quote:The U.S. is not a Democracy, it's a Republic
Here we go again....
quote: Each particle of that stone, each mineral flake of that mountain filled with darkness, in its singularity constitutes a world. The struggle itself toward summits is enough alone to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
uhhhhhhhhhhh
I'm totally getting a vibe from you and I wonder what it could bHI PELEGIUS?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the role, or lack thereof, of England's monarch, it is fair to say their government has no monarch. It is a Republic.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: "Would you care to specify the attributes of a Republic you feel the UK lacks?"
It's not so much what it lacks as what it has. It has a monarch. Both Machiavelli and Websters define a Republic as a country without a monarch. Websters adds that, "In modern times [the head of state] is usually a president."
You had to get to the third Webster's definition to find one that rejected the U.K. as a Republic. In fact, the Queen is the head of state of the British Commonwealth, and ANY commonwealth qualifies. The first definition also includes the U.K.
As to Machiavelli, I don't think he's of a high enough denomination to see my John Adams in the pot.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Queen is the Head of State, yes. As such, The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy. It does not claim to be a Republic, although there are movements to make it one.
If the U.K. even claimed to be a Republic, we might have to redefine Republic. In October of 1994, The Economist called for Britain to be made a Republic, a slightly silly thing to call for if Britian is in fact a Republic.
quote: you're admitting your argument on this hinges on semantics and a technicality of definition, right?
Yes, I am admiting that my argument about the technical definition of a word hinges on its technical definition.
quote: other than big five-dollar Greek mythology references?
It really was more of a two cent French philosophy reference.
quote: Given the role, or lack thereof, of England's monarch, it is fair to say their government has no monarch
The monarch is legaly very important, even if her practical role is not. Tony Blaire is the Head of Her Majesty's Government. That one word makes a big difference. Majesty. In the Republic of Ireland Bertie Ahern is Taoiseach and head of Her Excellency's government.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem here is that Republic and Democracy have become linked by association. The most prominent Republics, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the U.S. etc. are Democracies. Many of the most prominent Democracies are Republics.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I am admiting that my argument about the technical definition of a word hinges on its technical definition.
So now the discussion is about technical definitions, eh? My, the discussion morphs to suit your whims pretty quickly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Myself being a professional semanticist, might I recommend that you focus on the *spirit* of the definitions ;-)
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zophar: Apologies for what is probably a provocative title.
Let me clarify. I am using as my definition of American-style democracy the following: "government by the people, for the people and of the people" (forgive me if I've got the order wrong). Government which the War Between the States was fought to prevent "perish (ing) from the earth".
I want to know what people think this means now, in 2007. We have 70% of the polled people (in the US) opposed to the War in Iraq and the 2006 elections were a rather vocal referendum on that concern. Yet our government is not doing what the majority appears to want. Are we still the democracy we think we are?
Obviously, people in the minority may think that the majority of those polled and/or who cared enough to vote are wrong. They (we) may even, (though I admit I don't believe this myself) be wrong. BUT, if we ignore the majority view, as measured by a recent election and a poll, I repeat, are we the democracy we think we are? Does democracy work as we expected it to? Are our expectations naive? Should we be that sort of pure democracy?
In the UK (I am an ex pat American who has lived in the UK for 15 years), the strength of feeling against the war is as high (or higher), but I'm not sure that we expect the same degree of open democracy here that I expect in the US. (As with anything else, I could easily be wrong about this, too...).
Comments?
I know this is really late but I think you misunderstand the majority opinion of Americans.
If you asked Americans, "Do you agree we need to get out of Iraq RIGHT NOW!." I think you will find most Americans will say, "No, that will make it go from bad to worse for the Iraqis." Of course some people would say yes but they IMO are NOT the majority.
If you asked Americans, "Do you support the way the war in Iraq is being fought?" or if you asked, "Do we need to get our troops out of Iraq sooner rather then later?" THEN you get the huge numbers of Americans that say, "NO!" to the former and, "YES!" to the latter. Or at least you will get most people to answer IMO, "Mistakes have been made, we are not winning the war, we need to get out as soon as reasonably possible."
Americans cannot simply vote "Stop fighting in Iraq." Indeed in a pure democracy the sort of snap decision making necessary for victory on the battlefield is virtually impossible.
I find it obnoxious that there are those in this forum that keep debasing this topic down to the argument, "Is America a democracy or a republic!?"
I understand that if we don't agree on the fundamentals that its impossible to extrapolate into specifics. But at this point it seems some posters are too prideful to admit that their definitions of certain words were perhaps overly broad or overly strict. The discussion can go nowhere if folks cannot bend on that small detail.
Its so strange to me that we all live in the same country, experience the same government, take the same history classes, and yet, we cannot agree what sort of government we live under.
In answer to the OP's questions. We are certainly not a pure democracy as demonstrated by the fact that many things happen that I cannot directly influence, I can indirectly influence them by voting for a guy who may win, who will appoint another guy to a certain position, who will hire another guy to help him make decisions.
Our democracy works just fine. And by fine I mean, it accomplishes this country's purposes with reasonable efficiency.
Should we be a pure democracy? No we should not IMO. There are advantages to a pure democracy and a pure totalitarian state. There are also disadvantages. But meeting somewhere in the middle we find a reasonable compromise that does not please everybody, but is more self sustaining then either extreme.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the UK's House of Lords in some ways functions not unlike a minority party of a U.S. Congress, in particular that they can "discuss" (much like a fillibuster) a particular issue until those who support it give up all hope of its actual resolution. Arguably the not insignificant power of a group neither elected nor appointed by those elected makes for a notable difference from, at the least, an American-style Republic.
No, I'm not getting into the semantic Democracy-Republic Charlie Foxtrot. Y'all can dance that one by yourselves.
As far as the electoral college, it's been noted that it discourages political minorities from voting. I would suggest it frequently discoruages majorities from voting, or at least from actively campaigning, as well. If you *know* your candidate is going to win, why bother with anything more than casting your ballot? Whether it's on the level of a country with two hundred-odd million people or a state with five million people, it's awfully wasy to get the feeling that one person is going to make not difference, and that runs counter to the basic ideals of democratic process.
My biggest frustration with the process, especially in the presidential race, is the way third parties are treated. When they can only act as "spoilers" for one of the major party candidates, their participation in the system becomes a farce. Instead of getting new ideas into the common discourse, you just get people who oppose one of the major candidates signing petitions to makes sure a candidate with similar views will appear on the ballot- despite having absolutely no intention to vote for the person they sign for.
I wouldn't want America to be a Democracy in the style of ancient Greece. Sometimes there are pills to swallow that may be bitter to some, whether it's a war that has to be fought or desergregation of schools, and even if the majority is willing to do the right thing, it may not hold that opinion for long. But I do sometimes think our two-party system has to come to an end. It's gotten to the point that most candidates aren't their own independent voices anymore, but puppets of their financiers and party platforms.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
