A couple weeks ago I was asked to write about the differences between a Democracy and a Republic. There is a queue of topics to write about, and I’m getting to them as I can (OK, so there is only one more requested topic left and it will be back to the articles that have caught my highly-trained eye).
In the united States, we have largely operated as a two-party political system. Many people, including myself, are beginning to see the two major parties as extensions of the same party. In fact, they used to be the same party between 1792 and 1824. That the two parties which emerged from that became known as the “Democrats” and the “Republicans” should tell us something of the ideas behind them. Yet a lot of dictionaries say that a democracy is a republic and a republic is a democracy:
Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.
[republic. (n.d.). The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic]
Words do shift meaning, but this is pretty dangerous. If you have ten minutes, here is a video that originally appeared on wimp.com that does a good job of explaining the distinct forms of government:
A quote that I have used before from the Army Training Manual (No. 2000-25, 1928-1932, since withdrawn) is unapologetic in its claim that the united States is supposed to be a Republic:
The didactic method concerning facts of history, social changes, economic development, and basic principles of our Government will be used without discussion and without argument, special emphasis being given to the fact that the United States is a Republic, not a democracy.
Why is there such an emphasis on it? Here is how they defined a Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
Results, in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic—negating property rights.
Attittude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
That is harsh, isn’t it? Basically whoever can convince people the best is the one that has the power in a democracy. I think the analysis is accurate. If you didn’t watch the video, here is a run-down from the same manual explaining what a Republic is:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard for consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
[&c.—go read it for yourself]
What type of government are we trying to attain? You’ve just read a decent explanation of what happens under a Democracy. But are those in the Republican party much better? In 2003, our last Republican president said that he wanted to democratize the world (the original page has expired on Reuters):
Megan Goldin writes in Reuters: “It’s been a long and lonely road for former Soviet dissident Natan (Anatoly) Sharansky who has for years been ridiculed for his political theories of spreading democracy across the globe to obtain world peace.
“But the former Soviet ‘refusenik’, who is now a cabinet minister in the Israeli government, no longer walks alone. His companion in his campaign to democratise the world is no less than U.S. President George W. Bush. . . .
Sharansky told Reuters about his visit with Bush in the Oval Office.
“I told him: ‘You are the real dissident. Politicians look at polls—what is popular, what is not popular. A dissident believes in an idea and goes ahead with it . . . even when there are so many people who disagree,’ ” Sharansky said.
So I ask you, what are we really trying to be? Even the Republicans have forgotten what a Republic is.
Why don’t you take the World’s Smallest Political Quiz and find out where you currently stand on the political spectrum? The first time I took the quiz, I placed dead center in the Libertarian quadrant then had to go look up what a “libertarian” was.
Those on the “left” (used to be called the “right”) want to control your pocketbook. The ones on the “right” want to control your actions. In their extremes, both end up having the same effect. We need to get our sights back on the consequences of having freedom or not having it.
Comments
Submitted by
Chris on
I rethreaded this as we were getting pretty narrow…
Those are good questions and they are things that I’ve had to deal with. With some of them I do not see harm in the government legislating some things (and, indeed, it can be beneficial) but the problem becomes the underlying ideas that cause the legislation to be created in the first place.
#1 - For instance, did you know that Lincoln censored newspapers that were critical of him during the War Between the States? Or what do you do with the Fairness Doctrine? When a conservative says that abstinence is the best, does he then have to give equal validity to condoms, IUDs or other methods?
On the flip side, there are snake oil salesmen. Yes, this issue is not cut and dried. I did explain where the wording of most Republicans is not technically accurate in my healthcare post. In practice, I think they are still right about that issue.
The question with any censorship is, who decides? China has convinced Google to censor images about the Tiananmen Square incident. If you do a search in that country, you see very different pictures.
In California (and probably other places, but I know this one for a fact), some teachers have told 12 year old girls that if they “haven’t had a period yet that now is the time to have sex—they can’t get pregnant.” Not only is this biologically inaccurate, but it goes behind the backs of parents. Yet this teaching is officially sanctioned by our federal and state governments and those girls were separated from the boys in class for two weeks so that they could learn about sexual positions and how to put condoms on bananas (and I’m understating things). Can we really expect these same legislators to have a problem with a few sexual items on the evening television? They are more likely to censor something that disagrees with the popular notion of global warming.
I do agree with you about us being a part of this culture, though we should not be controlled by it. Sealing ourselves off entirely is a quick way to make us irrelevant.
#2 - Our constitution does not allow for a permanent standing national army. Read it, especially Article 1 Section 8. The states, however, may. Somehow we get around that restriction by voting on a new budget for the military every year. I really do not think that is what was meant.
The “National Guard” is supposed to be the militia that stays here and guards our own lands, no matter what. Why are they being used in the middle east right now? There is now no official group to join if one wants to remain around home to protect friends and family. Anyone who tries to do that is part of an “extremist paramilitary group.”
Some Anarchists use Libertarianism as a vehicle. A lot of anarchists will tell you that they do not really expect a collapse of government but I disagree with them still. Some government is necessary.
#3 - I’d rather have local people decide this one. Then again, I’m also against the idea of government licensing marriage. If they define what a marriage is, they can redefine it. If the meaning comes from God…
#4 - Prohibiting an action that can lead to sin was one of the things that caused our fall in the first place. God told Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree and Adam told Eve not to even touch it. Alcohol, by itself, is not the problem and we even harness it to make leavened bread. Again, I still don’t like alcohol, but at least some of the statistics about it are made out to be worse than they really are.
