I noticed this happening about 15 years ago. Guys (yes it was always men!) that prided themselves on doing their own research, inevitably would start spouting off about the "Gold Standard" and that we are actually a "republic and not a democracy". Usually they would also entertain ideas of state secession too. I think all of the "ideas" have turned out to be russian sponsored disinformation =/ Oh how I wish we still lived in a time where A) you could show evidence to people and change their minds and B) simply pointing out Russia's involvement in something made it toxic and distasteful.
I've come across this "argument" ever since I joined Twitter (I left on Web Year's day).
My argument has always been that both original models are outdated but that if I have to choose I'd take the Greek democracy and time over Roman loudmouth republic.
Democracy in Athens was basically one man one vote. Of course in modern societies women must be included and everyone independent of wealth.
Romans cast decisions per acclamation, i. e. the patriarch decided which vote to cast and every other member of the family had to shout as loudly as they could on his command.
Dave Troy wrote an article in the Washington Spectator some time back entitled “ Gold Bug” , addressing this very thought. Excellent read. It’s floating around online. If you can’t find it, let me know. I think I have a copy. Dave’s a good guy to get to know.
Ive heard him speak on this topic. In fact, he was the first person I had found that could explain what the gold thing was actually about, having always suspected it was some kind of dark persuasion =]
I thought we were a Republic of Federated States. Really is fine that I was wrong. I love Democracy. I know one thing for sure: We don’t want to be a Fascist Authoritarian regime, which is where we are headed.
Thank you for you honest courage and refreshing humility Art. Doesn't that sort of go to show you how fabrications, repeated often enough - can grow 'legs' of their own ? Thank you again.
Democracy is a concept whereby all are equal in the eyes of the law. Historically, that has referred to basic human rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Additional rights can be stated or implied. A republic is a governmental system where representatives are elected/selected to represent the will, hopefully majority, of the electorate. If one accepts these definitions, isn't it fair to state that the United States has lost its democratic principals in favor of rule by a minority?
A few cases in point: US Senate representation: 2 Senators for every state regardless of the population size. State legislatures gerrymandering legislative districts to favor a political party. Violating a woman's right to health choices despite popular opposition. Support of obscene wealth discrepancies in the country and rules to foster the discrepancy. A planet that is on fire while carbon fuel companies are realizing staggering profits.
More than at any other time during our nation's existence, greater wealth equates to greater political power. US history has shown us that there has been a constant class war between the wealthy and less wealthy population. Whenever the lesser power groups have organized and demanded greater democracy/equality, the backlash has been many times brutal and punishing. Essentially, debates between whether a democracy or republic is in place are inconsequential as long as a limited elite maintains its wealth and political power.
Like most things coming from the extreme right, it's coded language steeped in racism and sexism. Here's the decoder:
"It's a republic" = it's an oligarchy of landowning white males (just like the founders intended)
"...not a democracy" = not everyone's voice counts, not everyone gets a vote (just like the founders intended).
It's pointless to argue the history or meaning of words. Those who make this claim are actively telling you they don't support the very concept of broad based democratic process as a legitimate basis of governance.
Call them out on their support for oligarchy - and challenge why voter suppressed people should not rebel.
Keyword = oligarch. It's effective when used in conversation. 90% of people want nothing to do with the concept of oligarch. The word seems offensive to most?
Yup. That's why they say "republic". It's an explicit rejection of broad-based democratic process. It's why they have no problem with gerrymandering, voter suppression, the Senate, the EC and other tools to prevent power based on the will of the ALL the people.
Also why so many of these "American patriots" are big believers in "states rights". They don't want any influence from, or responsibility for, their fellow Americans in other states. Happy to starve the Federal gov of all funds for that reason.
All the "jokes" about seceding are only funny because it's saying the quiet part out loud.
A class war? No. Neither is there a "culture war." We are in a state of inequality, not a war, which implies that one must "win" and the other must "lose," which happens in war based on a set of principles and rules of engagement. Instead, we are in the midst of a dangerous attempt to impose authoritarianism, and support for this travesty exists among Democrats as well as Republicans.
I agree that: “… we are in the midst of a dangerous attempt to impose authoritarianism [fascism] … In my view, however, the stmt that: “… support for this travesty exists among Dems as well as [the GOP]“ I find unhelpful. It obfuscates, as when closet GOP members promote not voting because there’s no difference between both major parties; an argument that conveniently favors the fascist and corrupt Republican Party.
