The ‘We’re Not a Democracy, We’re a Republic’ Talking Point Is Tedious Midwittery
Parky60
Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
Occasionally, when the subject of Democracy comes up on OPP and its leftist proponents use it as a political cudgel against their opponents, someone chimes in with the standard “we’re a republic, not a democracy!” talking point, as if out of moral obligation to remind everyone, at any opportunity, of this very crucial and overridingly important distinction.
Granted, it is technically true.
Here’s a decent primer, via Merriam-Webster (emphasis added):
It’s true that there is nuance and difference between these words, according to their historical use and etymology: democracy comes from the Greek roots meaning “rule by the people,” and the most basic understanding of the word’s original meaning refers to the direct democracy of ancient Greece.
Republic comes from the Latin roots meaning “public good” or “public affair,” used in ancient Rome to mean simply “state” or “country” with reference to the representative democracy of the Roman Republic. The elected representatives in Congress are a contemporary example of this kind of government.
Because democracy is an abstract name for a system and republic is the more concrete result of that system, democracy is frequently used when the emphasis is on the system itself. We could say that democracy is to republic as monarchy is to kingdom…
These terms are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, a document that nevertheless expresses clearly that governments should be established “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This reads like a definition of both democracy and republic. In Article IV Section V of the Constitution, the term republican is used as an adjective: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
American republicanism is a form of a democratic system in which the population (in theory; whether this is true in practice is very much up for dispute) exercises popular control over government via the representative system set up in the Constitution.
It’s sort of analogous to the “hate speech” vs “free speech” debate; not all free speech is hate speech, but all hate speech (to the extent that term means anything) is free speech.
The problem with the “not a democracy, a republic” talking point is that it’s total midwit, pseudointellectual peacocking to try to score debate points without actually explaining anything of substance. One, upon reading or hearing the comment, is meant to marvel at the enlightened, brave and stunning commenter’s nuanced understanding of the intricacies of American governance.
In almost all contexts, the distinction between a representative democracy in the mold of the American republic and a pure democracy is totally irrelevant to whatever point is trying to be made.
At any rate, not that this will discourage anyone from doing it, whenever someone trots out the old war horse “muh republic” talking point, it doesn’t impress me. On the contrary, it exposes their pettiness.
But people are free to do whatever they like, of course, because I believe that your replies and free speech, no matter how silly and irrelevant they are.
Parky60 wrote:
Occasionally, when the subject of Democracy comes up on OPP and its leftist proponents use it as a political cudgel against their opponents, someone chimes in with the standard “we’re a republic, not a democracy!” talking point, as if out of moral obligation to remind everyone, at any opportunity, of this very crucial and overridingly important distinction.
Granted, it is technically true.
Here’s a decent primer, via Merriam-Webster (emphasis added):
It’s true that there is nuance and difference between these words, according to their historical use and etymology: democracy comes from the Greek roots meaning “rule by the people,” and the most basic understanding of the word’s original meaning refers to the direct democracy of ancient Greece.
Republic comes from the Latin roots meaning “public good” or “public affair,” used in ancient Rome to mean simply “state” or “country” with reference to the representative democracy of the Roman Republic. The elected representatives in Congress are a contemporary example of this kind of government.
Because democracy is an abstract name for a system and republic is the more concrete result of that system, democracy is frequently used when the emphasis is on the system itself. We could say that democracy is to republic as monarchy is to kingdom…
These terms are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, a document that nevertheless expresses clearly that governments should be established “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This reads like a definition of both democracy and republic. In Article IV Section V of the Constitution, the term republican is used as an adjective: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
American republicanism is a form of a democratic system in which the population (in theory; whether this is true in practice is very much up for dispute) exercises popular control over government via the representative system set up in the Constitution.
It’s sort of analogous to the “hate speech” vs “free speech” debate; not all free speech is hate speech, but all hate speech (to the extent that term means anything) is free speech.
The problem with the “not a democracy, a republic” talking point is that it’s total midwit, pseudointellectual peacocking to try to score debate points without actually explaining anything of substance. One, upon reading or hearing the comment, is meant to marvel at the enlightened, brave and stunning commenter’s nuanced understanding of the intricacies of American governance.
