The difference between a democracy and a constutional republic

Instagram.com ^ | 11/2/25 | Aaron Russo

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

What kind of government is America

Something to show a leftist next time they repeatedly shriek about "Saving our democracy".

---

TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: facts; republic

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Aaron Russo was a film producer, director who passed away in 2007. I'm surprised he had a career and wasn't blacklisted.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

I’m going to post this on AOC, Schumer, Pelosis twitter accounts. Trump is a “threat to democracy”? GOOD!

[RebelTXRose]

Would someone be kind enough to post screen shot or actual link in instagram for those of us who don’t use it?
Thanks

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

I did, it’s at the very top. Here it is again. You dont have to sign in to see it

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLv57hQN8vC/

[cyclotic]

The keyword isn’t Democracy. The key word of OUR. The left doesn’t believe in Democracy. It’s just a word to them. They believe in their utopian leftist collective, hence the entire focus is on the work OUR.

Those of us who disagree with their twisted leftist ideology are not part of OUR.

[katykelly]

Bfl

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote”.

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[quilterdebbie]

This is great!!!

[GJones2]

We're not a direct democracy (meaning direct rule by the demos -- Greek for the people) because on the large scale of a nation it would be impossible for the people to vote on every government action (and practically impossible even on much smaller scales). We're a representative democracy, though, with the people indirectly ruling by voting for candidates who make some government decisions and appoint others to make -- or hire others to make -- the ordinary decisions needed for the government to function. The people are ruling, but sometimes removed at a distance of several levels from the actual decision making.

Our founding documents don't mention "democracy", but obviously they attach great importance to the role of the people (again that's what demos means). The Constitution starts with the words "We the People..." "People" could hardly be more prominent that. And, much later, in America's most famous speech Lincoln spoke (with some exaggeration) of "government of the people, by the people, for the people", saying "people" three times.

It's true, though, that the Founders didn't want a tyranny of the majority, which is possible with a democracy. So what kind of government did they found? I think the key can be seen in this line from the Declaration of Independence -- "That to secure these rights (the natural born rights of human beings), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Both individual rights and the consent of the people (the majority) matter. What was established was a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional federal republic. The people do rule but with restrictions on majority power to protect individual and regional rights (large state powers in the Union had to be limited somewhat, so that the small states would agree to join).

It's not an either/or situation. We're both a democracy and a republic. We're one particular kind of the many varieties of democracies and republics (most of them tyrannies) -- one that rules with the consent of the people but with protections for individual and regional rights.

[equaviator]

"It's not an either/or situation. We're both a democracy and a republic."

Democracy seems to be more of a key characteristic of our form of government but not necessarily the ultimately definitive characteristic.

[GJones2]

>> Democracy seems to be more of a key characteristic of our form of government but not necessarily the ultimately definitive characteristic. <<

Yes, I think it’s the protection of individual rights that’s most distinctive about our form of government, but that’s hard to preserve without the good will of the majority. As I’m about to explain, it’s not true that our Constitution prevents the majority from taking away our freedoms. Sure they can — if the majority is large enough to pass amendments. What it did is make doing so very difficult.

[GJones2]

People often argue about this topic using made-up distinctions between a democracy and a republic that do not reflect the way the words have been used over the thousands of years that they have existed. The most famous early republic was the Roman Republic. Would we Americans have wanted one like that? Of course not — not enough power to the people, nor enough protection for individual rights. “Republic” most of time was used simply to distinguish a government by a group of prominent men from monarchical by a single ruler. In some republics that group of rulers was relatively small, but by the time the United States was formed the word usually implied considerable participation by the people. Also sometimes there was a good bit of individual freedom too; sometimes there wasn’t.

Our Founders took both government by the people — at least on a large scale — and guarantees of individual rights a step further than ever before, and that’s why its founding was such an important event in world history.

There is no perfect guarantee of freedom and individual rights, though. Though I agree with the speaker in the Instagram video about the importance of individual rights, it’s not true that under our government 99% of the people couldn’t take away the rights of 1%. With enough support among the people to pass amendments, every single guarantee in the Bill of Rights could be taken away. Just like prohibition they could be overturned.

We can say that individuals and minorities have natural born rights, but for their enjoyment they depend on the good will of the majority (and, if oppressed, on their own ability to resist and cause trouble for the majority).

[equaviator]

I think it was Kent Brockman who said "I've said it before and I'll say it again, Democracy simply does not work."

[GJones2]

>> “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote”. <<

Witty, but the people still need to make some collective decisions, and in this country it’s the majority that ultimately rule. (See my comments above about 99% and 1%, and the power of amendments.) Mostly we depend on the good will of the majority, but you’re right that the power of individuals and minorities to resist oppression can also discourage it. (The two wolves may be armed too, but still may not want to run the risk.)

[oldtech]

It might be worth it for her to remember that Trump is not necessarily a threat to a Constitutional Republic. Besides, what thinking person pays attention to much of anything that Pelosi says?

[Political Junkie Too]

The difference between a democracy and a constutional republic

The difference is "consent of the governed."

In a true democracy, everyone is the government. In a constitutional republic, a smaller contingent represents the whole by consent of the rest of the people.

In the United States today, the Democrat party is shutting down the government with the consent of nobody except a radical minority base of their party.

-PJ

[PeterPrinciple]

It’s not an either/or situation. We’re both a democracy and a republic. We’re one particular kind of the many varieties of democracies and republics (most of them tyrannies) — one that rules with the consent of the people but with protections for individual and regional rights.

---

Well said,

Repeat LOUD and OFTEN............................

[GJones2]

>> This is great!!! [the Instagram video] <<

No, it isn’t. I agree with the Instagram speaker about the importance of individual rights, but the distinctions that he claims between a democracy and a republic don’t exist, not in the ordinary usage of the words. We can make up arbitrary definitions for them, but others don’t have to go by them.

[GJones2]

>> Well said,

Repeat LOUD and OFTEN............................ <<

Thanks.