Have Americans tired of Democracy?

[RDKirk]

So you've got nothing to back that interpretation. Because every time I hear that one, it's always a person who describes themselves as either right-wing or conservative. But no one who I've seen talk for CRT so far has made that kind of a claim. So it seems to be that you're just making a strawman to prance about. No worries, I will be checking those books, but judging by your avoidance of pointing out anything specific where that kind of a claim, I doubt I will discover much.

Oh, I can just as well point out how Trumpism is fascist...and I will reference the books written by the fascists themselves to do so.

 

[RDKirk]

It's a two-way street. There can't be a discussion about your interpretation without knowing the basis for it.

The books themselves by the writers themselves are my bases! I go to the original sources.

Is there something awry in the way critical analysis is being taught to youngsters these days? Have you been taught to go no deeper than someone's Ciff Notes?

 

[soldier of light]

So you choose a leader who has literally no interest in the kingdom and could not take his eyes off owning the entire world if he tried.

I choose no leaders at all. Jesus is my leader

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Is there something awry in the way critical analysis is being taught to youngsters these days? Have you been taught to go no deeper than someone's Ciff Notes?

The way that I was taught to present an argument is to say "I think X...because Y." Did they not teach that when you went to school?

Two people can read the same material and come to very different conclusions. That's why it's important to present your own analysis.

 

[Reneep]

Choose whichever posting style you like, but I tend to gloss over those written thusly.

Choose whichever posting style you like, but I tend to gloss over those written thusly.

GAL 6 : 11. Anyone thInks it odd how God sent a man who studders to speak for him IN EGYPT ? AND A nearly blInd man to write for him IN A DARK DANK PRISON ? IT IS SO THE DISCERNING CAN SEE HIM INSTEAD OF US. And or PRIVIDE THE EXCUSE THAT SOME MAY WANT TO USE TO IGNORE HIM. Either way the Holy Spitit leads where He wills.

 

[Reneep]

Ps we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy . Just like the Christian are guided by the bible which proclaims our rights and laws. It is a proven system . But the lawlessness are trying to destroy both.

 

[Pommer]

Ps we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy . Just like the Christian are guided by the bible which proclaims our rights and laws. It is a proven system . But the lawlessness are trying to destroy both.

What Bible verses support “freedom of religion”?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

What Bible verses support “freedom of religion”?

I'm sure there's something in the official Trump Bible that says that.

 

[JSRG]

Ps we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy . Just like the Christian are guided by the bible which proclaims our rights and laws. It is a proven system . But the lawlessness are trying to destroy both.

A constitutional republic is a democracy.

Maybe centuries ago, when the term "democracy" was often used more narrowly to refer specifically to direct rule by the people (that is, without the usage of elected representatives), the US wouldn't qualify, but in the modern sense of the word it absolutely qualifies.

 

[Bradskii]

A constitutional republic is a democracy.

Maybe centuries ago, when the term "democracy" was often used more narrowly to refer specifically to direct rule by the people (that is, without the usage of elected representatives), the US wouldn't qualify, but in the modern sense of the word it absolutely qualifies.

I really don't get that people don't understand this. I mean, the term republic just means that the people vote for the leader they want. It effectively means that you don't have a monarch. A democracy is a country where all the people vote for that person.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The main idea is that it is not an empire with an emperor nor a monarchy with a king., at least up until now.

"Not a monarchy" is literally what a "republic" means.

 

[Reneep]

A constitutional republic is a democracy.

Maybe centuries ago, when the term "democracy" was often used more narrowly to refer specifically to direct rule by the people (that is, without the usage of elected representatives), the US wouldn't qualify, but in the modern sense of the word it absolutely qualifies.

But when the lawless are now able to vote in their favorite sins by sheer mob rule( think acient Rome), has it not become a democracy? But that is not what was. Never was what
It is now. But like Roman Democracy will make the nation implode. If not by debit then being top heavy, everyone taking " their share" and voting " their rights".. But that is not what we were.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But when the lawless are now able to vote in their favorite sins by sheer mob rule( think acient Rome), has it not become a democracy? But that is not what was. Never was what
It is now. But like Roman Democracy will make the nation implode. If not by debit then being top heavy, everyone taking " their share" and voting " their rights".. But that is not what we were.

What are you talking about with "sheer mob rule"?

 

[Reneep]

What are you talking about with "sheer mob rule"?

That is what I call cities so large the people are so out of touch with nature that they are now completely ruled by their every narsistic urge because their world only revolves around what they want. So for 50 years women killed their own children, sleep with whatever , eat all kinds of legalized psychedelics and on and on. There is no love , only lust and worse. Just more Sheer mob rule

 

[JSRG]

I really don't get that people don't understand this. I mean, the term republic just means that the people vote for the leader they want. It effectively means that you don't have a monarch. A democracy is a country where all the people vote for that person.

I wouldn't say those are the modern meanings of the terms. Various countries have people vote for who they want to despite having a monarch. And one can't say a democracy is a country where all the people vote for someone, because in no country does every single person have the ability to vote.

I would say I agree with this definition of democracy from the New Oxford American Dictionary was being a good one:

"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives"

Its definition of republic, incidentally, is:

"a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

One may notice there is considerable overlap between these.

When people try to insist on the whole "the US isn't a democracy, it's a republic!" they are insisting on using old definitions for these terms. It is true that in the past, the term "democracy" had a more restrictive meaning, and a republic was seen as in opposition to democracy. Here's the definition of democracy offered in Samuel Webster's 1828 dictionary, which I believe is the first major American dictionary:

DEMOCRACY, noun [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

Now compare the same dictionary's definition of republic

REPUB'LIC, noun [Latin respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]
1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.
2. Common interest; the public. [Not in use.]
Republic of letters, the collective body of learned men.

This explicitly draws a distinction between a republic and a democracy. A republic has ruling representatives elected by the people who rule (indirect rule by the people); a democracy has the people rule themselves (direct rule by the people). The example it gives of a democracy is ancient Athens, in which everyone eligible (namely, anyone who was white, free, adult, and not foreign) could speak in the assembly and vote on legislation. Basically, the government was essentially run by referendum. That was what a democracy was viewed as, in comparison to a republic where people elected representatives who did all of that.

So this attempt to draw a distinction between democracy and republic isn't out of nowhere. The problem is that when I look at the calendar, I see 2025, not 1828. The fact people distinguished between those terms 200 years ago in this way does not mean that is the meanings of them now. Since then, the term "democracy" has expanded considerably in meaning to include systems with elected representatives, and thus now rather than democracy and republics being different things, a republic is a kind of democracy.

Indeed, even in Webster's time the term democracy was being used to refer to republics like the United States, even if it was not as common as it would be later. For example, consider this remark by John Quincy Adams in his inaugural address from 1825, a few years before Webster's dictionary was published:

"If there have been those who doubted whether a confederated representative democracy were a government competent to the wise and orderly management of the common concerns of a mighty nation, those doubts have been dispelled"

As another example of word shift, consider the following definition from Webster's 1828 dictionary:

AWFUL, adjective [awe and full.]
1. That strikes with awe; that fills with profound reverence; as the awful majesty of Jehovah.
2. That fills with terror and dread; as the awful approach of death.
3. Struck with awe; scrupulous.
A weak and awful reverence for antiquity.
Shakespeare uses it for worshipful, inspiring respect by authority or dignity.
Our common people use this word in the sense of frightful, ugly, detestable.

This indeed shows us a shift that was already in progress, with its note of how while Shakespeare used it for worshipful (fitting with definition #1), "our common people" use it in the sense of being frightful (#2). The word awful comes from "awe" and "full" to mean full of awe, from which we see definitions #1 and #3. It at some later point developed definition #2, meaning frightening. But none of these fit to its most common modern usage, which is to mean unpleasant or very bad, which probably derives from #2 but is still rather different.

Thus this argument I think is generally irrelevant. The one point in which the republic/democracy distinction might matter is if someone is arguing "we're a democracy, so the majority opinion should rule" then the republic/democracy distinction might be relevant, but even there it would be more accurate to say the United States is a democracy, but not a pure democracy, which means majority doesn't automatically win everything. However, I don't think that was at any point an issue of discussion here; whether the United States is technically a democracy or a constitutional republic appears to be irrelevant for the purpose of the question that was presented in the topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is what I call cities so large the people are so out of touch with nature that they are now completely ruled by their every narsistic urge because their world only revolves around what they want. So for 50 years women killed their own children, sleep with whatever , eat all kinds of legalized psychedelics and on and on. There is no love , only lust and worse. Just more Sheer mob rule

Your definitions seem rather disconnected from reality. The existence of cities does not make "sheer mob rule", nor does you disdain for their social choices.

 

[Pommer]

I'm sure there's something in the official Trump Bible that says that.

Yeah, I decided to wait until they come out with a good AI “Trump reading the Bible and Documents” audio version.

 

[Pommer]

That is what I call cities so large the people are so out of touch with nature that they are now completely ruled by their every narsistic urge because their world only revolves around what they want. So for 50 years women killed their own children, sleep with whatever , eat all kinds of legalized psychedelics and on and on. There is no love , only lust and worse. Just more Sheer mob rule

Yeah, Jack Chick’s style isn’t well suited for the written word, but this is very good.

 

[Reneep]

Your definitions seem rather disconnected from reality. The existence of cities does not make "sheer mob rule", nor does you disdain for their social choices.

Your kidding ? But they are havens for the lost , the brain washed, and the militant sinners who would take what they want by force. Is that a lie ? Just a few years ago whole cities were burnt to the ground and the militant taking what they want. Did you forget that ?

 

[Reneep]

Then those same mobs and gang bangers are allowed to vote! And worse probably steal elections.