“We encourage Republicans to substitute the words ‘republic’ and ‘republicanism’ where previously they have used the word ‘democracy,’ ” the resolution says. “Every time the word ‘democracy’ is used favorably it serves to promote the principles of the Democratic Party, the principles of which we ardently oppose.”
The resolution sums up: “We … oppose legislation which makes our nation more democratic in nature.”
Rhetoric aside, we are a republic with democratic features.
The republic parts help them hold disproportionate power. And, to their credit, they know the power of words.
I don’t usually see the same discipline among Democrats. Maybe I’m missing it, but I’d love to see it.
Well to one up the peadantry don’t all republics have democratic elements
To keep in pedantry/technical terms, technically no, all republics do not necessarily have democratic elements. One of the defining characteristics is a relatively small body of individuals making decisions on law and the direction of the state (not the populace directly deciding, as seen in democracy).
This can run the gamut from an authoritarian republic (ex. rule by aristocracy or appointed by a dictator) to democratic republic (ie. representatives elected by public vote) to theocratic republic, etc. Often, comparison is between republic and monarchy/autocracy; more than one person gets to make the decisions. How these individuals (senators) get their positions is highly variable.
“We are devolving into a democracy, because congressmen and senators are elected by the same pool,” was how one GOP delegate put it to the convention.
I hate it when they don’t name names.
Senators were not elected by the people before the 17th amendment. The House of Representatives represent the interests of the people of their districts, so they were elected by the people. Senators represent the interests of their state as an entity, so they were elected by the legislature of their state or appointed by their governor.
The USA at the federal level is a republic, not a direct democracy. We elect those who vote upon the federal laws. I’m that easy, some worry that more voice of the people and less of the state as an entity runs afoul of that notion and the constitution itself.
I understand that point from a limited perspective, but it is now frequently used as a way to ignore constituents and beat the drum of fascism. Do not trust a politician that is worried about the 17th amendment. That ship sailed a century ago.
It further betrays their manipulative relationship to language: it’s not an exchange of ideas, but a way to frame reality. What is Republicanism anyway to the layman anyway? Because that meaning is left open for so many, they can being to build up its meaning however they’d like and certainly in opposition to democracy.
That guy in the image, Loui Anderson?
