Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why The Left Hates It When You Point Out We’re ‘A Republic, Not A Democracy’
The Federalist ^ | 06/17/24 | David Harsanyi

Posted on 06/17/2024 8:46:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

For as long as I can remember, the left has been sneering at anyone who points out that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. They find the notion almost as unsophisticated and fascistic as flying a revolutionary-era flag.

Even some people I admire dismiss the democracy/republic debate as a semantic distraction. They shouldn’t.

The other day, CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan tried to make Trump fans who repeat this factual contention look like a bunch of dumb, lockstepping authoritarians. To explain the problem, CNN even recruited “democracy” expert Anne Applebaum, who noted that, “America is a democracy. It was founded as a democracy … the word ‘democracy’ and the word ‘republic’ have often been used interchangeably. There isn’t a meaningful difference between them …”

Sure there is.

Ask the contemporary leftists who target virtually every protection we have against mob rule in the name of “democracy” — attacking the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, federalism, the filibuster, the Senate, and even the existence of states. They understand the difference, even if just intuitively.

Ask leftists who treat the “popular vote,” not as a wishcasting cope, but as means of legitimizing presidential elections. Those who want a few big states ruling the nation via a direct federal democracy are not interested in an American “republic.”

Blunting the federal government’s power over states and the state’s power over individuals is an indispensable way to ensure a diverse people in a huge nation can govern themselves and live freely. The “save democracy” types who refer to these long-standing federalist institutions as “minority rule” do not view “democracy” and a constitutional republic as interchangeable concepts.

Neither do smaller blue-state governors who sign a national vote compact that not only dilutes their state’s power but circumvents the Constitution. They love a direct democracy. A constitutional republic? Not so much.

When writers at The Atlantic, where Applebaum is a contributor, talk about “The Democrats’ Last Chance to Save Democracy,” they aren’t lamenting Biden’s unprecedented executive abuse, but the “democratic deficits in the Senate and the Electoral College” — as if these institutions weren’t specifically instituted to diffuse centralized control. They know the difference.

Democrats who want to “expand” the Supreme Court for failing to follow democratic trends, don’t care about the “republic.” After all, many of the high court’s most historic decisions, including Dred Scott and Plessy, cut the legs out from under “democracy.”

Or take the so-called moderate Democrats who want to get rid of the filibuster or use the slimmest of fleeting majorities to shove through massive, generational federal “reforms” without any national consensus — Obamacare or The Deficit Reduction Act [sic]. They’re aware that “reforms” will overturn hundreds of state and local laws. They want local minorities subordinate to the whims and vagaries of national majorities.

Then again, the more “democracy” we have, the more demagoguery thrives. Of course they’re fans.

As it turns out, according to CNN a number of Trump supporters also understand the distinction even if they are unable to articulate it in poli-scientific terms. 

Then again, if O’Sullivan wants to dunk on them, maybe he should take a civics refresher himself.  “There is, of course, a legitimate debate to be had on what form of democracy we have here in the United States — direct democracy, representative democracy, in fact, constitutional republic, which you heard people mentioned in that piece, that is a form of democracy,” the CNN host explained.

There is, “of course,” zero “legitimate debate discussion” to be had over whether we are a “direct democracy.” Not today, nor ever. “Democracy” isn’t even mentioned anywhere in any founding document, much less a direct one. None of the framers entertained any notions about majoritarianism or federal power that would even loosely comport the ones now embraced by the left.

People will often tell me that, sure, we might be a republic, but we also have “democratic institutions.” Of course we do. We also have numerous nondemocratic institutions. The Bill of Rights, for instance, is largely concerned with protecting individuals from state and the mob. The insistence that we only use “democracy” is meant to corrode the importance and acceptance of those countermajoritarian rules and traditions.

“[F]or centuries,” insists O’Sullivan (italics mine), “America has celebrated its democracy,” before playing clips of Ronald Reagan and others praising the notion of “democracy.”

Indeed, the word “democracy” — from “demos,” the people — has been used as a shorthand for self-rule since before Pericles. In the past, we’ve used it to convey respect for a set of liberal ideas about liberties and rights, as well as self-determination. I’m sure I’ve used it in that way, too. Most Americans probably comprehend the notion of “democracy” in the same, vague context.

