Reply #24: Technical differences: democracy & republic [View All]

[Bucky]

In fact, the US is both a democracy and a republic. Quibbles to the contrary aside, there's not that much of a difference. Please remind your conservative friends that Bush frequently refers to democracy and bringing democracy to Iraq (ha!) and never says anything about bringing republicanism to Iraq.

When Jim Jeffords changed sides in 2001 and gave the Dems control of the Senate for 18 months, Trent Lott accused him of "undermining democracy." So all conservatives don't spazz at the word "democracy."

Technically, we are a democratic republic. It's also accurate to say we're a representative (as opposed to "pure") democracy. The actual definition of a republic is any country that isn't a monarchy or theocracy. The Soviet Union was a republic, Iraq under Saddam was a republic, Nazi Germany was a republic. Some nice countries also were republics.

Teh conservatives' problem with saying that we are also a democracy is two fold. First, if you say we're a democracy, then Gore winning the popular vote is a much bigger deal.

Second, the country was not a democracy when the Founders authored the Constitution in 1789. Washington & Madison were quite worried that we would become a democracy because to them, democracy meant mob rule. The meaning of "democracy" changed over the years. Between lowering property rights qualifications in the 1820s (Jacksonian democracy) and the changes in how both US senators and presidential electors are chosen (Progressivism), the US evolved into a democracy.

But there's still all those annoying quotations from the Fathers of the Country about how we should not become a democracy as they understood the term lying around.

It's a silly debate for the most part. People who quibble over the term democracy are generally out to lunch.