“You know, we don’t live in a democracy because a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. OK? It’s not just majority rule. It’s a constitutional republic. The founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition of what a civil society is supposed to look like. What’s happened, Alex, …
This “not a democracy, a republic” crap is becoming more and more popular on the right. They’re not even trying to hide the authoritarianism and fascism any more. They’re now openly saying they don’t support democracy.
This is great, call it the Patriot Party or something and talk about how government waste has turned “Citizens On Patrol” into a bunch of lazy, freedom-suppressing, union members.
That is why it is technically a republic, but not in practice. The constitution says it is a republic, and they actually have an election for the role of head of state, well “election”, but of course in practice that is not how it works at all.
The US is also technically a representative democracy, but in practice, well…
Sorry you prefer to choose between bad and worse every election over reaching concensus in a constituent meeting and then voting to confirm the candidate in an election, but that doesn’t make the dprk’s system less democratic
No, republic just means that the role of head of state isn’t hereditary. Lots of dictatorships are republics, some democracies are as well. The actual political system of the USA is representative democracy (in theory at least).
The fact that these terms are so muddled in the minds of the average American is completely deliberate, because it makes it so much easier for them to subvert US democracy when people have been told that the US is not one.
Well voting for people who hold the actual power but are under no obligations to help or even respect their constituents in any way… certainly doesn’t sound like a democracy to me.
“Democracy” is what politicians say when they want people to feel like they are empowered or live in a better condition than they do. Both the left and right use it this way.
I think of democracy like this. All citizens vote on an issue, and if over 50% approve, then we have a new policy. Only in very few and limited cases is this possible. With good reason.
What the founders mostly feared is that “the masses” are subject to temporary strong passions and can be manipulated, leading to sudden drastic policy shifts, maybe not particularly well thought out. At the same time, with majority rule, it’s very possible to restrict and eliminate the rights of minority groups – they essentially have no voice.
They thought they found a good solution, the problem is it requires all parties to make good faith efforts to support and uphold the purpose and structure of the (federal) republic, and to keep in mind who the citizens are, to advocate for the minority as well as the majority, as both groups have “inalienable rights” which must be considered in all matters.
This “not a democracy, a republic” crap is becoming more and more popular on the right. They’re not even trying to hide the authoritarianism and fascism any more. They’re now openly saying they don’t support democracy.
It’s literally “democracy = Democrats” and “a republic = republican” to them, simple as.
The Democrats should rename themselves the “Freedom Liberty” party just to fuck with em. Take back some of their words.
This is great, call it the Patriot Party or something and talk about how government waste has turned “Citizens On Patrol” into a bunch of lazy, freedom-suppressing, union members.
A republic is a type of democracy. This guy is an idiot. 
Not necessarily, North Korea is technically a republic.
No, it’s not. They have a hereditary head of state who enforces his rule with control of the military.
That is why it is technically a republic, but not in practice. The constitution says it is a republic, and they actually have an election for the role of head of state, well “election”, but of course in practice that is not how it works at all.
The US is also technically a representative democracy, but in practice, well…
Who was the third head of state again?
It’s not just a Republic its a people’s Republic.
So you know like way better. That’s why they don’t need elections it already says it belongs to the people
They literally hold elections following a concensus process.
Sigh
Sorry you prefer to choose between bad and worse every election over reaching concensus in a constituent meeting and then voting to confirm the candidate in an election, but that doesn’t make the dprk’s system less democratic
The hand job place near me is also technically a foot job place.
I just looked it up and did not find a concise definition. According to the German bpb even dictatorships can be republics.
https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/lexikon-in-einfacher-sprache/250057/republik/
No, republic just means that the role of head of state isn’t hereditary. Lots of dictatorships are republics, some democracies are as well. The actual political system of the USA is representative democracy (in theory at least).
The fact that these terms are so muddled in the minds of the average American is completely deliberate, because it makes it so much easier for them to subvert US democracy when people have been told that the US is not one.
Yeah, they really should pop open one of those dictionaries – if they know what those are – and look at the definition of republic.
Well voting for people who hold the actual power but are under no obligations to help or even respect their constituents in any way… certainly doesn’t sound like a democracy to me.
“Democracy” is what politicians say when they want people to feel like they are empowered or live in a better condition than they do. Both the left and right use it this way.
I think of democracy like this. All citizens vote on an issue, and if over 50% approve, then we have a new policy. Only in very few and limited cases is this possible. With good reason.
What the founders mostly feared is that “the masses” are subject to temporary strong passions and can be manipulated, leading to sudden drastic policy shifts, maybe not particularly well thought out. At the same time, with majority rule, it’s very possible to restrict and eliminate the rights of minority groups – they essentially have no voice.
They thought they found a good solution, the problem is it requires all parties to make good faith efforts to support and uphold the purpose and structure of the (federal) republic, and to keep in mind who the citizens are, to advocate for the minority as well as the majority, as both groups have “inalienable rights” which must be considered in all matters.