The above argument was promoted by Nader and it helped undermine Al Gore; a “travesty.” Now, another 3rd-party spoiler and presidential wannabe seeking the limelight based of the same false premise; propaganda & demagoguery. I used to admire Cornel West, as I did Nader long ago. West’s campaign is yet another travesty that Putin and Trump are celebrating. Now is not the time to imply that both parties are to blame for our predicament. The GOP is fascist. Dems are not. Dems support SS, Medicare, etc.; Trumpians do not. The list is endless, time is not.
Calling out Democrats for being supportive of authoritarianism "obfuscates" nothing. Authoritarianism is not about voting. In fact, I used to live in an authoritarian country that holds elections. Your mind obfuscates the fact that without support from non-Republicans, authoritarianism cannot take hold.
There are always third party candidates, and it is up to the Democratic candidates to push them out of the way. Cornel West won't make it to the primaries. Hopefully, neither will Trump, but even if he does, he won't win. Stop thinking like a frightened child. The election is 17 months away.
Thank you to David Pepper for clarifying and providing historical truth to the “We are a republic not a democracy.” canard.
Back in 2015, when I was relating my angst about, then candidate Trump’s undemocratic conduct and candidacy, a very close college friend (from way back at Akron U, in the early ‘70s), looked across the table at me, and flatly replied, “We’re not a Democracy, we’re a Republic.” I just sat there rather dumbfounded, and I did not have a reply, now, thanks to Ruth posting David’s elucidation, I have a great truthful response, based on the history of the two practically synonymous terms. Thank you!
Agree. Good clarification so I have clearer responses to others. Love the elucidation of today, thanks Mike for that good word. (elucidation= a visualization of rainbow with white puffy clouds of understanding)
Empathy is the soul of democracy, nurturing families, ethical businesses, climate survival, and the list could go on and on. Thank you for your ongoing, pro-empathy culture diplomacy. Lynn Hunt is another great historian you can add to your reading list. Her "Inventing Human Rights - A History" is full of rich descriptions of how our founders' thinking evolved. I especially appreciated her chapter entitled "Torrents of Emotion - Reading Novels and Imagining Equality." The social media of the day was romance novels, and the most popular was Julia.
Another good read that reminds us that the debate between limited empathy democracy and pro-empathy democracy is ongoing and important for pro-empathy voters like you to always engage in is Thurgood Marshall's Constitutional Bi-Centennial Speech in 1987. Here's an excerpt: "I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago."
Mr Pepper’s factual correction, supported by Professor Amar’s scholarship, is useful.
However, as with most forms of propaganda and in the far-right’s ongoing assault on facts, factual accuracy alone can’t and won’t redress the impact of the falsehood or neutralize what gives rise to it.
Propaganda works, in part, by perverting or distorting language and manipulating people’s responses—more emotional than cognitive—to meaning.
For example, to those who passionately believe that their acts of violence against individuals and institutions nobly, properly, and importantly defend their anointed leader against a grave injustice, an insurrection is not an insurrection no matter how you well define the word or explain its historical context.
With that in mind, I would put forward the idea that there’s a linguistic sleight of hand at play here: A Republic is associated with republican. Democracy is equated with democrats. By dispensing with all previously accepted understandings and flipping the polarities of meanings and emotional valence, it becomes an Orwellian/Animal Farm formulation: Republic/republican = good, Democracy/democrats = bad.
While this may seem overly simplistic, it is no less psycho-socially plausible nor make the noxious impact less real or destructive.
As @Ruth Ben-Ghiat continually reminds her readers [https://lucid.substack.com/], the psychology driving and supporting authoritarians, authoritarianism, and those who gravitate to enable and collaborate in that socio-political devolution, overrides rationality and historical reality. It’s a fantasy to think these forces can be counter-argued, much less quelled, through logic and facts.
To sell authoritarianism/fascism as a virtuous endeavor, authoritarian leaders will put out an atmosphere of postmoderism and post-truth to unmoor their listeners from reality. Democracy must be seen as somehow evil, and vices will be seen as virtues if they are going to successfully replace democracy. Once this mindset is established, the conservative mind has a real problem shunning these ideas (the Backfire Effect). Cognitive bias is a major tool used by fascist leaders, especially confirmation bias. The cult-like solidarity to the leader bends reality in their worship of him. The truth doesn't stand a chance.
Terrific points! I think the same kind of linguistic sleight of hand was at work when Shrub started using the word DemocRat instead of Democrats. I found it annoying and juvenile at first only later to realize it was actually having an impact on a lot of peoples' thinking. Now I find myself pondering if all of this is part of a technology based influence campaign along the lines of what the Chinese military calls NeuroStrike weapons or what Dr James Giordano calls Neuo Warfare. If that is the case, it will take a lot more than parsing out linguistic sleights of hand in order to combat and correct for it.
I recently wrote a manuscript now accepted for eventual publication in WORLD AFFAIRS this Fall, entitled "Keeping the Republic: A Vision for America." It is on this subject directly--and Professor Ben-Ghiat is cited at several junctures in the piece. I used her book STRONGMEN: MUSSOLINI TO THE PRESENT in a class I taught last spring semester titled "Dictatorships." I have learned a great deal from Ruth Ben-Ghiat over the years. I owe her (and many, many others) a huge debt of gratitude for the manuscript. But--as I write in the forthcoming article: the "Anti-Wokeist" movement is not just homophobic and racist, it is fascist. The anti-democratic force inside of it makes a series of false claims, especially about the nature of republics, and the American republic. But the false claims also include anti-historical narratives that falsely define the idea of "state's rights" as well as the republic. Within a populist movement the far-right, republican, aniti-wokeist, Trumpian MAGA voices, seek to twist concepts of freedom and history to be something they are not. I argue this is part of an evolving identity crisis wherein American will be challenged to define again what they believe it means to be an American. What are American values? What do we believe.? What can we do to "build a more perfect union?" If the Republican vision of America as it now is emergent is victorious, they will try to create a divided, undemocratic, and racist America. Worse, they will stifle our creative imaginations and steal our ability to learn from history. No current American politician is MORE Orwellian than Ron DeSantis. But--he is not alone. The new "Republican" definition of the meaning of a republic is wrong--even for the 19th century.
THIS discussion is simply about a right wing framing concept (a frame speaks to a larger and more complex system of issues) which runs counter to the term "democracy." This is conservatives' attack on democracy.
BUT. Without an overarching frame, which speaks to the myriad of liberal causes, Democrats will be spinning wheels on silo issues. Silo issues are, for example, abortion, gun safety, climate change, sustainability, gender rights, women's reproductive freedom, and so and so on.
THE way to clean this up is to create a frame which encompasses all of our silo concerns.
A "Democratic Economy" or "Economic Democracy" speaks to all of our issues, as we address the underlying corruption of our society --- a very few are stealing from the vast majority of Americans, and the entire conservative movement and Republican is beholden to the very few.
A frame only works if writers such as Ms. Ruth-Ghiat and members of the Democratic Party discuss this vital point. Currently, we have NO direction for progressive America. Backing an Economic Democracy would support "liberty and justice for all" and also ensure basic needs and rights, and responsibilities, in our democracy ...
Progressives must understand the need for us to stand for something positive and visionary! Currently, we simply bemoan conservatives' positions, which actually give MORE weight and energy to their effort. Meanwhile, we do NOT advocate for a sustainable society and a democratic economy.
Great keywords: Silo, clean-up and Overarching Frame. Positive, visionary.
I was talking with a voter, former-trumper, who doesn't want things in conversation labeled democratic (party) or GOP/ MAGA -- I said fine, let's just talk 'policies' from now on and she agreed. The score on that is like 20-0, we win.
Buckeyes really need great, intelligent people like David Pepper. Pepper's book, "Laboratories of Autocracy: A Wake-Up Call from Behind the Lines" is a must read.
Ohio, once a swing state, is rapidly moving into a one party autocracy. The State GOP snuck in a quick election early this August 8 to pass Issue 1, which limits citizen powers to change the state constitution, one of the last resorts we have to do such things are restore reproductive rights of citizens.
The founders wanted to guard against an autocrat taking power, thus wanted a republic, not a monarchy. The MAGA Republicans want an autocrat in charge, and so are not promoting a republic but are promoting what the founders wanted to prevent, which in the 18th century was a king, the autocrat of those times.
I noticed this happening about 15 years ago. Guys (yes it was always men!) that prided themselves on doing their own research, inevitably would start spouting off about the "Gold Standard" and that we are actually a "republic and not a democracy". Usually they would also entertain ideas of state secession too. I think all of the "ideas" have turned out to be russian sponsored disinformation =/ Oh how I wish we still lived in a time where A) you could show evidence to people and change their minds and B) simply pointing out Russia's involvement in something made it toxic and distasteful.