In almost all contexts, the distinction between a representative democracy in the mold of the American republic and a pure democracy is totally irrelevant to whatever point is trying to be made.
At any rate, not that this will discourage anyone from doing it, whenever someone trots out the old war horse “muh republic” talking point, it doesn’t impress me. On the contrary, it exposes their pettiness.
But people are free to do whatever they like, of course, because I believe that your replies and free speech, no matter how silly and irrelevant they are.
Occasionally, when the subject of Democracy comes ... (
show quote)
Well stated, the “we are a republic” line is often used to excuse abuses of our system that would horrify our founders.
Parky60 wrote:
Occasionally, when the subject of Democracy comes up on OPP and its leftist proponents use it as a political cudgel against their opponents, someone chimes in with the standard “we’re a republic, not a democracy!” talking point, as if out of moral obligation to remind everyone, at any opportunity, of this very crucial and overridingly important distinction.
Granted, it is technically true.
Here’s a decent primer, via Merriam-Webster (emphasis added):
It’s true that there is nuance and difference between these words, according to their historical use and etymology: democracy comes from the Greek roots meaning “rule by the people,” and the most basic understanding of the word’s original meaning refers to the direct democracy of ancient Greece.
Republic comes from the Latin roots meaning “public good” or “public affair,” used in ancient Rome to mean simply “state” or “country” with reference to the representative democracy of the Roman Republic. The elected representatives in Congress are a contemporary example of this kind of government.
Because democracy is an abstract name for a system and republic is the more concrete result of that system, democracy is frequently used when the emphasis is on the system itself. We could say that democracy is to republic as monarchy is to kingdom…
These terms are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, a document that nevertheless expresses clearly that governments should be established “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This reads like a definition of both democracy and republic. In Article IV Section V of the Constitution, the term republican is used as an adjective: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
American republicanism is a form of a democratic system in which the population (in theory; whether this is true in practice is very much up for dispute) exercises popular control over government via the representative system set up in the Constitution.
It’s sort of analogous to the “hate speech” vs “free speech” debate; not all free speech is hate speech, but all hate speech (to the extent that term means anything) is free speech.
The problem with the “not a democracy, a republic” talking point is that it’s total midwit, pseudointellectual peacocking to try to score debate points without actually explaining anything of substance. One, upon reading or hearing the comment, is meant to marvel at the enlightened, brave and stunning commenter’s nuanced understanding of the intricacies of American governance.
In almost all contexts, the distinction between a representative democracy in the mold of the American republic and a pure democracy is totally irrelevant to whatever point is trying to be made.
At any rate, not that this will discourage anyone from doing it, whenever someone trots out the old war horse “muh republic” talking point, it doesn’t impress me. On the contrary, it exposes their pettiness.
But people are free to do whatever they like, of course, because I believe that your replies and free speech, no matter how silly and irrelevant they are.
Occasionally, when the subject of Democracy comes ... (
show quote)
We are a republic .
And we are also a Democracy.
Hand in hand
Not one without the other
Parky60
Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
Milosia2 wrote:
We are a republic .
And we are also a Democracy.
Hand in hand
Not one without the other
You don't understand plain English do you?
Kevyn wrote:
Well stated, the “we are a republic” line is often used to excuse abuses of our system that would horrify our founders.
***Well stated, the “we are a republic” line is often used to excuse abuses of our system that would horrify our founders.
>>>Well stated, the “we are a democracy” line is often used to excuse abuses of our system that would horrify our founders.
Parky60 wrote:
Occasionally, when the subject of Democracy comes up on OPP and its leftist proponents use it as a political cudgel against their opponents, someone chimes in with the standard “we’re a republic, not a democracy!” talking point, as if out of moral obligation to remind everyone, at any opportunity, of this very crucial and overridingly important distinction.
Granted, it is technically true.
Here’s a decent primer, via Merriam-Webster (emphasis added):
It’s true that there is nuance and difference between these words, according to their historical use and etymology: democracy comes from the Greek roots meaning “rule by the people,” and the most basic understanding of the word’s original meaning refers to the direct democracy of ancient Greece.
Republic comes from the Latin roots meaning “public good” or “public affair,” used in ancient Rome to mean simply “state” or “country” with reference to the representative democracy of the Roman Republic. The elected representatives in Congress are a contemporary example of this kind of government.
