[rlmorel]

"...freepers who argue that the U.S. is much better off as a "republic" with no democracy..."

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.

[BillyBoy]

If you go on the "Abolish the 17th amendment" threads, you will see plenty of "conservative" freepers argue that the U.S. "is not a democracy", that "the founders" did not want ANY democracy, and claim that America has been ruined because we have allowed individual citizens to make more decisions over who their officials in government are.

Specifically, they strenuously object to the constitutional amendment allowing individual citizens to elect Senators rather than government bureaucrats. They claim this has lead to the "downfall" of America and all the problems in the U.S. Senate can be blamed on voters choosing the Senators. They claim this is an example of "direct democracy" and mob rule (you can see examples on this very thread), when in fact the U.S. Senate is a representative body --- each Senator represents hundreds of thousands of people -- that is far removed from "directly" allowing citizens to pass any laws. They insist crooked government bureaucrats would appoint far superior Senators and that we can't trust ordinary citizens to make that decision.

They also strenuously object to other reforms allowing more democracy, like direct initiative and recall, claiming this is all part of an evil plot to "destroy the Republic", part of an evil scheme from 1913.

Personally I think those "conservatives" might want to spent a few months living in the "worker's paradise" of the Republic of Cuba, since they detest the idea of representative "democracy" so much.