I've come across this "argument" ever since I joined Twitter (I left on Web Year's day).
My argument has always been that both original models are outdated but that if I have to choose I'd take the Greek democracy and time over Roman loudmouth republic.
Democracy in Athens was basically one man one vote. Of course in modern societies women must be included and everyone independent of wealth.
Romans cast decisions per acclamation, i. e. the patriarch decided which vote to cast and every other member of the family had to shout as loudly as they could on his command.
No one ever tries to argue with that.
Dave Troy wrote an article in the Washington Spectator some time back entitled “ Gold Bug” , addressing this very thought. Excellent read. It’s floating around online. If you can’t find it, let me know. I think I have a copy. Dave’s a good guy to get to know.
Ive heard him speak on this topic. In fact, he was the first person I had found that could explain what the gold thing was actually about, having always suspected it was some kind of dark persuasion =]
I thought we were a Republic of Federated States. Really is fine that I was wrong. I love Democracy. I know one thing for sure: We don’t want to be a Fascist Authoritarian regime, which is where we are headed.
Thank you for you honest courage and refreshing humility Art. Doesn't that sort of go to show you how fabrications, repeated often enough - can grow 'legs' of their own ? Thank you again.
People that state that are letting you know they have been indoctrinated (brainwashed) by far right extremist propaganda.
They live in that land called Magadonia.
Exactly! I know exactly who they are when they say the statement. They don’t need to say another word.
They got sucked into the vortex of fascist collective delusion.
Vortex -- good description!
I always looked on us as a democratic republic. As Ruth said, it all gest back to the people.
Democracy is a concept whereby all are equal in the eyes of the law. Historically, that has referred to basic human rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Additional rights can be stated or implied. A republic is a governmental system where representatives are elected/selected to represent the will, hopefully majority, of the electorate. If one accepts these definitions, isn't it fair to state that the United States has lost its democratic principals in favor of rule by a minority?
A few cases in point: US Senate representation: 2 Senators for every state regardless of the population size. State legislatures gerrymandering legislative districts to favor a political party. Violating a woman's right to health choices despite popular opposition. Support of obscene wealth discrepancies in the country and rules to foster the discrepancy. A planet that is on fire while carbon fuel companies are realizing staggering profits.
More than at any other time during our nation's existence, greater wealth equates to greater political power. US history has shown us that there has been a constant class war between the wealthy and less wealthy population. Whenever the lesser power groups have organized and demanded greater democracy/equality, the backlash has been many times brutal and punishing. Essentially, debates between whether a democracy or republic is in place are inconsequential as long as a limited elite maintains its wealth and political power.
Like most things coming from the extreme right, it's coded language steeped in racism and sexism. Here's the decoder:
"It's a republic" = it's an oligarchy of landowning white males (just like the founders intended)
"...not a democracy" = not everyone's voice counts, not everyone gets a vote (just like the founders intended).
It's pointless to argue the history or meaning of words. Those who make this claim are actively telling you they don't support the very concept of broad based democratic process as a legitimate basis of governance.
Call them out on their support for oligarchy - and challenge why voter suppressed people should not rebel.
Keyword = oligarch. It's effective when used in conversation. 90% of people want nothing to do with the concept of oligarch. The word seems offensive to most?
Yup. That's why they say "republic". It's an explicit rejection of broad-based democratic process. It's why they have no problem with gerrymandering, voter suppression, the Senate, the EC and other tools to prevent power based on the will of the ALL the people.
Also why so many of these "American patriots" are big believers in "states rights". They don't want any influence from, or responsibility for, their fellow Americans in other states. Happy to starve the Federal gov of all funds for that reason.
All the "jokes" about seceding are only funny because it's saying the quiet part out loud.
A class war? No. Neither is there a "culture war." We are in a state of inequality, not a war, which implies that one must "win" and the other must "lose," which happens in war based on a set of principles and rules of engagement. Instead, we are in the midst of a dangerous attempt to impose authoritarianism, and support for this travesty exists among Democrats as well as Republicans.
I agree that: “… we are in the midst of a dangerous attempt to impose authoritarianism [fascism] … In my view, however, the stmt that: “… support for this travesty exists among Dems as well as [the GOP]“ I find unhelpful. It obfuscates, as when closet GOP members promote not voting because there’s no difference between both major parties; an argument that conveniently favors the fascist and corrupt Republican Party.
The above argument was promoted by Nader and it helped undermine Al Gore; a “travesty.” Now, another 3rd-party spoiler and presidential wannabe seeking the limelight based of the same false premise; propaganda & demagoguery. I used to admire Cornel West, as I did Nader long ago. West’s campaign is yet another travesty that Putin and Trump are celebrating. Now is not the time to imply that both parties are to blame for our predicament. The GOP is fascist. Dems are not. Dems support SS, Medicare, etc.; Trumpians do not. The list is endless, time is not.
Calling out Democrats for being supportive of authoritarianism "obfuscates" nothing. Authoritarianism is not about voting. In fact, I used to live in an authoritarian country that holds elections. Your mind obfuscates the fact that without support from non-Republicans, authoritarianism cannot take hold.
There are always third party candidates, and it is up to the Democratic candidates to push them out of the way. Cornel West won't make it to the primaries. Hopefully, neither will Trump, but even if he does, he won't win. Stop thinking like a frightened child. The election is 17 months away.
Thank you to David Pepper for clarifying and providing historical truth to the “We are a republic not a democracy.” canard.
Back in 2015, when I was relating my angst about, then candidate Trump’s undemocratic conduct and candidacy, a very close college friend (from way back at Akron U, in the early ‘70s), looked across the table at me, and flatly replied, “We’re not a Democracy, we’re a Republic.” I just sat there rather dumbfounded, and I did not have a reply, now, thanks to Ruth posting David’s elucidation, I have a great truthful response, based on the history of the two practically synonymous terms. Thank you!
Agree. Good clarification so I have clearer responses to others. Love the elucidation of today, thanks Mike for that good word. (elucidation= a visualization of rainbow with white puffy clouds of understanding)
Thank you, Jan! 😊
I'd like to note, that our own government educates new citizens on our DEMOCRACY https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf
"I don't have a dog! I have a beagle!"
That’s the periodic analogy by Heather Cox Richardson in her weekly politics chat.
Empathy is the soul of democracy, nurturing families, ethical businesses, climate survival, and the list could go on and on. Thank you for your ongoing, pro-empathy culture diplomacy. Lynn Hunt is another great historian you can add to your reading list. Her "Inventing Human Rights - A History" is full of rich descriptions of how our founders' thinking evolved. I especially appreciated her chapter entitled "Torrents of Emotion - Reading Novels and Imagining Equality." The social media of the day was romance novels, and the most popular was Julia.
Another good read that reminds us that the debate between limited empathy democracy and pro-empathy democracy is ongoing and important for pro-empathy voters like you to always engage in is Thurgood Marshall's Constitutional Bi-Centennial Speech in 1987. Here's an excerpt: "I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago."
Mr Pepper’s factual correction, supported by Professor Amar’s scholarship, is useful.
However, as with most forms of propaganda and in the far-right’s ongoing assault on facts, factual accuracy alone can’t and won’t redress the impact of the falsehood or neutralize what gives rise to it.
Propaganda works, in part, by perverting or distorting language and manipulating people’s responses—more emotional than cognitive—to meaning.
For example, to those who passionately believe that their acts of violence against individuals and institutions nobly, properly, and importantly defend their anointed leader against a grave injustice, an insurrection is not an insurrection no matter how you well define the word or explain its historical context.
With that in mind, I would put forward the idea that there’s a linguistic sleight of hand at play here: A Republic is associated with republican. Democracy is equated with democrats. By dispensing with all previously accepted understandings and flipping the polarities of meanings and emotional valence, it becomes an Orwellian/Animal Farm formulation: Republic/republican = good, Democracy/democrats = bad.
While this may seem overly simplistic, it is no less psycho-socially plausible nor make the noxious impact less real or destructive.
As @Ruth Ben-Ghiat continually reminds her readers [https://lucid.substack.com/], the psychology driving and supporting authoritarians, authoritarianism, and those who gravitate to enable and collaborate in that socio-political devolution, overrides rationality and historical reality. It’s a fantasy to think these forces can be counter-argued, much less quelled, through logic and facts.
To sell authoritarianism/fascism as a virtuous endeavor, authoritarian leaders will put out an atmosphere of postmoderism and post-truth to unmoor their listeners from reality. Democracy must be seen as somehow evil, and vices will be seen as virtues if they are going to successfully replace democracy. Once this mindset is established, the conservative mind has a real problem shunning these ideas (the Backfire Effect). Cognitive bias is a major tool used by fascist leaders, especially confirmation bias. The cult-like solidarity to the leader bends reality in their worship of him. The truth doesn't stand a chance.
