts, lawsuits, true census counts, equality of all citizens instead of a select few, etc--so that definition is doubly goofy. It's like Republicans go out of their ways to define themselves as the opposite of what they are. Which is a good indicator of what they themselves think of themselves.

Avoid their pseudo-intellectual language. They are fools with keyboards, that's all.

other readings would like to make them out to be.

A friend of mine espouses this same stuff, (we disagree, but cutting off contact will prevent any chance I ever have of finding an opening where he can change his mind, so we talk a bit) and there are thousands like him. On one of his recent calls he was telling me how Rush Limbaugh was an idiot and Glen Beck made a lot of sense, referring the Federalist papers, etc. But you can't engage him in a serious conversation and get him to look at anything that might contradict idea similar to what is in that post above. It really suits what people like him want to hear.

And thank you for your reply.

"Republic" = representative government.

The GOP doesn't want people thinking they actually should have a voice in how our nation is run. They want to leave that to "those on whom the Lord has shown his favor," the rich. Money is the only measuring stick they understand, you know.

Some folks look down on people. They see people as "the great unwashed." Other folks trust in the good sense of most people. The first group tends to lean to the right, and the second to the left.

A Democracy

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

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. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

If they realy understood the diff. they might not be screaming about it so much!

The real fun is ASKING them what it means.

I heard him say it, and I believe he may have bloviated at some length. But it's been many years ago, and I didn't retain the dogma.

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"<1> and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".<2> The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

^My answer to your question.^

in that we are not a pure democracy. The thing is that "republic" has meant so many different things, from Swiss cantons to Holy Roman Empire city-states, to Soviet dominated states.

Madison defined a "republic" as representative democracy, and Article 4 specifically says the states must have a "republican" form of government, so that's what it means here in the US, and yes, we are one.

Pure democracy exists here in things like Vermont town meetings, which I hear can be riotous times, but in most places the citizenry can't be bothered, or expected, to micromanage every little thing going on, so we elect representatives to to that.

...akin to a child sticking their tongue at you.

It's also not entirely true. Is the USA a republic? Yes, our government is a form of representative democracy. They would be partially wrong, partially correct and entirely ridiculous.

I don't try and get into the heads of the mentally insane, and thus I don't know why the teabaggers want to stress the point. I'm guessing they're just idiots, because what they're effectively saying is this:

"We don't have majority rule in this country, we elect representatives who run our government on behalf of the people!"

Which is completely true, but I don't think that's the intent behind the message. I mean, they're practically saying: My viewpoint is a minority view point, and I don't like it, and therefore the majority can go fuck themselves because I'm going to bully elected leaders into doing what I want, and if I don't get it I'm going to threaten armed revolution. ... which is what they're doing, so I guess that's what they're saying. :shrug:

James Madison (who was the principle author of the United States Constitution) defined a Republic in terms of a "representative democracy." This was believed to be superior to autocracy and direct democracy. It is basically as I described it above: a form of government whereby the people elect individuals to make decisions on their behalf.

Most of the time it's contrasted with direct democracy (since it's basically a "pick your aristocrat" type of system). In direct democracy it's all about majority rule, and representatives are either absent or extremely limited in power.

Some people have further defined the United States as a "constitutional republic" - which is a more accurate way to describe it I believe. The majority rule is heavily tempered here. The goal in a constitutional republic is to heavily check the power of the majority in order to protect dissenting voices and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" - this is accomplished through the various checks and balances outlined in our constitution.

In a democracy, people have the freedom to control their own destiny by having the choice to select who wants to lead them in majority fashion. They exercise their choice in a free exchange of ideas. As such, government is participatory and truly for the people by the people. The representatives of this type of philosophy try to work with the populace and their ideas instead of merely leading. Therefore, a democratic government is sustained by the ideas of the populace instead of a few special interests. This is a bottom-top relationship.

In a republic, a constituency merely votes and puts all their beliefs into a particular person to represent their interests. This relationship takes on a top-bottom approach in the adoption of ideas. I tend to think that this form of government is less participatory and more about protecting certain interests sponsored by a particular group. Therefore, this form of government could (if pushed) become ogliarchical or authoritarian by not allowing outside ideas. The people must practice the political philosophy which sustains the ruling body. The ideas of the representative (of the group who voted for him or her),must be adopted by everyone. People in this fashion are led by a particular idea--opposed to having a "free market of ideas" in a democracy.

it will make the rest of their nonsense sound more believable...

The United States is a democratic republic. It is a republic and a democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That is the impression I've gotten. They feel democracy is mob rule while republic is rule by legislators. Also I guess it makes them feel like they understand civics and history better than their opponents and talk down to them.

:shrug:

They don't know the difference - or, more correctly, know their target audience doesn't know the difference between Republican and Democrat vs. republican and democrat.

They don't understand that under our Constitution we have a democratic republic. That concept is just too complex for them, so they babble about our "republic," thinking it makes them sound smart.

We have a republican form of government but our leaders are elected democratically. Maybe those yahoos emphasizes the word republic because in their little minds that means the only people that could be involved in it are Republicans.

n/t