#5 - I had to laugh. A study from several years ago showed that most people were willing to write their social security number on a mall-contest form for a chance to win chocolate. There is an even bigger problem: Social Security numbers can be guessed. There was an article a few days ago that Tax auditors are trolling Facebook.
Yes, the information is out there. Even more than that, the results of my last background check came back in less than three hours. The government knows who I am, probably even more than most other people (that can be explained more in private, but it has nothing to do with a criminal record).
So if the government already knows who I am, that can’t be the reason I oppose a national ID card. I oppose it because, as you said, the government is a very poor data repository. Things are never as secure as they think. Have you been following the RFID passport chip hacks? ^_^
I would be interested in hearing your story sometime. In the mean time, there is a book by Richard Maybury called The Clipper Ship Strategy which tries to explain to teenagers how to capitalize on where the government is spending money without ever being in favor of that money being spent.
Our government was crippled in its creation and it should continue to be crippled today. Anything else is a different form of government than we were given.
There are a few other things that I think are relevant and true but that I haven’t been able to find the original sources for. Ah, well. This list is already pretty long.
Submitted by
garrettw on
Cool, I got the exact same result on that quiz as you did. Dead center Libt.
Add new comment
Chris is a software developer, aviation student and reclusive cave-dweller. In his spare time he enjoys taking long hikes and reading. Some of his friends have come up with the funny notion that he wants to live on locusts and wild honey. Go figure.
Comments
Submitted by Chris on
I rethreaded this as we were getting pretty narrow…
Those are good questions and they are things that I’ve had to deal with. With some of them I do not see harm in the government legislating some things (and, indeed, it can be beneficial) but the problem becomes the underlying ideas that cause the legislation to be created in the first place.
#1 - For instance, did you know that Lincoln censored newspapers that were critical of him during the War Between the States? Or what do you do with the Fairness Doctrine? When a conservative says that abstinence is the best, does he then have to give equal validity to condoms, IUDs or other methods?
On the flip side, there are snake oil salesmen. Yes, this issue is not cut and dried. I did explain where the wording of most Republicans is not technically accurate in my healthcare post. In practice, I think they are still right about that issue.
The question with any censorship is, who decides? China has convinced Google to censor images about the Tiananmen Square incident. If you do a search in that country, you see very different pictures.
In California (and probably other places, but I know this one for a fact), some teachers have told 12 year old girls that if they “haven’t had a period yet that now is the time to have sex—they can’t get pregnant.” Not only is this biologically inaccurate, but it goes behind the backs of parents. Yet this teaching is officially sanctioned by our federal and state governments and those girls were separated from the boys in class for two weeks so that they could learn about sexual positions and how to put condoms on bananas (and I’m understating things). Can we really expect these same legislators to have a problem with a few sexual items on the evening television? They are more likely to censor something that disagrees with the popular notion of global warming.
I do agree with you about us being a part of this culture, though we should not be controlled by it. Sealing ourselves off entirely is a quick way to make us irrelevant.
#2 - Our constitution does not allow for a permanent standing national army. Read it, especially Article 1 Section 8. The states, however, may. Somehow we get around that restriction by voting on a new budget for the military every year. I really do not think that is what was meant.
The “National Guard” is supposed to be the militia that stays here and guards our own lands, no matter what. Why are they being used in the middle east right now? There is now no official group to join if one wants to remain around home to protect friends and family. Anyone who tries to do that is part of an “extremist paramilitary group.”
Some Anarchists use Libertarianism as a vehicle. A lot of anarchists will tell you that they do not really expect a collapse of government but I disagree with them still. Some government is necessary.
#3 - I’d rather have local people decide this one. Then again, I’m also against the idea of government licensing marriage. If they define what a marriage is, they can redefine it. If the meaning comes from God…
#4 - Prohibiting an action that can lead to sin was one of the things that caused our fall in the first place. God told Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree and Adam told Eve not to even touch it. Alcohol, by itself, is not the problem and we even harness it to make leavened bread. Again, I still don’t like alcohol, but at least some of the statistics about it are made out to be worse than they really are.
#5 - I had to laugh. A study from several years ago showed that most people were willing to write their social security number on a mall-contest form for a chance to win chocolate. There is an even bigger problem: Social Security numbers can be guessed. There was an article a few days ago that Tax auditors are trolling Facebook.
Yes, the information is out there. Even more than that, the results of my last background check came back in less than three hours. The government knows who I am, probably even more than most other people (that can be explained more in private, but it has nothing to do with a criminal record).
So if the government already knows who I am, that can’t be the reason I oppose a national ID card. I oppose it because, as you said, the government is a very poor data repository. Things are never as secure as they think. Have you been following the RFID passport chip hacks? ^_^
I would be interested in hearing your story sometime. In the mean time, there is a book by Richard Maybury called The Clipper Ship Strategy which tries to explain to teenagers how to capitalize on where the government is spending money without ever being in favor of that money being spent.
Our government was crippled in its creation and it should continue to be crippled today. Anything else is a different form of government than we were given.
There are a few other things that I think are relevant and true but that I haven’t been able to find the original sources for. Ah, well. This list is already pretty long.
Submitted by garrettw on
Cool, I got the exact same result on that quiz as you did. Dead center Libt.