A republic ISN'T the opposite of a monarchy, anymore than a theocracy is the opposite of a plutocracy. You can't really describe government types as opposites (at least not accurately or legitimately)Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
A republic ISN'T the opposite of a monarchy, anymore than a theocracy is the opposite of a plutocracy. You can't really describe government types as opposites (at least not accurately or legitimately)
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Surely they could have taken the congressional investigations seriously. Or stand up against him in public.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Precisely.
The UK and the Netherlands are constitutional monarchies.
The USA and Germany are republics.
The USA, Germany, UK and the Netherlands are all democracies.
It's not either/or.
I'm going to agree with Choobs, in part at least. There were plenty of opportunities for the GOP to take a stand, but they didn't. Probably because they thought Trump was an unqualified clown who'd never get the nomination (let alone the presidency), but also because they underestimated the anti-establishment sentiment of the voters. They could have joined forces to condemn Trump and basically kick him out of the party (like they did with John Birch), but since they didn't even do that for David Duke or other openly KKK candidates....well, they clearly don't care if racists or bigots run under the Republican ticket.
Even after Trump was inaugurated and the Russian probe was underway, congressional Republicans could have done honest, open, thorough investigations of their own, and removed Nunes as committee chair when he was caught pimping for Trump. They could have demanded the Cyber Security unit in charge of election integrity be fully staffed and funded. They could also have pushed back against Trump's Tariff & Trade war, since he used bogus "national security" reasons (even for our best friend Canada!) to bypass congressional authorities. And they should have definitely stood up for the DoJ, the FBI, and Fourth Estate when Trump used his bully pulpit to discredit them, and sow mistrust of important institutions. But they didn't do any of that, because they cowardly put power and party first.
I don't think they really care about executive overreach, expanded presidential powers, or abuse of power. Those are just memes they use when a Democrat sits in the oval office (see their nominee for SCOTUS). And now that the Republican Party has become the Trump Party, none of the traditional "principles" apply. They sold their souls for a corporate tax cut, de-regulations, and federal judges, but it didn't happen overnight, and it didn't start with Trump. This is the culmination of decades spent restricting voting, and gerrymandering which changed the Electoral College....
If there's one thing I learned about republicanism, it's that there are as many versions as there are people writing about it. On the other hand, the use of democracy to mean direct democracy is a clear flaw that many supporters of "republicanism" succumb to.
Hope is the denial of reality
Since you're a professor of political science, and responsible for teaching others.....I wonder how you do that in the current climate?
With great difficulty. Focus on issues and concepts rather than on individual politicians or parties. Occasionally throw in an example of Obama or Clinton doing something stupid. Discuss how we can judge the credibility of news stories instead of taking them at face value. This is hardest in foreign policy classes where the best you can say about Trump's policies is they're following in the footsteps of previous bad policies.
Hope is the denial of reality
Take that up with the Sec. of Education. Rumor has it Trump calls her Ditzy Devos. omg it's like a horror house of mirrors
As best as I could tell:
The American definition of republic comes from the Romans. For the Romans, it meant a constitutional system with power split between different institutions to prevent any one (including the masses) from accumulating too much power. When Americans say the US isn't a democracy, they mean power of the masses is checked by other institutions.
The European definition of republic has evolved more over time. It started with the same Roman version, but moved on to include commercial oligarchies (Venice) and even dictatorships (Cromwell). By the 1600s at the latest, the term already meant rule that was on some level derived from the people (in contrast to rule derived from God).
It's quite possible that the Brits accepted the version that Americans ended up adopting. It would be a way to distinguish their constitution monarchy from that of absolute ones on the continent.
Hope is the denial of reality
When Americans say the country is a Republic and not a Democracy, they're just repeating something they heard once that sounded like a fun fact they could repeat to sound educated. It doesn't impact anything real, so they never bothered to think about how a direct democracy is not the only form of democracy, and that all republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics.
I'd bet if we could trace the origins back to the person who first said this before everyone started repeating it, it was probably said in a situation where the speaker wanted to be more specific than just "democracy" and the listeners misunderstood and started repeating it.
Fucking hell. Fine, the US doesn't have a direct democracy, it's a representative democracy, AKA a republic. Happy with that? And yep, from one angle it's all still democracy, say it again. Democracy sweet free fucking democracy in the US, yeah! But from another you maybe can see nobody votes directly for policy (on the Federal level anyway). They vote for people who are supposed to represent our interests when policy gets created and implemented. And one, but not the only, reason for that design is to curb/ safeguard us from too much direct democracy, because bad things like Trump can happen as a result of that. But the Trump bad thing happened anyway, so something's not working right somewhere in this system. Maybe it's the fault of the parties, maybe it's the broken design itself, maybe it's the propaganda run amok we're drowning in, but I think it's senseless to point at the voters and say "It's their fucking fault, you morons." We were supposed to be protected against our most self-destructive inclinations, weren't we? Republic, yo. Safeguards. Right? You'd think there would be someone in the Republican party somewhere with the influence and character to stand up and say this has to stop. But you'd be wrong, apparently. This Op-Ed guy is NOT that someone. He and his are self-serving cowards operating within the cracks of our broken system.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
No.