Terrific points! I think the same kind of linguistic sleight of hand was at work when Shrub started using the word DemocRat instead of Democrats. I found it annoying and juvenile at first only later to realize it was actually having an impact on a lot of peoples' thinking. Now I find myself pondering if all of this is part of a technology based influence campaign along the lines of what the Chinese military calls NeuroStrike weapons or what Dr James Giordano calls Neuo Warfare. If that is the case, it will take a lot more than parsing out linguistic sleights of hand in order to combat and correct for it.
I recently wrote a manuscript now accepted for eventual publication in WORLD AFFAIRS this Fall, entitled "Keeping the Republic: A Vision for America." It is on this subject directly--and Professor Ben-Ghiat is cited at several junctures in the piece. I used her book STRONGMEN: MUSSOLINI TO THE PRESENT in a class I taught last spring semester titled "Dictatorships." I have learned a great deal from Ruth Ben-Ghiat over the years. I owe her (and many, many others) a huge debt of gratitude for the manuscript. But--as I write in the forthcoming article: the "Anti-Wokeist" movement is not just homophobic and racist, it is fascist. The anti-democratic force inside of it makes a series of false claims, especially about the nature of republics, and the American republic. But the false claims also include anti-historical narratives that falsely define the idea of "state's rights" as well as the republic. Within a populist movement the far-right, republican, aniti-wokeist, Trumpian MAGA voices, seek to twist concepts of freedom and history to be something they are not. I argue this is part of an evolving identity crisis wherein American will be challenged to define again what they believe it means to be an American. What are American values? What do we believe.? What can we do to "build a more perfect union?" If the Republican vision of America as it now is emergent is victorious, they will try to create a divided, undemocratic, and racist America. Worse, they will stifle our creative imaginations and steal our ability to learn from history. No current American politician is MORE Orwellian than Ron DeSantis. But--he is not alone. The new "Republican" definition of the meaning of a republic is wrong--even for the 19th century.
THIS discussion is simply about a right wing framing concept (a frame speaks to a larger and more complex system of issues) which runs counter to the term "democracy." This is conservatives' attack on democracy.
BUT. Without an overarching frame, which speaks to the myriad of liberal causes, Democrats will be spinning wheels on silo issues. Silo issues are, for example, abortion, gun safety, climate change, sustainability, gender rights, women's reproductive freedom, and so and so on.
THE way to clean this up is to create a frame which encompasses all of our silo concerns.
A "Democratic Economy" or "Economic Democracy" speaks to all of our issues, as we address the underlying corruption of our society --- a very few are stealing from the vast majority of Americans, and the entire conservative movement and Republican is beholden to the very few.
A frame only works if writers such as Ms. Ruth-Ghiat and members of the Democratic Party discuss this vital point. Currently, we have NO direction for progressive America. Backing an Economic Democracy would support "liberty and justice for all" and also ensure basic needs and rights, and responsibilities, in our democracy ...
Progressives must understand the need for us to stand for something positive and visionary! Currently, we simply bemoan conservatives' positions, which actually give MORE weight and energy to their effort. Meanwhile, we do NOT advocate for a sustainable society and a democratic economy.
Great keywords: Silo, clean-up and Overarching Frame. Positive, visionary.
I was talking with a voter, former-trumper, who doesn't want things in conversation labeled democratic (party) or GOP/ MAGA -- I said fine, let's just talk 'policies' from now on and she agreed. The score on that is like 20-0, we win.
Buckeyes really need great, intelligent people like David Pepper. Pepper's book, "Laboratories of Autocracy: A Wake-Up Call from Behind the Lines" is a must read.
Ohio, once a swing state, is rapidly moving into a one party autocracy. The State GOP snuck in a quick election early this August 8 to pass Issue 1, which limits citizen powers to change the state constitution, one of the last resorts we have to do such things are restore reproductive rights of citizens.
Well, Fox News thinks we're living in a woke commune, whatever that means. So, there's that point of view.
Thanks for the explanation.
So much for “originalism”.
The founders wanted to guard against an autocrat taking power, thus wanted a republic, not a monarchy. The MAGA Republicans want an autocrat in charge, and so are not promoting a republic but are promoting what the founders wanted to prevent, which in the 18th century was a king, the autocrat of those times.