What exactly is America? Democracy, Republic?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Democracy or Republic?
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
A democratic republic...if we can keep it...
The oligarchs seem to have a controlling interest, though...
The oligarchs seem to have a controlling interest, though...
Heyo
Veteran Member
A failing democracy and a fragile republic.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's supposed to be a Constitutional Republic.
In reality, we are a genuine oligarchy now.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
It's a constitutional republic that is, over time, transitioning to an authoritarian state via the route of direct democracy.
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
That's a hard question.
A democracy (or any form of government) has failed when it and it's institutions are no longer supported by the people and the government has lost the ability to enforce it's laws.
About 30 to 40% of US citizens don't trust the government, the courts or the elections - and some of that mistrust is reasonable. To rebuild trust one would have to remove the legit reasons. Getting money out of politics would be one important part. Wolf Pac is on that.
Bipartisan support of the legitimacy of elections would be nice but when one party is openly and constantly against democracy (and still has support in the electorate), there is little you can do.
The media could refrain from treating politics as entertainment and stop focusing on sensation and drama. But then, they report what sells and they are owned by the 1% anyway.
Maybe some of the reasonable people who have left and are leaving the GOP don't go into retirement and form a new conservative party in opposition to the MAGA party the GOP has become but it seems they are all too old or too disillusioned.
In conclusion, I think you are ****ed.
I think the term "democracy in a republic" might fit, as it is expressed in The American's Creed:
I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.
...
However, I don't think it's so much a matter of what we call ourselves, but whether we practice what we preach. Do America's policies reflect our stated principles?
Are our stated principles even practical enough that we could follow them literally and still have a viable society? Obviously not, since we all know that Free Speech is not an absolute right and that the Second Amendment does not allow common citizens to own atomic weapons. Most would agree that those are reasonable limitations on freedom, but then if that's the case, why can't we use different terminology?
Why do we use words that we don't really mean? Is it just so much bunkum for the masses? Is it just propaganda slogans which have no real meaning when it comes to actual policies and practices which are carried out in the real world?
It's probably closer to this. Politicking and propaganda.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Both
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
France is a republic, The republic of Ireland, is a republic, the USA is a republic.
Conversely the UK is not a republic, instead it is a constitutional monarchy. With an elected parliament and unelected head of state.
As far as I knew, a democratic republic was a system of representational democracy, with an elected head of state, NOT a monarch.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Plutocracy is even more fitting. (Oligarchy = government by the few, so not wrong but when the few are the rich, plutocracy is more precise. Plutocracy = government by money.)
Both
You're just upset cuz they ignore your desires.
(They ignore mine too. But I know that I'm in
a small minority, so I accept this as inevitable.)
Most voters want things you & I find awful.
And they get their way because ultimately,
politicians depend on votes, not money.
Money is merely one of the tools to get votes.
It's because of the way people vote and how they're generally influenced. The power of advertising and clever soundbites. A democracy depends upon an intelligent, thinking electorate, and if the electorate fails, democracy fails.
It is a long running experimental republic. The experiment is a government which can change but which requires a lot of a political capital to change. The institutions become with time more entrenched and dug in like a river in a canyon, however they can be changed. This is because we do not believe in royalty in any form. The Supreme Court can change its precedents. The Congress can change the Constitution. The president can reascend orders. Precedent and tradition are the only royalty. The experiment continues, and hopefully other better governments will spring up avoiding errors ours makes.
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
Well, it's not like it once was, but it is a republic with a constitutional bill of rights. One side seems to view the government as an entity in and of itself apart from our citizens. Another side views the government as American citizens who elect representatives to represent them as citizens. That's us "we the people". The offices are part of the mechanism itself and our representatives are elected in hope that they will represent us as intended, but ... the opposing sides and the differences in how each side view the duties of these offices make the process challenging. The difference is much like a statement Kennedy made during a speech. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Government funded socialist type programs vs. private sector "we the people" are the government paradigms, where capitalism and the "American dream" hold so much value and weight.
The differences stark and obvious.
The differences stark and obvious.
PureX
Veteran Member
There are only two paths left to us.
1. Vote all incumbents out of office at every opportunity regardless of party, and keep doing it until the candidates in office proves him or herself worthy of the office by actively fighting (not just talking) the legalized bribery and blatant incompetence destroying what little governance we have left. (This will also require that more 'normal, reasonable, intelligent' citizens begin running for office with the express intention of doing exactly this. )
2. The citizens finally become so angry and frustrated with the total failure of their current government that they revolt, reject it, and begin setting up a new one. This, however, is extremely risky as the replacement may be worse than the replaced, and those currently in power will not give it up without a very bloody fight. Also, there are always the contingent of lurking 'bully-boys' in every society of humans just waiting for a moment of social chaos to rise up and express their desire to rape, rob, and murder their fellow humans.
Last edited: