10 ms·

A republic is a form of democracy. This strange differentiation came about as a GOP talking point in the early 2000s. I'm amazed that it is still repeated 20 ye

A republic is a form of democracy. This strange differentiation came about as a GOP talking point in the early 2000s. I'm amazed that it is still repeated 20 year later. Saying the US is not a democracy but a constitutional republic is like saying a car is not an automobile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

phpisthebest 4y ago
>> This strange differentiation came about as a GOP talking point in the early 2000s. Actually no, it comes from far earlier in our history that that, GOP may have had it has a talking point not sure, and dont really care, but the GOP is not the origination of this >Saying the US is not a democracy but a constitutional republic is like saying a car is not an automobile. No, not all Republics are democratic, and not all Democracy's are republics. The US has every very very limited elements that are democratic, and at our founding even less so then today. At the founding only the House was democratic everything else was not. IMO we need to go back to that, less democracy would be good
- Clubber 4y ago
  When I was growing up in the 80s, everyone knew the US republic was a form of democracy. Are you arguing that it isn't? I never heard the phrase, "The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic" until around 2000s; the first part being completely wrong, but the second part being right.
tylersmith 4y ago
The differences and potential compromises between various democracies and republics were discussed and debated quite at length when the original US governments were iterating toward the Constitution. It's certainly not just a 20 year old GOP talking point.
- Clubber 4y ago
  The founders were well aware that what they were creating was a republic AND form of democracy. To argue otherwise is silly.
  - tylersmith 4y ago
    They were aware that the House of Representatives was modeled to be sole aggregated voice of the people. The House is the totality of US democracic input.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      And the senators were appointed by the state governors who were also democratically elected. The president was democratically elected via the electoral college. Justices are appointed by the president who was democratically elected and the senate who were appointed by democratically elected governors. Again, to say the US is a republic and not a democracy is incorrect. It is both, just like a Civic can both be a car and an automobile.
yucky 4y ago
>A republic is a form of democracy. This strange differentiation came about as a GOP talking point in the early 2000s. What? No, this is not a recent talking point, it's the core philosophical difference in this country since day 1. The names of the parties Republican & Democrat aren't just random words, they represent the philosophical differences in where the bulk of the power in government should rest (the republic being the system with input from the people, or the democracy being the direct will of the people). Republicans generally believe direct democracy is dangerous and instead rely on the framework of the institutions of our Republic to act as guiderails preventing potential mob rule and other acts of capriciousness. The people get their say, within reason. Democrats generally believe all power and decision making should come directly from the people, and the systems should be more fluid. They don't see them as guiderails they see them as unnecessary constraints on the people. The people get their say, and their will is done. I would never argue that our politicians of each party believe in this fully, nor the voters for that matter. But this is a huge philosophical difference that predates the early 2000's by a couple hundred years. It's been a talking point since before our Constitution was drafted.
- Clubber 4y ago
  >where the bulk of the power in government should rest You are thinking federalism vs anti-federalism. That was Jefferson and Hamilton. The federalists won a long time ago, mainly through the interpretation of the commerce clause. Recent decisions by the SCOTUS is pulling back on that a little bit. >Republicans generally believe direct democracy Nowhere did I say the US was a direct democracy, I think that's what's tripping everyone up. I'm arguing against when people say the US is a republic and not a democracy. That is incorrect. If they had said direct democracy, I would agree with them. To say the US is a republic and not a democracy when every position of power in government was either elected, or appointed by someone who was elected, is incorrect. The democratic process is obvious. >Democrats generally believe all power and decision making should come directly from the people, and the systems should be more fluid. They don't see them as guiderails they see them as unnecessary constraints on the people. The people get their say, and their will is done. I don't see any evidence of this in modern politics. Which democrat has mentioned implementing a direct democracy?

phpisthebest 4y ago

>> This strange differentiation came about as a GOP talking point in the early 2000s. Actually no, it comes from far earlier in our history that that, GOP may have had it has a talking point not sure, and dont really care, but the GOP is not the origination of this >Saying the US is not a democracy but a constitutional republic is like saying a car is not an automobile. No, not all Republics are democratic, and not all Democracy's are republics. The US has every very very limited elements that are democratic, and at our founding even less so then today. At the founding only the House was democratic everything else was not. IMO we need to go back to that, less democracy would be good

Clubber 4y ago
When I was growing up in the 80s, everyone knew the US republic was a form of democracy. Are you arguing that it isn't? I never heard the phrase, "The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic" until around 2000s; the first part being completely wrong, but the second part being right.

tylersmith 4y ago

The differences and potential compromises between various democracies and republics were discussed and debated quite at length when the original US governments were iterating toward the Constitution. It's certainly not just a 20 year old GOP talking point.

Clubber 4y ago
The founders were well aware that what they were creating was a republic AND form of democracy. To argue otherwise is silly.
- tylersmith 4y ago
  They were aware that the House of Representatives was modeled to be sole aggregated voice of the people. The House is the totality of US democracic input.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    And the senators were appointed by the state governors who were also democratically elected. The president was democratically elected via the electoral college. Justices are appointed by the president who was democratically elected and the senate who were appointed by democratically elected governors. Again, to say the US is a republic and not a democracy is incorrect. It is both, just like a Civic can both be a car and an automobile.

yucky 4y ago

>A republic is a form of democracy. This strange differentiation came about as a GOP talking point in the early 2000s. What? No, this is not a recent talking point, it's the core philosophical difference in this country since day 1. The names of the parties Republican & Democrat aren't just random words, they represent the philosophical differences in where the bulk of the power in government should rest (the republic being the system with input from the people, or the democracy being the direct will of the people). Republicans generally believe direct democracy is dangerous and instead rely on the framework of the institutions of our Republic to act as guiderails preventing potential mob rule and other acts of capriciousness. The people get their say, within reason. Democrats generally believe all power and decision making should come directly from the people, and the systems should be more fluid. They don't see them as guiderails they see them as unnecessary constraints on the people. The people get their say, and their will is done. I would never argue that our politicians of each party believe in this fully, nor the voters for that matter. But this is a huge philosophical difference that predates the early 2000's by a couple hundred years. It's been a talking point since before our Constitution was drafted.

Clubber 4y ago
>where the bulk of the power in government should rest You are thinking federalism vs anti-federalism. That was Jefferson and Hamilton. The federalists won a long time ago, mainly through the interpretation of the commerce clause. Recent decisions by the SCOTUS is pulling back on that a little bit. >Republicans generally believe direct democracy Nowhere did I say the US was a direct democracy, I think that's what's tripping everyone up. I'm arguing against when people say the US is a republic and not a democracy. That is incorrect. If they had said direct democracy, I would agree with them. To say the US is a republic and not a democracy when every position of power in government was either elected, or appointed by someone who was elected, is incorrect. The democratic process is obvious. >Democrats generally believe all power and decision making should come directly from the people, and the systems should be more fluid. They don't see them as guiderails they see them as unnecessary constraints on the people. The people get their say, and their will is done. I don't see any evidence of this in modern politics. Which democrat has mentioned implementing a direct democracy?