PDA

View Full Version : Republic vs Democracy


NorCal Mtn Flyer
07-24-2011, 11:36 PM
I found this on YouTube, and felt it was an interesting description of the political system... not to mention it actually seemed to be relevent to much of the current political situation here in the US!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0&feature=player_embedded#at=79

CDFingers
07-25-2011, 4:57 AM
Good one: it argues for the virtues of a republic.

CDFingers

NotEnufGarage
07-25-2011, 5:29 AM
That needs to be played weekly in every school in this country.

Lost.monkey
07-25-2011, 5:36 AM
Here's the complete video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIcOfu6Udec

My GF teaches 10th grade history, and shows this video often (especially when her kids cite that we live in a democracy!)

Forestgnome
07-25-2011, 5:47 AM
Great video! Thanks for posting it.

a1c
07-25-2011, 6:30 AM
Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

JB-Norcal
07-25-2011, 6:46 AM
Here's a link showing the rough positions of so-called left and right in the US -
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

BobB35
07-25-2011, 7:44 AM
Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

Uhh...these two political systems are mutually exclusive and other than voting these two systems have little in common. One is the rule of the mob and the other is the rule of law...you decide where you want to live and look at CA....I would say we are more democracy now than republic...

kadar
07-25-2011, 7:53 AM
Here's the complete video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIcOfu6Udec

My GF teaches 10th grade history, and shows this video often (especially when her kids cite that we live in a democracy!)

If I may be forward. Give that woman a kiss and thank her for us.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 7:57 AM
Last words of the video:

"... or we will inevitably end up with an oligarchy, a tyranny of the elite."

And where are we now?

Just askin'...

mbuna
07-25-2011, 8:05 AM
Must viewing if you've never seen it or need a refresher.

monk
07-25-2011, 8:41 AM
This video makes me question why people on this forum say PRK. Always seems that the context in which it's posted is negative.

VegasND
07-25-2011, 8:42 AM
Good for her! She's not alone but we are outnumbered.
Here's the complete video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIcOfu6Udec

My GF teaches 10th grade history, and shows this video often (especially when her kids cite that we live in a democracy!)

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 8:51 AM
This video makes me question why people on this forum say PRK. Always seems that the context in which it's posted is negative.

Because it is negative. It parodies so-called "republics" that aren't, such as the People's Republic of Korea (PRK), of China (PRC), of Vietnam, the late German Democratic Republic, and all the other claimed republics in the former Soviet sphere.

If you think California is a "republic," watch the video again.

Chatterbox
07-25-2011, 9:04 AM
Uhh...these two political systems are mutually exclusive and other than voting these two systems have little in common. One is the rule of the mob and the other is the rule of law...you decide where you want to live and look at CA....I would say we are more democracy now than republic...

A constitutional democracy is no different from a constitutional republic in regard to the rule of law.

Also one can say that republic is a rule by elites while democracy is rule by the people and be equally correct. :)

sholling
07-25-2011, 9:18 AM
I'll go ahead and embed the whole video. I highly recommend Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841) which is an analysis of the Progressive (modern liberal) movement and its core article of faith that everyday people are too stupid to be trusted to make their own eating, healthcare, economic, and self defense decisions. The absolute unshakeable belief that what the people really need is an oligarchy of academics and "experts" running the government to make and enforce those choices for them. Sort of like the current drive to force people into unions and force them out of gas burning cars and into buses and trains through higher energy prices, and to have government take over heathcare.

KFXuGIpsdE0

Uxi
07-25-2011, 9:30 AM
Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, they are. The Founders were VERY skeptical of a pure democracy and deliberately put in place many abstraction measures. The People have their voice through the House. That's where budgets are required to originate and has the power to impeach, etc.

Populists, drown them all, have knocked down some of the safeguards, though, particularly with the direct election of senators and also by weakening the Electoral College, which is bound to popular vote now in most States. Campaign Finance reform is instantly rendered moot if POTUS is more concerned with good decisions than popular ones...

monk
07-25-2011, 9:34 AM
Because it is negative. It parodies so-called "republics" that aren't, such as the People's Republic of Korea (PRK), of China (PRC), of Vietnam, the late German Democratic Republic, and all the other claimed republics in the former Soviet sphere.

If you think California is a "republic," watch the video again.


Understood, thanks.

CalBear
07-25-2011, 10:07 AM
Glad some people get it. So many people call our nation a democracy and become furious whenever the majority don't get their way. The truth is the majority frequently want things that are in violation of our laws and the Constitution. Without that barrier of law to protect us from the rule of the majority, we would have collapsed long ago.

HBrebel
07-25-2011, 10:37 AM
Yep, we are pretty much there now.Last words of the video:

"... or we will inevitably end up with an oligarchy, a tyranny of the elite."

And where are we now?

Just askin'...

Uxi
07-25-2011, 10:44 AM
FDR already exploited people voting for their bread and circuses. Now they're practically sacred and they stir up the mob whenever anyone objects to their Ponzi schemes... classic Populism and the Roman Republic showed us what happens when taken to it's conclusion: Caesar and dictatorship.

