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 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
People that state that are letting you know they have been indoctrinated (brainwashed) by far right extremist propaganda.
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.
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!
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!"
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.
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.
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.