What this regularly spouted argument fails to grasp is that reference to "democracy" in the US concerns the "process" by which leaders are chosen and by which they themselves go on to establish legislation. Two points to bear in mind are: 1. Simply saying we are a Republic (i.e. our societal structure) and discounting our democratic processes is disingenuous, especially when we claim to be fighting war in order to export "democracy". We certainly arent exporting "Republic". 2. Not every Republic is by nature "democratic" as clearly seen by The People's Republic of China, The Islamic Republic of Iran, etc.. Thus, arguing "republic" vs. "democracy" whenever the notion of democracy seems to run counter to the rhetorical claims of our leaders or is used to highlight their failure to adhere to the fundamental "processes" by which our Constitution and Bill of Rights has ordained our Republic should be governed as well held to account is utterly disingenuous. Just another evasive non-argument most recently seen employed by the rabid right in defense of the indefensible abuses of power we have seen in recent years.
you know, in history and civics class, the whole USA as Republic is clearly explained and addressed. i've never come across a curriculum that didn't make the point of defining the distinction. people just don't pay any attention because they don't give a shit.
The point is, kc, that this whole contention has been the typical retort from the neo-con camp everytime the term democracy has been raised in debate as if simply crying "republic" somehow excuses this administration's ongoing attempts to abrogate the democratic principles upon which the Constitution and Bill of Rights are founded. Although i will concede that basic knowledge of civics does appear to be dwindling with each passing generation, nonetheless, the use of the term Republic in the public debate since 2001 has been more often than not a dodge from confronting the demonstrable attempts to install an authoritarian police state and impose fundamentalist-inspired moral constraints on the nation. I would trust that you've not failed to notice how significantly the Christian Right has been behind much of this administration's demagoguery.
Interesting and thought provoking responses..... So, is it ok for the majority to rule the minority? Is that freedom? If California votes to ban gay marriges then are the rights and freedom of gay people violated or insured?
Whether you or I like it or not that IS the process by which our system functions. Even our elected leaders are chosen by a first-past-the-post winner take all process. Is that the best of all democratic processes? I would say no, but it is certainly open to debate. Nevertheless, how your questions above pertain to what has been under discussion however is yet to be seen.
In a republic such as invisioned by our countries forefathers the people run the government not the government running the people. I'm not concerned with other republics such as china or whatnot... The point is this country was and is supposed to be the Republic as written in the Constitution but has been turned into a democracy that rules the minority. We are the minority. Smoke a doobie in the park or in front of city hall and let me know how free you are.
Not luck really. Just got on a plane and came over here. Didn't kn ow anyone, didn't have a job lined up, just came over. Winthin two days of door knocking (14 years ago mind you) I found a position and began my career. Just make sure you've got a degree or two under your belt first.
that was not missed. trying to call the usa a place ruled by democratic structures is incorrect and therefore, when listening to some howler monkey type screaming about the principles of democracy whenever they want to make a point about a vote that didn't go their way is something that REQUIRES the response that this is indeed a republic and therefore they're just going to have to deal with it. i agree that the majority of people do not have the right to force the minority of people to follow their personal principles that have been defifned solely by their religion or lack thereof. no christian has the right to say who can or cannot marry, and no one has the right to force a religious institution to recognize or officiate said wedding. which is why i'm a libertarian, which i would trust you've noticed by now.
One need not be a libertarian to hold the view that the state has no business dictating policy in the private lives of individuals, progressive independent liberals such as I also subscribe to that basic principle. However, however you dodge the points ive made, the fact remains that our Republic functions according to democratic processes (one man, one vote). And it frsutrates me that I should have to once again point out that you have made an incorrect citation. The structure is that of a Republic but (once more the reading impaired) the PROCESSES are democratic. Thus, as originally contended, this argument is based on an entirely spurious comparison.
dodging? hardly. you never made a valid point to address. one man one vote never would work in a country this large, the sheer weight of the process would completely bog down the entire works. hence the set up of the democratic REPUBLIC. the process in no way EVER resembled a pure democracy except when the community was small enough to have a town meeting and raise their hands. edit: intended to type democratic representative republic.
Once again, I never contended that we were a pure democracy. For heaven's sake read what is written and pull your head out of ass. I said we were a democratic republic.