Because democracy is an abstract name for a system and republic is the more concrete result of that system, democracy is frequently used when the emphasis is on the system itself. We could say that democracy is to republic as monarchy is to kingdom…
These terms are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, a document that nevertheless expresses clearly that governments should be established “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This reads like a definition of both democracy and republic. In Article IV Section V of the Constitution, the term republican is used as an adjective: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
American republicanism is a form of a democratic system in which the population (in theory; whether this is true in practice is very much up for dispute) exercises popular control over government via the representative system set up in the Constitution.
It’s sort of analogous to the “hate speech” vs “free speech” debate; not all free speech is hate speech, but all hate speech (to the extent that term means anything) is free speech.
The problem with the “not a democracy, a republic” talking point is that it’s total midwit, pseudointellectual peacocking to try to score debate points without actually explaining anything of substance. One, upon reading or hearing the comment, is meant to marvel at the enlightened, brave and stunning commenter’s nuanced understanding of the intricacies of American governance.
In almost all contexts, the distinction between a representative democracy in the mold of the American republic and a pure democracy is totally irrelevant to whatever point is trying to be made.
At any rate, not that this will discourage anyone from doing it, whenever someone trots out the old war horse “muh republic” talking point, it doesn’t impress me. On the contrary, it exposes their pettiness.
But people are free to do whatever they like, of course, because I believe that your replies and free speech, no matter how silly and irrelevant they are.
Occasionally, when the subject of Democracy comes ... (
show quote)
By the constitution in Article IV, Section 5 a republican form of government is guaranteed to every state in the Union, and the distinguishing feature of that form is the right of the people to choose their own officers for governmental administration, and pass their own laws in virtue of the legislative power reposed in representative bodies, whose legitimate acts may be said to be those of the people themselves.
LostAggie66
Loc: Corpus Christi, TX (Shire of Seawinds)
Parky60 wrote:
Occasionally, when the subject of Democracy comes up on OPP and its leftist proponents use it as a political cudgel against their opponents, someone chimes in with the standard “we’re a republic, not a democracy!” talking point, as if out of moral obligation to remind everyone, at any opportunity, of this very crucial and overridingly important distinction.
Granted, it is technically true.
Here’s a decent primer, via Merriam-Webster (emphasis added):
It’s true that there is nuance and difference between these words, according to their historical use and etymology: democracy comes from the Greek roots meaning “rule by the people,” and the most basic understanding of the word’s original meaning refers to the direct democracy of ancient Greece.
Republic comes from the Latin roots meaning “public good” or “public affair,” used in ancient Rome to mean simply “state” or “country” with reference to the representative democracy of the Roman Republic. The elected representatives in Congress are a contemporary example of this kind of government.
Because democracy is an abstract name for a system and republic is the more concrete result of that system, democracy is frequently used when the emphasis is on the system itself. We could say that democracy is to republic as monarchy is to kingdom…
These terms are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, a document that nevertheless expresses clearly that governments should be established “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This reads like a definition of both democracy and republic. In Article IV Section V of the Constitution, the term republican is used as an adjective: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
American republicanism is a form of a democratic system in which the population (in theory; whether this is true in practice is very much up for dispute) exercises popular control over government via the representative system set up in the Constitution.
It’s sort of analogous to the “hate speech” vs “free speech” debate; not all free speech is hate speech, but all hate speech (to the extent that term means anything) is free speech.
The problem with the “not a democracy, a republic” talking point is that it’s total midwit, pseudointellectual peacocking to try to score debate points without actually explaining anything of substance. One, upon reading or hearing the comment, is meant to marvel at the enlightened, brave and stunning commenter’s nuanced understanding of the intricacies of American governance.
In almost all contexts, the distinction between a representative democracy in the mold of the American republic and a pure democracy is totally irrelevant to whatever point is trying to be made.
At any rate, not that this will discourage anyone from doing it, whenever someone trots out the old war horse “muh republic” talking point, it doesn’t impress me. On the contrary, it exposes their pettiness.
But people are free to do whatever they like, of course, because I believe that your replies and free speech, no matter how silly and irrelevant they are.
Occasionally, when the subject of Democracy comes ... (
show quote)
Thank You Parky for this .
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
