Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

Alex · 01-25-2007, 09:00 PM

The problem with democracy vs. republic is that different spheres use the words in different ways and the meanings have varied over time as well.

And this is part of the reason that over time the United States has tended to more away from republicanism towards democracy (and thus illuminates the some of the philosophical distinctions that lead to our nation's earliest political parties: the pull between democracy and republicanism has been with us for as long as the battle between federalism and centrism). As the words were used by our Founding Fathers republicanism and democracy were essentially mutually exlusive.

You also have to keep in mind that as originally established only 1/5th of the federal government was directly elected and even that 1/5 was republican in nature (though chosen by democratic methods). In our country the people are never given direct voice in the actions of our federal government. We never vote on what the government will do, we only ever vote on who will get to decide what the government will do.

The House of Representives was directly elected. The Senate, originally, was one layer removed from direct election (people directly elected the people whe selected the senators) and the president is the same. The judiciary is removed from direct election by two layers (we vote for people who vote for the people who will select the judges).

To the extent that demoracy means direct rule by citizens we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. However, over the centuries "democracy" has come to be used on almost any system where voting by citizens is involved and this tendency bleeds into the our political discourse.

So far the only major move towards democracy was the senate, getting converted to direct election in 1913. But we seem to hear increasingly of serious proposals to move farther. Elimination of the electoral college, term limitations for judges, national initiative and referenda proposals, restructuring of the senate into a population ratio body.

So you're both right. As we generally use the words today, our form of republicanism is a subset of democracy. As the words were used 250 years ago they were very distinct things.

01-25-2007, 09:00 PM	#11
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	The problem with democracy vs. republic is that different spheres use the words in different ways and the meanings have varied over time as well. And this is part of the reason that over time the United States has tended to more away from republicanism towards democracy (and thus illuminates the some of the philosophical distinctions that lead to our nation's earliest political parties: the pull between democracy and republicanism has been with us for as long as the battle between federalism and centrism). As the words were used by our Founding Fathers republicanism and democracy were essentially mutually exlusive. You also have to keep in mind that as originally established only 1/5th of the federal government was directly elected and even that 1/5 was republican in nature (though chosen by democratic methods). In our country the people are never given direct voice in the actions of our federal government. We never vote on what the government will do, we only ever vote on who will get to decide what the government will do. The House of Representives was directly elected. The Senate, originally, was one layer removed from direct election (people directly elected the people whe selected the senators) and the president is the same. The judiciary is removed from direct election by two layers (we vote for people who vote for the people who will select the judges). To the extent that demoracy means direct rule by citizens we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. However, over the centuries "democracy" has come to be used on almost any system where voting by citizens is involved and this tendency bleeds into the our political discourse. So far the only major move towards democracy was the senate, getting converted to direct election in 1913. But we seem to hear increasingly of serious proposals to move farther. Elimination of the electoral college, term limitations for judges, national initiative and referenda proposals, restructuring of the senate into a population ratio body. So you're both right. As we generally use the words today, our form of republicanism is a subset of democracy. As the words were used 250 years ago they were very distinct things.
	Submit to Quotes