Democracy and the Republic An exchange in another thread caught my eye: • "America hang your head in shame for the 66000 civilians killed in Iraq. Wikileaks will let the world know what evil deeds have been done in the name of freedom. Democratic governments should be fully transparent. How can we know where our vote goes if the government actively hides details that will harm their popularity." (Blindman; boldface accent added) • "yeah, the US is a republic, not a democracy, idiot." (NetJaded) The question of democracy and the republic in the context of the United States arises frequently, and it seems to me that in many cases the rhetoric demands an underlying premise that democracy is incompatible with a republic. Among the several states, voters enjoy a generally democratic system, including direct votes for representation, the executive office, and even the institution of laws. The federal government of the United States was specifically established as a republic, leaving the legislative offices to the states, providing a buffer between the voter and the executive, and omitting a referendum system for voting on the establishment of federal laws. So the question arises: What constitutes, in a functional context, democracy? And, of course, there remains the underlying issue: Is democracy incompatible with a republic?
No, it is not incompatable - for the simple reason that the democratic method (one person, one vote) is used to determine the individuals that are elected to congress to run the Republic. There are, however, some changes that need to be made in order to make the federal government members more in line with serving at the public's pleasure. The most obvious is that the Electorial College should be abolished and the Executive chosen by simple majority vote of the population. Next would be limiting the terms of members of Congress. Do I even need to state why that is needed?
I like your reasoning, and it would be wonderful if it worked that way, however, there is a critical flaw. The one person one vote method is a fantasy. The upper classes and middle classes have disproportionate amounts of voting power, as does the elderly. Likewise, people do not logically vote what is in there best interest. In short, the ruling class are the ones that construct the education systems, so they are the ones they train the minds of the electorate since the time they are nearly old enough to walk. I think this greatly influences the mind of the electorate to such a huge degree that one mind is no longer one vote. . . or is it just coincidence that such a large proportion of all presidents are blood related? George Carlin Doesn't vote Nah. . . I definitely think the founders of the Nation preferred democracy at the local levels but probably saw the impracticalities of running it at a confederated or federated level. That is probably one of the contentions that took them so long to compromise and iron things out at the constitutional conventions. Is democracy incompatible with a republic? I would say yes, as long as the ruling elite mandate compulsory education and that education is ruled by the state with state controlled curriculum. Unless the minds of children are left to that of the family, the private controls of the parent, and each is free to question and see the government and there communities for what they are, and the ruling class is democratically chosen, and not self perpetuating, as it has now seemed to become entrenched, then perhaps it might. Jefferson said something about a tree of liberty being watered with blood of freedom, patriots, something or other real gruesome. . . yada yada yada. . . but yeah, republics, monarchy, despotism. . . they all have prospects for creating an entrenched ruling class that will be incompatible with democratic parliament that can enact the will of the people. And then, yeah, tyranny. So what sort of government IS compatible with a democracy if not a republic?
The Founders specifically wanted to avoid mob rule and parliamentary systems wherein everything depended on ever-shifting majorities. The US has gradually undone that system and replaced republicanism with more democratic systems. Judge the results for yourself.
IMO the reverse is true. After the civil war, the country has relied steadily on more federalism. State power has become steadily more centralized, and we have only the illusion of more democracy. What choices are these? The elites train the masses to think they want this or that, they even train them to think and believe that this issue or that are the important issues. . . the ruling elites, the "representatives" are now the ones that control the system (i.e. the elections, the education, the media), not the people. In such a climate, what chance has any real democracy to exist. Yes, you are right, one has consumed the other. But it isn't democracy that has consumed the republic, it's quite the reverse. Democracy in the United States died when slaves, the poor, non-property owners, and women were enfranchised. The ruling classes make sure the people are more concerned with consumption, religions, celebrity, entertainment, national sports, trivial news spectacle, and whatever other national and international event sensation they can keep the populace preoccupied with rather than paying attention to important and relevant political information and issues of the day. Members reading political threads here excluded of course. . . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Er ... um .... In truth, sir, I haven't a clue where to start with that. So I'll grasp after a straw here: Are you suggesting that democracy died when the vote was granted to something more than a sliver minority? "Did you know that in 1788, when there were four million people in America, only 39,000—the rich white men—got to vote?" (Maher) I mean, it seems you're suggesting that democracy died when more than one percent of the population was allowed to vote. Certainly, I must be reading you wrongly, then, because such an assertion sounds ludicrous. ____________________ Notes: Maher, Bill. "New Rules". Real Time With Bill Maher, #193. HBO, Los Angeles. October 15, 2010. HBO.com. October 20, 2010. http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-b...aher/episodes/0/193-episode/article/new-rules