The UK and the Netherlands [and Canada and Australia and ...] don't have direct democracy, we have representative democracy too. Does that make us republics?
Oh FFS.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I'm really curious as to what you base your claim to the Romans having a philosophy of divisions of power on. Not just the factual limits on power by doubling up positions but a real philosophy underpinning such a system. Barring that I see no reason for the distinctions between the concept of the Republic that you make.
The Romans were obsessed with the risk of the return of the monarchy, but did provide for the institution of a dictator in emergencies. Also there elections of every official in the state structure pointed more towards a confused system of direct democracy than a orderly system of separation of powers. Mos Maiorum, Senatus consultum, votes in the assembly and the vetos of the Tribunes made it more of a hotchpotch than a reasoned separation of powers.
Last edited by Hazir; 09-09-2018 at 03:45 PM.
Congratulations America
Republicanism is based on Roman practice, not theory. Different sections of society were assumed to have different interests and the Roman government sought to keep these factions from killing each other.
Hope is the denial of reality
Eh? So your system is based on 'Roman practice' which it does not resemble rather than on the European Trias Politica which it almost follows to the letter?
I think the only problem here is that crazy American notion that a Republic isn't a democracy if it has boundaries limiting the free execution of the popular sovereignty.
That whole idea is nonsense; a democracy is any system of government that draws for its justification on the people as sovereign.
Your Constitution with its description of the government and its Bill of Rights falls perfectly under that definition. Your Constitution makes it blatantly clear in the threewords its preamble starts with : 'WE, the People'
Congratulations America
The modern version of democracy did not exist in the 1780s. It was a synonym for mob rule. When Americans attack democracy, they're parroting arguments made 2+ centuries ago.
Hope is the denial of reality
This is a recurrent theme in US political discourse not just wrt democracy. Guys, join the modern world already.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
As usual, we can probably blame the British for giving us this idea before sneakily adopting the global consensus.
Hope is the denial of reality
It's based on the Roman practice of having a lot of checks and balances, then totally ignoring them.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
No
Congratulations America
The 18th century debate about government was pretty much the same in Europe as in America. The only truly American addition was the element of federalism.
Congratulations America
I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of your system. If you regularly end up with Trumps you might have a point but is your system really designed to never allow a Trump to become president? I don't think so.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Trump is merely the first one in our lifetime. I think at least.
Congratulations America
I think so too and that was indeed what worried me most about him.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm not familiar with the Dutch but since the UK's constitutional "monarchy" places so much power and authority in the hands of the head of government and basically none in the head of state, I don't see any real difference between you and a parliamentary republic. The idea that your government is the opposite of Germany, or Switzerland, or the US, or Taiwan is ridiculous.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
We are all democracies regardless of whether the head of state is appointed, elected or inherited. In that sense we're not opposite because we are all democracies. The opposite of democracy in that sense is perhaps a dictatorship etc
However none of that is what makes up a republic. A republic is a nation that doesn't have a monarchy. It absolutely can be democratic (USA, Germany) . . . or it can be Communist (People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea [North Korea]), USSR [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics], theocratic (Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan), dictatorial (Arab Republic of Egypt). Of course you can argue that simply having the name republic in the name of the nation doesn't actually make you a republic, certainly there are no democratic republics that are truly democratic. But they're not monarchies and they do meet the definition of being a republic.
Republic says didly squat about what type of government you have. The only common denominator between those nations is they don't have a monarch (though North Korea comes close). So yes absolutely the opposite of republic is monarchy. It's a truism in fact.
Liberal republics like the USA and Germany are only one of many types of republic.
No. "Republic" does not mean "not a monarchy." A military junta is not a republic. A theocratic state led by the head of the church is not a republic. Those things you label as democracy are an integral part of the modern definition of republic. Even in older definitions, a core concept was that governance was a public concern, not the private domain of a leader or council. Nowhere has republic ever been defined as "anything that doesn't have a king." You need a king or queen to be a monarchy. Republic is something specific, not a general term for "not a monarchy" Republic is, in fact, almost entirely a matter of how your governance is structured. Hell, by your earlier analogy, a block of cheese is both a republic and atheist. No!
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote