The United States is both. We are a democratic Republic. We are governed by a constitution and laws, which are enacted by representatives elected by the people.
>> Neither is good nor bad in and of itself, it is how they are implemented. <<
On that point you are correct.
>> A democracy ruled by a mob is no better than a republic ruled by tyrannical laws. <<
True, except the freepers claiming America is in "danger" of becoming a direct democracy run by mob rule have yet to point to any modern civilized country that has adapted pure democracy as their form of government.
>> The point I am making is that if you want to apply the labels literally, what you seem to be implying is simply wrong. <<
I am making the point that freepers who argue that the U.S. is much better off as a "republic" with no democracy are simply wrong, and Iran is proof of that. A Republic by itself is not inherently a good thing.
>> how they are implemented in each case is completely different, and that is significant. <<
I can clearly make the case of Republics who have implemented harmful, oppressive dictatorship governments, where the "democracy is bad" crowd has yet to point to any example around the world of democracy ruining a nation. I agree direct democracy won't work, but disagree that the U.S. is headed in that direction (it will be a cold day in hell before Congress decides they can't pass a stimulus without all 300 million Americans voting on it first, for example). I find it highly unlikely any major nation is about to adapt tribal rule and give "the people" absolute power. I would argue our current republic needs more democracy, NOT less.
I haven't seen anyone make that argument, and if I do, then I will most certainly jump on them. We are a representative democracy.
I don't think we disagree. Right now, we are living in a theocracy...a LIBERAL theocracy. We DO need more democratic involvement. We are cut off from our representatives, which is something the founding fathers were justifiably concerned with.