Why The Left Hates It When You Point Out We’re ‘A Republic, Not A Democracy’

That is one aspect I have no doubt Wilson hated.

If someone could go back in time and run his younger father over with a buggy, we’d all be in much better shape.

He’s one of the most damaging Presidents ever.

"We were given a Republic, and a damn well thought out one, too. But our Republic was made for a moral and religious people, especially those leading it, and we are not that. When it became clear that there were no penalties for violating the Constitution, it became open season on our liberty, and here we are."

Well stated.

Well, godless leftism does go back to the nineteenth century. And given what the communists thought of the USA, they always had their sights on it:

In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party that will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat …

— The Principles of Communism, 1847

There was definitely a perception back then that the US Constitution was somehow “democratic”—this was probably a notion that was promulgated by the French Revolution, and certainly it looked that way compared to European national governments. Of course, things did not turn democratic in a de jure sense until constitutional amendments such as the 16^th and 17^th came along, the former instituting the second plank of communism i.e. “(a) heavy progressive or graduated income tax”.

Thank you.

So, he was comfortable with dictatorship to do “good.” What was his idea of good? I’m sure much could be written. Here’s one tidbit from History.com:

“During Wilson’s presidency, he allowed his cabinet to segregate the Treasury, the Post Office, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Navy, the Interior, the Marine Hospital, the War Department and the Government Printing Office. This meant creating separate offices, lunchrooms, bathrooms and other facilities for white and Black workers. It also meant dismissing Black supervisors, cutting off Black employees’ access to promotions and better-paying jobs and reserving those jobs for white people.

By the way, History.com mentions segregation by southerners, but not segregation by Democrats. When it comes to “systemic racism,” Democrats are very prominent in the design, maintenance, and defense of the systems in question. Segregation being just one example.

I agree that you are correct by definition. Democracy as a general descriptive has been used to describe various forms of government structure for centuries: direct, representative, republican, constitutional monarchy, etc.. Each of those has its own validity & argument in favor. Ours has always been a Republican & representative form of democracy. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, English Common Law traditions, electoral college, checks & balances, separated branches & federal/state/local divisions were all established to prevent tyrannical rule by one man or by a temporary electoral majority.

Though, It is worth pointing out that the collective definition of Democracy (i.e. government of a free people) gets purposely comingled by Democrats with the more specific definition of direct democracy (i.e. majority rule with no constitution) for a very useful reason. The fact that they claim to have won a majority of the popular vote (electoral fraud & the fact that we dont use a direct popular vote, not withstanding) has apparently convinced them that they will forever receive popular majorities. The fact that they have lost the Constitutionally proscribed method of election matters less than their ego & drive for power. So they go about trying to say that we are a democracy, that direct, popular majorities are supposed to rule & that the our Constitutionally republican processes are illegitimate.

It’s like everything else. It’s bait & switch. Perhaps their assumption that they will truly & forever be beneficiaries of a popular majority is most annoying. Nothing is permanent 😉

A square is not a type of rectangle. Especially when the definition of a rectangle specifically states a square isn't a rectangle?

And where did you pull that definition from? Almost every definition of rectangle I've seen does not specifically exclude squares.

Here's a different analogy for you:
Democracy is like 'trees'. There's lots of trees, but surely a pine and a cedar are not identical?

Or:
Whisky. Every whisky is whiskey, but would you argue that a Kentucky bourbon is the same as Laphroaig 10-yr?

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.