Republic vs. Democracy {Charley Reese}

King Features Syndicate ^ | 7/10/2002 {repost} | Charley Reese

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

All, Charley is right on again. And, as usual, his bottom line is beyond compare. Peace and love, George.

[Huck]

In fact, today in America, the many are ruled by the few

Charlie needs to make up his mind if he likes repuiblicanism or not. What does he want, a House with 50 million representatives? Can you imagine how many subcommittees we'd have?

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"any people, at any time, who are reasonably well-fed, entertained and not visibly threatened will settle into ignorance and apathy"

Guys, THIS is the reason that the maintenance of a ruling elite is so very dangerous and even impossible. And the reason that any manmade "NWO" WILL be a chaotic failure. Only the timing is in question. Maintenance of "intellectual" competition from the "lowest" through the "highest" is ESSENTIAL for freedom. People, for the most part, learn ONLY of necessity. Peace and love, George.

[Conservative Chicagoan]

Isn't this the same guy who supports the Palestinians and believes America shouldn't defend itself against the terrorists?

[TomGuy]

Charlie needs to make up his mind if he likes repuiblicanism or not. What does he want, a House with 50 million representatives? Can you imagine how many subcommittees we'd have?

And the phrase should probably have said:

"We have given you a republic - if you can afford to keep it."

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"In fact, today in America, the many are ruled by the few, who are careful enough to do it gently and behind clouds of rhetoric so that it isn't obvious. Members of the public, by and large, not only do not know what's going on, they don't care."

Huck, You left a bit out of Charley's point that time. In a "healthy" republic, Representatives represent the people. NOT hide their doings. Peace and love, George.

[steve50]

Charlie is becoming one of my favorite reads. The wondeful thing about the web is so much non censored information/opinion, but only so many hours in a day. Staying informed in this age is a full time job, or we could just go brain dead and let Fox/CNN tell us what to think, it's much easier.

[Huck]

Hehe.

[Huck]

In a "healthy" republic, Representatives represent the people. NOT hide their doings

I don't buy that for a second. Hell, Thomas Jefferson was secretly paying a libeler to spread propaganda about his enemies, including John Adams. Hamilton schemed behind the scenes. By this standard, we were never a healthy republic. I agree with his premise that Americans are basically ignorant of politics, but I don't see what being "governed by the few" has to with it. That's how it is supposed to be.

[Stand Watch Listen]

bttt

FYI...

The Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic
Freeper editorial (December 10, 2000)

[thepitts]

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

[stainlessbanner]

ping!

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"but I don't see what being "governed by the few" has to with it."

H, In a true republic, this is true. But, OUR "philosopher kings" are supposed to obey the LAW also. In fact they take an oath to do so when obtaining office. As Charley writes, our "kings" have assumed the mantle of the "chosen", and "rule" at their own whims unstead of the rule of law. Peace and love, George.

[Old Badger]

"the many are ruled by the few"

There was a post on FR awhile back where a college professor did a research project and determined that this country was ruled by the philosophy of 7,000 government and corporate leaders. I have been desparately trying to find that post for months. If anyone knows where to find it, I would appreciate your posting the link.

[x]

Interesting point. Charley seems a little confused. Either A) the people don't rule directly and it's a good thing, because they are so ill-informed and lazy or B) the people don't rule and should and would if corrupt representatives really spoke and acted for them. But the two views would seem to be contradictory. Perhaps the 18th century idea of "republican virtue" can help to explain the contradiction.

Though we are a republic, there's a strong democratic component in our political system that can't be ignored. Charley's column itself shows how hard it it to get away from it.

[Huck]

He's definitely confused. Did you see where he says this?:

At one time, a university education was designed to train leaders

In other words, universities used to train the few to govern the many. The more I look at this article, the less I understand what the heck Charlie is trying to say.

[Huck]

That essay, at first glance, is full of errors. Like this one:

In a Republic, the will of the individual outweighs the will of the few, or of the majority.

That simply isn't true. If someone really wants to understand republicanism, I suggest a thorough reading of the Federalist Papers.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Yes, you are correct.

Here are links for them.

http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html

http://federalistpapers.com

[Huck]

Good job. For my money, Madison is the man when it comes to understanding our system, the various intermixed forms of sovereignty, the application of majority rule principles which at the same time protect minority interests, etc. His language is sometimes cumbersome, but he is still the man.

[Conservative Chicagoan]

The man is a traitor. That's all you need to know!