Re: Re: Two Party political systems
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
The U.S. is not, nor has it ever been, a democracy. The word 'democracy' is nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The country was founded as a republic. You might be able to get away with calling it a 'democratic republic,' but that would just be redundant and, again, give the (incorrect) impression that the U.S. operates as a democracy.
Of course the United States is a democracy, and the absence of that particular word from either of the documents you mentioned is irrelavent. Your claim seems to make even less sense because you firstly state that the United States is not a democracy, and then state that it is a republic, and then claim that 'democratic republic' is redundant, which suggests that 'republic' implies a democracy.
In the United States, citizens have the power to decide their own government, which is as a fundamental definition as you can have of what constitutes a democracy. The way in which representatives are chosen, and the distribution of powers among those representatives serves as the United States' particular implementation of democracy, but these details vary greatly between all democratic nations. Perturbing these details may result in a nation being "more" or "less" democratic than others, but to say that the United States is not a democracy at all is simply absurd.
Re: Re: Re: Two Party political systems
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
Of course the United States is a democracy, and the absence of that particular word from either of the documents you mentioned is irrelavent.
Irrelevant? You really think you can just brush off "the documents" I mentioned? Those documents are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They aren't just documents. They established the very intentions, existence, and identity of the U.S. as a sovereign nation. The founders of the the United States explicitly wrote that the country is a republic. Republic /= democracy. Please explain why/how you can possibly think this is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
Your claim seems to make even less sense because you firstly state that the United States is not a democracy, and then state that it is a republic, and then claim that 'democratic republic' is redundant, which suggests that 'republic' implies a democracy.
Again, a republic is not a democracy. However, there are many facets of a republic that are inherently democratic, hence the redundancy. For example, the most publicized part of American politics are probably the elections. They are probably why you thought the U.S. is a democracy, as they are a democratic process (muddled a bit by electoral votes, but that's a different debate). It is perfectly possible for a country to have certain facets of its government subject to democratic process without making the overarching government a democracy.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
...but to say that the United States is not a democracy at all is simply absurd.
I said it was not a democracy, but a republic. If you want citations, I have 2 founding documents as sources. They were mentioned in the first paragraph. I'm pretty sure they'd be adequate.
None of that means that there is absolutely no democracy inherent to a republic. If the wording of my original post implied this, then I apologize.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Party political systems
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
Irrelevant? You really think you can just brush off "the documents" I mentioned? Those documents are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They aren't just documents.... Please explain why/how you can possibly think this is irrelevant.
I did not say that the documents were irrelavent, I said that the fact they did not explicitly label the United States as a democracy is irrelavent to the consideration of whether the US is a democracy.
Those two documents also don't ever use the word 'nation' in referrence to the United States. Does that mean the US is not a nation? Those two documents do not use the word 'capitalist'. Does that mean the US is not a capitalist society?
Why are you assuming that every property of the United States has to be explicitly stated in those two documents for it to be true?
This is the definition of democracy according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
Quote:
1) Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.
b)A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole.
2. That class of the people which has no hereditary or special rank or privilege; the common people (in reference to their political power).
The United States is quite obviously a democracy according to the definition of the word. The Constitution of the United States quite specifically describes exactly how its democracy is to be implemented, and so on. The Constitution therefore certainly does define the political system of the United States as a democracy, but the fact that it doesn't use that word explicitly doesn't make the slightest difference.
[edit] I notice also that in your posts you offer to explanation as why the US might not be a democracy, except by labelling it as a republic instead - and then suggesting that a 'democratic republic' is simultaneously redundant and contradictory.
[edit 2] Here is the definition of 'republic', also from the Oxford English Dictionary
Quote:
1. The state, the common weal. Obs.
2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.
b. Applied to particular states having this form of constitution.
c. Without article: Republican constitution or government. rare{em}1.
3. fig. and transf. a. Any community of persons, animals, etc., in which there is a certain equality among the members.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Party political systems
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
This is the definition of democracy according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
(snip)
The United States is quite obviously a democracy according to the definition of the word.
Actually, I would describe the US as a presidential form of government. As I see it, the only real power a US citizen has is to cast a vote for one president or another (muddied a bit by the electoral college system; and I'm not looking at local governments here, only federal). The president appoints his cabinet* and he and the cabinet rule the country, in theory. Of course, in practice there's plenty else, like the Civil Service running itself as a meritocracy, but if you factor that in, no form of government is ever pure.
* Side point: In Australia, and presumably in all other Commonwealth countries, the Prime Minister appoints departmental ministers from among the MPs who were elected by the people. I was led to believe that the US President could appoint anyone at all to the cabinet. Is this true?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Party political systems
Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Actually, I would describe the US as a presidential form of government. As I see it, the only real power a US citizen has is to cast a vote for one president or another ...
I think you're entirely forgetting about every member of congress and every senator, and every governor, and every mayor, and the state legislatures, and judges, and school boards, and so on.
So really, the only "real" form of power the citizens have is being able to elect - for fixed term lenghts - nearly every person who has legislative or administrative powers, and a large number of those that have judicial powers as well.
The United States has a presidential form of government rather than a parliamentary one, but is a democracy nonetheless.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Party political systems
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
I did not say that the documents were irrelavent, I said that the fact they did not explicitly label the United States as a democracy is irrelavent to the consideration of whether the US is a democracy.
Those two documents also don't ever use the word 'nation' in referrence to the United States. Does that mean the US is not a nation? Those two documents do not use the word 'capitalist'. Does that mean the US is not a capitalist society?
Why are you assuming that every property of the United States has to be explicitly stated in those two documents for it to be true?
I'm not assuming that at all. The difference is that being a republic and being a democracy is mutually exclusive. The Constitution does not explicitly say the U.S. is not a democracy. It does, however, explicitly say that the U.S. is a republic, and therefore not a democracy. That is what the founders set up. They specifically went out of their way to avoid democracy.
You seem to be having trouble realizing what the difference between the two is. Your definitions are too modern. They've changed. If you're going to try to understand what the Constitution actually means, then you need to take it in reference to the time period.
Democracy, in actuality, is majority rule. Plain and simple. 51%+ wins. They are historically extremely unstable and abusive of their power. A republic is the the rule of law. This topic and its nuances alone could fill another thread.
But don't take my word for it. Let's hear what some of the founding fathers have to say.
James Madison:
"Democracy is the most vile form of government... 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."
Alexander Hamilton:
"Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government."
"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."
(This is in reference to majority rule. Historically, the U.S. has acted more like a democracy than a republic in regard to its civil rights. Majority rule on gay marriage, for example. If we'd have been acting more like we're supposed to, as a republic, the popularity of religious marriages would have 0 effect on the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Again, a tangent that could fill a thread.)
John Adams
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Thomas Jefferson:
"Government in a well constituted republic requires no belief from man beyond what his reason authorizes."
These are just a few quotes to emphasize that the founding fathers did what they could to emphasize a difference between democracy and republic. Here's a site you might get more info and perspective from. Most of the quotes can be found there, too.
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/dvsr.htm
It also has a more accurate definition of democracy, in the context that the founding fathers and I am using it.
Quote:
Justifiably Afraid Of ‘Democracy' — Indisputably, this nation was founded as a republic and its leaders were justifiably afraid of "democracy," lest it destroy the nation they had risked their lives to establish.
And thus it officially was for a century and a half. As recently as in a 1928 U.S. Army training manual it was described thusly:
"Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of ‘direct' expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards laws is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Party political systems
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
You seem to be having trouble realizing what the difference between the two is. Your definitions are too modern.
I would hope that all the definitions I use are modern ones, because I communicate with modern people - not people from hundreds of years ago. You should probably adopt modern definitions of words, too, lest people misunderstand everything you say.
