Chris' Blog

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A quote that I have used before from the Army Training Manual (No. 2000-25, 1928-1932, since withdrawn) is unapologetic in its claim that the united States is supposed to be a Republic: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.

That is a bold statement, isn't it? You can read more on independent.org. Even more shocking for you, perhaps, is a video that has been making its rounds where McCain said he was fine with remaining in the middle east for the next one hundred years (text version available).

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.