#representative republic

[whatareyoureallyafraidof]

[contemplatingoutlander]

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument

Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.

“A representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.” --ALEXANDER HAMILTON, in a letter to New Jersey Governor Morris, 1777

This article* by George Thomas, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, provides a rebuttal to the MAGA Republicans who claim that the U.S. "is a republic, not a democracy," as if the two were mutually exclusive, and as if that were an excuse for minority party rule and/or the establishment of an autocracy. Below are some excerpts:

Dependent on a minority of the population to hold national power, Republicans such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah have taken to reminding the public that “we’re not a democracy.” It is quaint that so many Republicans, embracing a president* who routinely tramples constitutional norms, have suddenly found their voice in pointing out that, formally, the country is a republic. There is some truth to this insistence. But it is mostly disingenuous. The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule. The founding generation was deeply skeptical of what it called “pure” democracy and defended the American experiment as “wholly republican.” To take this as a rejection of democracy misses how the idea of government by the people, including both a democracy and a republic, was understood when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. It misses, too, how we understand the idea of democracy today. When founding thinkers such as James Madison spoke of democracy, they were usually referring to direct democracy, what Madison frequently labeled “pure” democracy. Madison made the distinction between a republic and a direct democracy exquisitely clear in “Federalist No. 14”: “In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.” Both a democracy and a republic were 'popular' forms of government: Each drew its legitimacy from the people and depended on rule by the people. The crucial difference was that a republic relied on representation, while in a “pure” democracy, the people represented themselves. [color/ emphasis added]

I strongly encourage people to read the entire article. The link above is from the Internet Archive and is accessible to all.

______________ *Note that this article was written in November 2020, when Trump was still president.

[whatareyoureallyafraidof]

[shoebutton]

A Republic If You Can Keep It - The American Interest

Democratic illegitimacy in the United States and the rest of the world results more from political than economic discontent.

When Benjamin Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 he was asked what form of government had been agreed upon? Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Our analysis of World Values Survey data from countries as diverse as the U.S. Japan, Chile and Indonesia shows why Benjamin Franklin was right to be moderately skeptical.

[sarcastic-sob-blog]

“It’s almost as if America’s not a democracy.”

You are correct. America is not, nor has it ever been a democracy.

[wisdomfish]

Americans have to realize that whatever happens on Capitol Hill and in the White House is actually a reflection of the ones who put them there. And in America today, there are more ungodly people than there are godly folks. Ungodliness is ruling our country.

Phil Robertson

[skepticalavenger]

Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It's Not a Democracy

The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn't a democracy any more. And they've found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military.

(more)

This has been floating around the interwebs for the last couple of days.  The reaction of myself and many others has been basically "No shit!  And you mean to tell me water is wet too?"

The fact that we've known this for a while doesn't make it any less painful though.

Of course, we've never been a democracy.  We are supposed to be a representative republic.  In a way we still may be, except that our representatives are mainly only representing the oligarchs these days.  At least at the federal level.

[poetryismyweapon]

Texas Two-Step

Soooo, in Texas, in filibustering a bill about abortion rights, referencing a sonogram or Roe v. Wade is somehow not relevant. lolwut. Guess they don't have a lot of doctors, or lawyers... or lawmakers... in their Senate body. A state senator by the name of Kirk Watson is now trying to head to the wire by calling out the fact that the leadership is trying to end a 12 hour filibuster on technicalities with 45 minutes to go until the 13 hour magic mark where the filibuster succeeds. lol now a Senator West just asked for a motion to be put into writing first as per some other annoying dusty regulation. Meanwhile, Senator Watson is asking why someone else made a motion when he had not yet yielded the floor and is asking for the procedure/regulation point that governs that topic. Man, democracy at work. smh.