It's weird I know, it does sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's true though, you understand rightly, when you look into it. There came a point in the history of the U.S., when the only way the overwhelming power that the masses had could be controlled by the ruling elites, was to institute compulsory state education. This was to make sure the sons of the property owning farmers, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers only learned how to take their place in the cogs of society, not to tinker with them. The proposition/hypothesis is, "The shocking possibility that dumb people do not exist in sufficient numbers to warrant millions of careers to devoted to tending them will seem incredible to you." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Underground_History_of_American_Education [1] John Taylor Gatto, (2003). Chapter 2: An Angry Look at Modern Schooling. Underground History of American Education, 2. http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/2d.htm
The implications of this article were great, I loved it. But no, if they had never been forced by the population to enfranchise any more Americans than white men, then I don't suppose they would have needed compulsory schooling. But I guess that was the point. Even during slavery, I suppose it was getting increasingly difficult to keep slaves from learning how to read. A wise slave state would have required slave holders to purposely educate slaves first, they would have wanted them educated, to best ensure their minds were suitably prepared to fill the human resource positions they were to take in society. You can program expectations and loyalty to a paradigm through education. But many slaves emancipated their minds, and knowledge is power. Hence, they fled North and fed the flames for the cause of civil rights, civil liberties, and emancipation. I think people forget that the black man had the right to vote before women did. Who is educated and how, what they know, that is power. What is taught in schools today is neither knowledge or how to think critically. What is taught is how to obey, cease thinking, and not ask questions. In a few instances this is used for good, but in most cases, the government has an agenda that places the corporations and financial sectors first, the government second, and final considerations go to the community and the individual. Before compulsory education, it was pretty much the reverse. (Well, local communities and families sometimes put god before themselves and the individual, but other than that, the priorities for curricula were more weighted toward a kind that would be beneficial to a democracy.)
I'm sure most people remember the daily multiple car bombings carried out by insurgents, terrorists, and mules for terrorists, not to mention kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq. So of those 66,000 , how many were actually killed at the hands of Americans ? I'm not saying that American soldiers didn't kill any civilians, but considering all the numerous car bombings that were deliberately meant to kill civilians, and other terrorist acts, that number must be in the tens of thousands at least. Even before this leak, it was known that at least tens of thousands of Iraqis died, some estimates were even over a million. So it wasn't much of a profound leak. Do you know of any government in history that's been FULLY transparent ? It would be nice, but unrealistic.
democracy is impossible in a republic (or any form of authortian govenment and/or econamic system for that matter.) democracy is the only way to obtain freedom, and the only way to obtain democracy is to be our own governments, self governing ourselves instead of being domanated by others and their econamic gain.
See, independently, I have mostly developed and come to understand ideals of Libertarian Municipalism on my own. But the fact of the matter is, we live in a highly technological society, and if we were to throw off the shackles of state imposed compulsory education, and achieve the dream of Libertarian Municipalism and localism, that would not mean that globalism, and global trade would not still develop. Voluntary confedations COULD still develop. So, if the local Municipalities could vote for representatives for larger political organizations that were to deal with global issues, I am not positive that democracy couldn't work. It's just that the power needs to radiate from the bottom down, from the grass roots, not from the top down. If the elites at the top, determine how the people at the bottom will be educated, how they will think, how they will feel, what their entertainment, their news, and how their view of reality will be filtered to them? And if the global organization is centralized from one common point, and the power of rule(law) making is not primarily at the community level? Then yeah, I'm inclined to think democracy is incompatible with a republic. But I am inclined to believe, certain global issues really can't be addressed in any other way but through voluntary republican confederations cooperating, so there in lay the conundrum.
The question remains The question remains unanswered: What constitutes democracy? Presently, we seem to have in this discussion a tremendous range for interpretation. One member suggests—while admitting how strange it sounds to the undereducated—that investing the vote in a sliver minority (e.g., <1%) of the population is democracy. To the other, though, we have a consideration that tends toward Anarchism. As a result, some might question whether a nation like China is actually democratic, since a sliver minority (admittedly even more extreme than just under one percent) does have a say in how things go—e.g., Party officials. Or some might wonder where, exactly, the republic known as the United States stands, since millions of people have a say in various political outcomes. All in all, it's a pretty vague—perhaps amorphous—outcome, as the range is so broad. Thus, what constitutes democracy? Perhaps we might establish what a democracy actually is before determining whether or not it is incompatible with a republic.
I find it interesting that you drew a comparison to China. Empirically, you COULD say, since their system is more democratic, the people involved in their system that DO have a say, are actually educated and do know what is going on, the change that has occurred there in the 20th century, is actual change, real change, instead of cosmetic change. Just look at China from where the country was pre WWII, to where it is now. The only change in the U.S. has been geared toward satisfying the interests of the world ruling elites. This in fact has stripped the people and the land of it's resources and ancestral values and social capital. It has made the country stagnate as a result. The change in China by contrast has been real, hasn't it? Look at all of their social, economic and other real indicators. :shrug: Just a thought. More and more though, I believe the populations of change want more local control. . . though I have no evidence to support this. People might want development, but they also desire freedom.