Exposed
07-25-2011, 10:52 AM
Awesome!

radioburning
07-25-2011, 10:54 AM
Good video.

lgm118icbm
07-25-2011, 11:36 AM
Here's a link showing the rough positions of so-called left and right in the US -
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

The more I read of that, the more I realized that I am not a Republican. I am more of a libertarian than anything.

a1c
07-25-2011, 11:53 AM
Uhh...these two political systems are mutually exclusive and other than voting these two systems have little in common. One is the rule of the mob and the other is the rule of law...you decide where you want to live and look at CA....I would say we are more democracy now than republic...

No, they are not mutually exclusive. I'm sorry, but I was not asleep during my Poli Sci classes.

This video goes by very specific and narrow definitions of both forms. A democratic republic is very much possible (and no, I don't mean the Soviet kind).

I think this kind of debate usually goes nowhere, because people fail to define "republic" and "democracy" beforehand. Those have both broad and narrow meanings, and there are different theories of democracy.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 11:55 AM
The more I read of that, the more I realized that I am not a Republican. I am more of a libertarian than anything.

There you go, man
Keep as cool as you can
Face piles of trials with smiles
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave...
And keep on thinking free
-- Graeme Edge, The Moody Blues, "In the Beginning"


Unfortunately "Libertarian" is code for "The party that can't even get elected dogcatcher." It should be code for "People who don't surrender their free will and common sense to primitive, lock-step tribalism. On either side." People who keep on thinking free.

Uxi
07-25-2011, 12:00 PM
It's also a code word for irony, as in it's trendy to be anti-trendy. I tend to split the middle in the social apex while being conservative on economics. I look at it as despising 6 out of 10 Republicans, 99 out of 100 Democrats, and most of the independents. I think all of them should have the least amount of power as possible and hope for gridlock at every level of government.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 12:03 PM
I think this kind of debate usually goes nowhere, because people fail to define "republic" and "democracy" beforehand. Those have both broad and narrow meanings, and there are different theories of democracy.

In the same vein, I wish somebody would come up with a solid definition of "fascism." I haven't heard one yet. The word is over-used as a label, in place of "I don't like your politics." (See Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) for similar usage).

But I submit the following as a working definition: Fascism is where private enterprise controls capital, but the ruling power (oligarchy?) tells them how they may/must use that capital. Private enterprise is allowed to get very rich if it follows orders.

In Nazi Germany, the classic example, private enterprise continued as before -- only its choice of products was dictated (literally) by the government, not free-market forces. So you had Daimler-Benz, Bosch, BMW, Zeiss, and even the foreign-owned subsidiaries (Ford, GM's Opel, Ambi-Budd) making stuff for the war machine, not the consumer or export market.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 12:07 PM
...and hope for gridlock at every level of government.

Amen. That's why I'm enjoying the stereo bankruptcy theaters playing in Sacramento and Washington so much -- even as I realize it's all just theater. I keep hoping for a total collapse so they'll be forced to sit down, think rationally instead of tribally, and fix the underlying problems.

Fat chance though.

Greece is sort of a test case. Will they fix that one? Fat chance, too. It will just stagger from crisis to crisis, bailout to bailout.

sholling
07-25-2011, 1:19 PM
In the same vein, I wish somebody would come up with a solid definition of "fascism." I haven't heard one yet. The word is over-used as a label, in place of "I don't like your politics." (See Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) for similar usage).

But I submit the following as a working definition: Fascism is where private enterprise controls capital, but the ruling power (oligarchy?) tells them how they may/must use that capital. Private enterprise is allowed to get very rich if it follows orders.

In Nazi Germany, the classic example, private enterprise continued as before -- only its choice of products was dictated (literally) by the government, not free-market forces. So you had Daimler-Benz, Bosch, BMW, Zeiss, and even the foreign-owned subsidiaries (Ford, GM's Opel, Ambi-Budd) making stuff for the war machine, not the consumer or export market.
You describe the economic side pretty well but it goes deeper. There really isn't a rock solid definition that everyone agrees on but the best shot at it that I've seen is in the book Liberal Fascism (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841) where he gets deep into the prewar history of fascism, compares and contrasts Soviet communism with Western European fascism and the American Progressive movement. Most people don't realize that, the father of fascism - Benito Mussolini was a life long socialist, the editor of a socialist newspaper, and the son of a committed socialist. He simply saw crony capitalism where the state picks private sector winners and losers based on political expedience ($$$) as a means of growing the power of the party in power and as stepping stone to socialism.