These days, though, a bunch of illiberal progressives (and others) have taken universal notions that once fell under the umbrella of “democracy” and cynically distorted them to champion a hypermajoritarian outlook.  It’s no accident the people who demand you call us a “democracy” also champion the idea that 50.1 percent of the country should be empowered to lord over the economic, religious, cultural, and political decisions of 49.9 percent.

It’s the point. 


David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a nationally syndicated columnist, a Happy Warrior columnist at National Review, and author of five books—the most recent, Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bloggers; consitution; democracy; electoralcollege; federalist; leftism; republic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: nickcarraway
A Republic is ruled by the word of law. A Democracy is ruled by the majority..

This is the reason why John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

And this boy and girls is why we seeing the collapse of many of the blue states and cities into anarchy, such as California and Los Angeles..

61 posted on 06/18/2024 4:17:31 AM PDT by unread (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC..!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
"As far as the terms can self define, “republic” (res publica) refers to the people being represented with inbuilt checks and balances on power and “democracy” (demokratia) refers to people wielding political power in whatever form they please; this latter implies tyranny of the majority."

Well put...

62 posted on 06/18/2024 4:28:17 AM PDT by unread (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC..!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
When it became clear that there were no penalties for violating the Constitution, it became open season on our liberty, and here we are.

True.

The oft repeated statement by the left that the Constitution is a 'living and breathing document' is subversive. The Constitution is our bedrock. It's what stands between us and tyranny. It was made malleable, but only to a very confined extent - and with very high bars.

Government power always attracts fools, narcissists, and wannabe royalty. Our founders understood this.

63 posted on 06/18/2024 4:48:39 AM PDT by neverevergiveup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Great quote from Woodrow Wilson.

I will be using it.

I have been saying for a long time, Progressives hate any limitation on government power.

64 posted on 06/18/2024 5:00:48 AM PDT by marktwain (The Republic is at risk. Resistance to the Democratic Party is Resistance to Tyranny. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Here’s a good comment/letter to send to bias outlets:

Hey (reporter), in reply to your recent article, Stalin had a prosecutor who famously said about adversaries, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” Do we want to become like that?

Trump was convicted of an 18-year-old crime in an election year that has nothing to do with the Republic, I look forward to him not only winning, but discovering the coordinated effort that used Lawfare instead of voting to try to remove a candidate.

If this goes through, Lawfare will be used on future candidates and that’s not American.

My question: why are you consciously directing (your media outlet) to join in this mass deception??

best regards, (Name)


65 posted on 06/18/2024 5:04:39 AM PDT by guinness4strength
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

If we were truly a democracy, every law and every regulation would need to be approved by popular vote. How would the liberals like THAT?


They would love it. Dems would only have to go to large blue cities; NYC, LA, etc to win the Presidency.
IIRC,Hillary won the popular vote and demanded we get rid of the electoral college.


66 posted on 06/18/2024 5:16:45 AM PDT by IAGeezer912 (One out of every 20 people on the face of the earth are Americans. We have won life's lottery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: neverevergiveup

Oh yes. It makes my hair stand on end when I hear “living and breathing document”.

There are certain words, symbols, and behaviors that allow me to make a snap, very accurate judgement on a person. They can always disprove it in some way which I accept, but in almost all cases, the conclusions drawn from the following things are reliable:

The raised fist. If it is clutching a rose, even more so.

The Rainbow Flag.

A Black Lives Matter sign on the lawn.

A Che Guevara poster or t-shirt.

Use of the phrase “A Teachable Moment”

Referring to the Constitution as “a living, breathing document...”

Granted, these aren’t totally bulletproof. As an example, my nephew once showed up to go out to dinner while our families were vacationing, and he was wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt. Now, he was a generally affable kid, so I asked him what he knew about the face adorning his attire.

His mumbled answer was “Some kind of revolutionary guy....”

I said “Do you know what his job as a “revolutionary” was”, and when he said no, I said “It was his job to take his gang of fellow revolutionaries to the houses of people who disagreed with their revolutionary leader, to drag them in their pajamas out of their houses in the middle of the night, and murder them in cold blood in front of their families, if those families were lucky enough not to be murdered as well.”

He mumbled, trailing off...”I just thought it was a cool shirt...”

Like any snap judgement, these things can only be used as data points, not a final statements, but often quite accurate in the end.


67 posted on 06/18/2024 5:40:14 AM PDT by rlmorel (In Today's Democrat America, The $5 Dollar Bill is the New $1 Dollar Bill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

A REPUBLIC vs a Democracy.

The Constitution IS NOT the highest law in the land.

CIVICS 101.

No king, but King Jesus.

That is what the Declaration of Independence says in so many words…..Declares Natural and God given rights are self-evident….no kings or priests or governments involved between you and those rights.

God is mentioned directly four times.
Four times!

Order of precedent in Laws.
1. Laws of Natures God (LONG) Revealed in Scripture
2. Laws of Nature (LON) Observable in nature….the sciences!
3. U.S. Declaration of Independence. Assertion of unalienable rights…..governments only by consent of governed, sole purpose is to preserve rights.
4. U.S. Constitution. A Contract among the People to preserve their rights.
5. Federal Law as delegated by “We the People”
6. Statutory Law (passed by Congress) vs Administrative Law bureau rules/regs.
7. Courts do not make, interpret or even apply law….THEY RENDER OPINIONS.

WHAT IS THE HIGHEST LAW………NOT the Constitution…..It is Law of Nature’s God.

Any subsidiary Law, Rule, Regulation or Opinion that conflict with the Law of Nature’s God is void and of no more effect than if it never existed. (Marbury vs Madison, 1903)

8. State Constitutions (sovereign states)….subject to US on points of delegated authority...only to the extent all are subject to God!

9. State law, state administrative code.


The ONLY legitimacy of the US Constitution is the Declaration.

The Constitution is merely a contract between “we the people” on how we will preserve our liberty.

The Constitution makes or guarantees no rights.

Read the Preamble of the Constitution.

“WE THE PEOPLE in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do hereby ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”

There no question or debate on this. Either one knows it or one does not. Accept it or not, it is still there….it is literally Civics 101.

The Declaration, well……it declares where that individual liberty comes from.

AGAIN God is mentioned/appealed to as the sole source and justification of all our rights four times…..and encompassed in the “……laws of nature and nature’s God”.

But wait. It gets better…..

snip——————-
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

snip———————
So, there you go…the Declaration is the foundational legal document of the United States.

The Declaration, among many other self evident truths enumerated and not enumerated.

The infamous penumbra (look it up) and the 9th and 10th Amendments

The Constitution is not the highest law in the land….that is the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God as summarized and declared in the Declaration….which rights, BTW are”unalienable”.

Thank God as in the Declaration for your rights and liberty……and for the right to keep and bear arms.

There’s lots more, I have degrees in it......but...

Rule is either in CONSENT to these LAWS, always subject to God and nature’s laws, or in tyranny by one, by a few, or by many in a mob.....democracy.

No king, but King Jesus.

I do feel strongly about it, but what do I know?


68 posted on 06/18/2024 5:43:39 AM PDT by Lowell1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

H.L. Mencken’s famous quip about democracy—“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard”


69 posted on 06/18/2024 5:48:34 AM PDT by Bookshelf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Next time a lefty “expert” tries to buffalo you just inform Him (or her) that we are precisely a “Constitutionally mandated democratically elected representative REPUBLIC”

They will have no recourse.


70 posted on 06/18/2024 6:03:14 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IAGeezer912

You missed my point. Can you imagine how long it would take to create regulations if every one would need to be voted on by voters? If we were truly a democracy, that is what would be required. That is why we are a representative republic and not a democracy.


71 posted on 06/18/2024 6:04:57 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Ikeon

Add the passing of the 17th amendment to that...


72 posted on 06/18/2024 6:29:58 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“As far as the terms can self define, “republic” (res publica) refers to the people being represented with inbuilt checks and balances on power and “democracy” (demokratia) refers to people wielding political power in whatever form they please”

I understand the distinction. A Republic is one thing. A Democracy is another. They can be very different. The founders devised a system that was a Republic, with many Democratic elements.

The TV series “Gunsmoke” provided many examples. For example, the townfolk want someone to be immediately released from prison and hanged from the nearest tree. People thinking this way are in the majority. That’s democracy in this example.

The Marshall, his deputies and their supporters, are a minority. The Marshall call’s out to the mob “can’t do that. He’ll get a fair trial when the circuit judge comes to town. It’s the Law.” The rule of law is the Republican concept. In this case, on this day, Democracy and Republic yield different outcomes.

