4 ms·

Y'all can attack the messenger, make light of it, dismiss it, but fact is that antidemocratic forces in America are gaining funding, influence and power. There

Y'all can attack the messenger, make light of it, dismiss it, but fact is that antidemocratic forces in America are gaining funding, influence and power. There is an honest to goodness conspiracy among powerful silicon valley elites led by Thiel to spread these ideas and subvert our democracy. With slogans like "we're a republic not a democracy", and justification for policies like voter suppression and gerymandering they've succeeded in shifting the overton window and convincing many Republicans that democracy is bad. These are dangerous ideas that will lead to violence. I am personally willing to die for democracy.

whoooooo123 6y ago
> slogans like "we're a republic not a democracy" What? This isn't a slogan, it's a basic statement of comprehension about how the American system is designed. Admittedly it's a very pedantic distinction that doesn't matter in casual conversation but it's still a fact
- bosswipe 6y ago
  Its not pedantic, it's a lie meant to confuse and prime people against democracy. A republic is a form of democracy. What those that push the slogan dont tell you is that they don't want a republic either, what they really want is a theocracy or some kind of corporate dictatorship. EDIT: This comment is heavily down voted, I would appreciate a reply as to what's wrong with it. Do people disagree that a republic is a form of democracy?
  - naniwaduni 6y ago
    The American system was designed from the outset, on every front, to indirect the preferences of the "people" through multiple layers of middlemen with firmly bounded accountability to those they purport to represent. This is, in the popular consciousness, the salient difference between Athenian democracy and the Roman republic. It is no longer a popular design, and one that we've been slowly walking back over the history of the union, through general adoption of popular vote to choose electors, direct election of senators, &c.. Nevertheless, the design's legacy persists in all corners of the federal government, so the principle actually does have a lot of explanatory power when trying to make sense of it, even if for no other reason than trying to figure out which parts you want to demolish.
    - bosswipe 6y ago
      Direct democracy is a (very rare) form of democratic government, a republic is a (common) type of democratic government.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The two terms have obvious signaling implications because the two major US political parties are called Republicans and Democrats. The popularity of the statement is just as a slogan for Republicans who like the way the implication sounds. It's the same as the Democrats who complain that the electoral college is "undemocratic" despite the conspicuous amount of voting involved. It's just banal sloganeering.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    I downvoted it for mind reading: "...what they really want is a theocracy or some kind of corporate dictatorship".
  - Lazare 6y ago
    I downvoted it for two reasons: First, because no polity implements a pure form of any political or economic system. There is no "capitalist economy", "socialist economy", "social democracy", "democracy", "monarchy", etc., just various mixtures of the above. When arguing about what mixture we have, people will often advocate for moving toward (or away) from one of those pure, platonic ideals. When the US was founded, there was a deep suspicion of unfettered democracy. Political theorists looked for a third way between absolute monarchy and the mob rule of democracy. Athens was a byword for political failure; they were "too" democratic, but Sparta, the Dutch Republic, and the Roman Republic were seen as more useful models, all of whom had strong limits on democracy, and spread power carefully across numerous different competing groups, many of which were chosen via methods other than direct democracy (eg, heredity, lifetime appointments, geographic distribution, wealth, etc.). So when people say "the US was founded as a republic, not a democracy", what they're referencing is that old debate. They're saying "remember, we're meant to be looking to Sparta not Athens as our model", which is true. The fact that Athens and Sparta also had many similarities, and that you could also claim (correctly) that Athens and Sparta were examples of the same political system is irrelevant, because they're still not identical. The distinction has meaning. Second, because you said: > What those that push the slogan dont tell you is that they don't want a republic either, what they really want is a theocracy or some kind of corporate dictatorship. That is not true. Hell, you can agree (as I do) with the observation that the founders carefully worked many anti-democratic ideas and systems into the US constitution (no direct election of senators, no direct election of the president, strong weighting of political power to rural areas, etc.), and then also think that this no longer makes sense, and we should continue undoing them. A perfectly valid response to "the founders wanted us to be like Sparta not Athens!" is "true, but Sparta was a horrifyingly violent slave state that ruled via terror, then collapsed into irrelevancy when they could not adapt to new technologies and geopolitical forces; the founders were wrong". So no, not only does everyone who push that slogan not want to install a theocracy(!), some merely want to roll back a few recent reforms, others want to maintain the status quo, and some actually want to continue the push towards greater direct democracy, but just have no interest in pretending there's if you use a secret decoder ring it turns out Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton and Adams secretly agreed with the exact policies that progressive reformers are pushing in 2021.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
threevox 6y ago
Their is also such a thing as grammar, and you should learn it before arguing online any more
- vangelis 6y ago
  Not an argument!
- rhizome 6y ago
  There is also such a thing as Muphry's Law.
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  Complaining about grammar and using "their" instead of the correct "there"...
- dang 6y ago
  We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Edit: I changed my mind and decided not to ban you because the majority of your HN comments have been better. But if you'd please review the guidelines and take the intended spirit more to heart, we'd be grateful.
nomdep 6y ago
I honestly tought you were talking about the democrats
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into political or ideological flamewar, or any flamewar. It's not what we're going for here, and we've had to ask you this before. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26124135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26124135.

whoooooo123 6y ago

> slogans like "we're a republic not a democracy" What? This isn't a slogan, it's a basic statement of comprehension about how the American system is designed. Admittedly it's a very pedantic distinction that doesn't matter in casual conversation but it's still a fact

bosswipe 6y ago
Its not pedantic, it's a lie meant to confuse and prime people against democracy. A republic is a form of democracy. What those that push the slogan dont tell you is that they don't want a republic either, what they really want is a theocracy or some kind of corporate dictatorship. EDIT: This comment is heavily down voted, I would appreciate a reply as to what's wrong with it. Do people disagree that a republic is a form of democracy?
- naniwaduni 6y ago
  The American system was designed from the outset, on every front, to indirect the preferences of the "people" through multiple layers of middlemen with firmly bounded accountability to those they purport to represent. This is, in the popular consciousness, the salient difference between Athenian democracy and the Roman republic. It is no longer a popular design, and one that we've been slowly walking back over the history of the union, through general adoption of popular vote to choose electors, direct election of senators, &c.. Nevertheless, the design's legacy persists in all corners of the federal government, so the principle actually does have a lot of explanatory power when trying to make sense of it, even if for no other reason than trying to figure out which parts you want to demolish.
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    Direct democracy is a (very rare) form of democratic government, a republic is a (common) type of democratic government.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The two terms have obvious signaling implications because the two major US political parties are called Republicans and Democrats. The popularity of the statement is just as a slogan for Republicans who like the way the implication sounds. It's the same as the Democrats who complain that the electoral college is "undemocratic" despite the conspicuous amount of voting involved. It's just banal sloganeering.
- mistermann 6y ago
  I downvoted it for mind reading: "...what they really want is a theocracy or some kind of corporate dictatorship".
- Lazare 6y ago
  I downvoted it for two reasons: First, because no polity implements a pure form of any political or economic system. There is no "capitalist economy", "socialist economy", "social democracy", "democracy", "monarchy", etc., just various mixtures of the above. When arguing about what mixture we have, people will often advocate for moving toward (or away) from one of those pure, platonic ideals. When the US was founded, there was a deep suspicion of unfettered democracy. Political theorists looked for a third way between absolute monarchy and the mob rule of democracy. Athens was a byword for political failure; they were "too" democratic, but Sparta, the Dutch Republic, and the Roman Republic were seen as more useful models, all of whom had strong limits on democracy, and spread power carefully across numerous different competing groups, many of which were chosen via methods other than direct democracy (eg, heredity, lifetime appointments, geographic distribution, wealth, etc.). So when people say "the US was founded as a republic, not a democracy", what they're referencing is that old debate. They're saying "remember, we're meant to be looking to Sparta not Athens as our model", which is true. The fact that Athens and Sparta also had many similarities, and that you could also claim (correctly) that Athens and Sparta were examples of the same political system is irrelevant, because they're still not identical. The distinction has meaning. Second, because you said: > What those that push the slogan dont tell you is that they don't want a republic either, what they really want is a theocracy or some kind of corporate dictatorship. That is not true. Hell, you can agree (as I do) with the observation that the founders carefully worked many anti-democratic ideas and systems into the US constitution (no direct election of senators, no direct election of the president, strong weighting of political power to rural areas, etc.), and then also think that this no longer makes sense, and we should continue undoing them. A perfectly valid response to "the founders wanted us to be like Sparta not Athens!" is "true, but Sparta was a horrifyingly violent slave state that ruled via terror, then collapsed into irrelevancy when they could not adapt to new technologies and geopolitical forces; the founders were wrong". So no, not only does everyone who push that slogan not want to install a theocracy(!), some merely want to roll back a few recent reforms, others want to maintain the status quo, and some actually want to continue the push towards greater direct democracy, but just have no interest in pretending there's if you use a secret decoder ring it turns out Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton and Adams secretly agreed with the exact policies that progressive reformers are pushing in 2021.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

threevox 6y ago

Their is also such a thing as grammar, and you should learn it before arguing online any more

vangelis 6y ago
Not an argument!
rhizome 6y ago
There is also such a thing as Muphry's Law.
reducesuffering 6y ago
Complaining about grammar and using "their" instead of the correct "there"...
dang 6y ago
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Edit: I changed my mind and decided not to ban you because the majority of your HN comments have been better. But if you'd please review the guidelines and take the intended spirit more to heart, we'd be grateful.

nomdep 6y ago

I honestly tought you were talking about the democrats

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into political or ideological flamewar, or any flamewar. It's not what we're going for here, and we've had to ask you this before. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26124135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26124135.