What European fascists and American progressives held in common was the desire to perfect mankind. In many ways Hitler's National Socialist German Workers Party aped the Italian fascists and their crony capitalism stepping stone but added what they saw as improvements - eugenics (borrowed from American Progressives), racial purity, proper nutrition (organic health foods), mandated physical fitness etc. In contrast the Italian fascists saw racism and antisemitism as stupid and did their best to protect Italian Jews. For the British and American Progressive movements of the 1930s their support of racism, antisemitism, eugenics, and the elimination of the weak and unproductive etc had a bit more in common with the Germans. But all have one thing in common - the need for a crisis to unite the people behind a strongman who will "get us out of this mess". That crisis can be a war like the US entry into WWI (Wilson was the fascistic poster boy for American Progressives), a financial crisis like the runaway inflation of the Wiemar Republic and privations of the Great Depression, or the now debunked but still ongoing global warming fraud that was intended all along as a manufactured crisis that would grow the power of the state and allow it to control the lives of the public. Fascism and socialism are at their roots all about an elite group minutely controlling the lives of the (as they see it) none too bright general public for their own good and the differences are merely details.

Chosen_1
07-25-2011, 1:45 PM
Unlike the private sector, the government is motivated by public interest.


I laughed out loud (lol'd) when I read this :D.

nicki
07-25-2011, 2:28 PM
THis is why I registered as a "Republican" rather than a "Democrat" even though the establishment "Republicans" are trully "Republican in Name Only".

The sad reality is both party leaders are worse, they are hostile to the very values espoused in our Declaration of Independence so they are what I call Americans in Name Only (AINOs).

The vast majority of us are either "Conservatives or Libertarians". While we may disagree on "social issues', most of do want our "Republic" back.

Nicki

oni.dori
07-25-2011, 2:53 PM
Last words of the video:

"... or we will inevitably end up with an oligarchy, a tyranny of the elite."

And where are we now?

Just askin'...

I think I would have to pretty much second this.

jwkincal
07-25-2011, 2:55 PM
Today my daughter and a friend of hers were having a mock sword battle with her younger sister (2 on 1).

She called out to me, "Look, Daddy... democracy!"

sholling
07-25-2011, 2:58 PM
THis is why I registered as a "Republican" rather than a "Democrat" even though the establishment "Republicans" are trully "Republican in Name Only".

The sad reality is both party leaders are worse, they are hostile to the very values espoused in our Declaration of Independence so they are what I call Americans in Name Only (AINOs).

The vast majority of us are either "Conservatives or Libertarians". While we may disagree on "social issues', most of do want our "Republic" back.

Nicki
It's interesting that while the country as a whole is center-right, 20% of the country self identify as liberal and whopping 10% self identify as very liberal to socialist. On the other hand over 40% self identify as conservative and only half of those (20% of all Americans) consider themselves social conservatives. It looks like both parties suffer from a serious case of tail wagging the dog. On the other hand a large majority of the country are fiscal conservatives as evidenced by the growth of the TEA Party movement in the face of a media propaganda barrage and the polling information below.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/27/poll-large-majority-support-balanced-budget-amendment-to-constitution/#ixzz1T9xDzc9y
According to a recent Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, a large majority of the public backs an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, a reform some lawmakers say is on the table in the debt ceiling debate.

65 percent of the public supports the amendment with 27 percent opposed; 8 percent are undecided.

81 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of independents support the amendment. Even a plurality of Democrats, the party that typically resists spending cuts, back the amendment by a 45 percent to 44 percent margin.


Edit: The numbers below show party affiliation as of June of this year.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/partisan_trends_35_6_are_republicans_34_0_democrat s_30_4_unaffiliated
Now, 35.6% of American Adults consider themselves to be Republicans, up from 34.8% in April. The number calling themselves Republicans peaked most recently last December at 37.0% but began to decline after that.

The number calling themselves Democrats increased slightly from 33.5% in April to 34.0% last month. Democrats hit a recent high of 36.3% last October just before the midterm elections. After four straight months of increases, voters who say they are not affiliated with either party fell back to 30.4% in May from 31.7% the month before.

MasterYong
07-25-2011, 3:10 PM
The first thing I was taught in 8th-grade Social Studies (by a teacher who was an "old-guard," staunch supporter of the constitution) was "YOU DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY."

Students were stunned, but when he explained it, it made sense.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 5:18 PM
Today my daughter and a friend of hers were having a mock sword battle with her younger sister (2 on 1).

She called out to me, "Look, Daddy... democracy!"



I sure hope you didn't make that up.

Because if you didn't, it's freaking hilarious.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 5:20 PM
The first thing I was taught in 8th-grade Social Studies (by a teacher who was an "old-guard," staunch supporter of the constitution) was "YOU DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY."

Students were stunned, but when he explained it, it made sense.

We must have had the same teacher.

jwkincal
07-25-2011, 5:26 PM
I sure hope you didn't make that up.

Because if you didn't, it's freaking hilarious.

Oh, no... that did happen... this morning, no kidding.

We also have a saying in our house (I have three daughters), "sometimes you have to be the lamb!"

MindBuilder
07-25-2011, 8:08 PM
The commonly used definition of the word "democracy" has changed. The US IS a democracy under this common modern definition. What used to be called a democracy is now called a direct democracy. Of course the US is not a direct democracy. By the modern definition of democracy, the US is a democratic republic, which is a subcategory of democracy. The US is BOTH a democracy and a republic at the same time by the modern definitions. It seems very unlikely the meaning of "democracy" will ever go back.