Over time, one can expect that the majority will rule. The Judge and jury may render a guilty verdict and hanging. Or, if need be, the Sheriff can be replaced. The Judge can be replaced. Or the majority might even change its collective mind after a fair trial.

Ultimately “the people” (constantly changing in membership and opinion) will rule. However, at any point in time it’s the Law that rules. That is how our Republic was designed.


73 posted on 06/18/2024 6:37:50 AM PDT by ChessExpert (Required for informed consent: "We have a new, experimental vaccine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

That was a good read, nice.


74 posted on 06/18/2024 7:07:34 AM PDT by ansel12 ((NATO warrior under Reagan, and RA under Nixon, bemoaning the pro-Russians from Vietnam to Ukraine.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Nailbiter

later


75 posted on 06/18/2024 7:16:01 AM PDT by Nailbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Thanks for providing the quoted material. In a nutshell, Wilson writes: “Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.”

I have a question. Was Wilson writing as an advocate? In other words, did he believe that men as communities should be supreme over men as individuals?

It could be claimed that he was merely articulating ideas, including those with which he disagreed. I am willing to throw stones, but only when warranted.


76 posted on 06/18/2024 7:52:02 AM PDT by ChessExpert (Required for informed consent: "We have a new, experimental vaccine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Perhaps the words of the fellow who penned the Constitution might shed some light:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787

The difference isn't trivial. One manifestation of it is that under a Republic certain rights of minorities may be reserved from governmental interference; under a pure Democracy they, like everything else, are up for grabs at the mercy of simple majority. If, for example, six people out of ten think that the other four ought to work for free based on the color of their skin, the motion carries.

77 posted on 06/18/2024 8:17:39 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Art 4
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

In a republic, legislative power is once removed from direct representation and rules for the passage of said legislation is laid out in the governing compact, in our case... the Constitution.

To further extend this... we are a "Constitutionally limited Federal Republic"... Meaning that the original charter not only lays out the framework for our National government, but also explicitly limits it. The remainder of the governing power, or things not again explicitly made off limits by the Constitution, are left to the States and the people of those States.

When the idiots in the DNC and the socialist marching partners in the media say "democracy"... they are literally bleating for the rule of the 51%... Whim of the majority...

78 posted on 06/18/2024 8:35:11 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (A Psalm in napalm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert
Given what comes later in S&D, never mind his actions as POTUS (one of the worst being nationalization of the railroad system), I would definitely say “advocate”.
Corporations grow on every hand, and on every hand not only swallow and overawe individuals but also compete with governments. The contest is no longer between government and individuals; it is now between government and dangerous combinations and individuals. Here is a monstrously changed aspect of the social world. In face of such circumstances, must not government lay aside all timid scruple and boldly make itself an agency for social reform as well as for political control? “Yes,” says the democrat, “perhaps it must. You know it is my principle, no less than yours, that every man shall have an equal chance with every other man: if I saw my way to it as a practical politician, I should be willing to go farther and superintend every man’s use of his chance. But the means? The question with me is not whether the community has power to act as it may please in these matters, but how it can act with practical advantage — a question of policy.” A question of policy primarily, but also a question of organization; that is to say, of administration.
No criticism of this obviously totalitarian approach is present in the work. Also, note the use of “corporations” as a bogeyman against which the collective must act.
79 posted on 06/18/2024 8:45:27 AM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
The Republican form of government is how we structure and implement our representative democracy.

To expand on this, Democracy is a feature of many forms of government. Governments in which democracy plays a significant or key role are referred to as "democracies". Western democracies tend to be Republics, but a few Monarchies remain, like UK, Spain, Netherlands, Japan, etc. But western monarchies have introduced significant levels of democracy.

There is no pure democracy on earth. The Swiss are often pointed out as being about the closest (mostly by themselves), but even they are a Representative Democracy. The Swiss add the right of the people to call for a referendum, similar to the way many US states allow referendums. But referendums in Switzerland are actually pretty infrequent by comparison, and mostly defeated.

So again, democracy is a FEATURE of many forms of government. I'm not sure why so many people are confused by this. Every President in my lifetime, including Reagan and Trump, have referred to the USA as a democracy, while fully understanding that we have a Republican form of government.

80 posted on 06/18/2024 8:50:08 AM PDT by ETCM (“There is no security, no safety, in the appeasement of evil.” — Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson