Politics 101 - Week 1. Republic vs Democracy: The founders vision and today

[HumblePie]

No, we haven't. Having a vote doesn't make a country a democracy. The US is a constitution based federal republic. The states are considerably more democratic than the federal government. 26 in particular have initiative and/or referendum.

The very definition of democracy is voting for anything related to the government. It doesn't have to be all people voting that are being ruled either. As long as there is a voting process and that some form of government function is being altered by the voting process that is a democracy by definition.

We have voting for various government functions at all levels of government. Votes range from ballots to placing in government officials. The range of voting goes from local to the top federal level.

Democracy doesn't state that everything must be voted upon either. The moment any government function at any level is decided by a vote of any sort, there you have a democracy by definition.

Hence our government has always been a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Well there were a great number of founders and a lot of them had dramatically different ideas for the country than what you listed. Everyone who wrote the Constitution did so with the intent of creating greater centralized federal power, but some of them wanted to take it dramatically farther than the Constitution did. There were others that wanted to take it less far too, but it hardly seems that you could state that the founders had a particular, coherent vision.

That's the nature of true compromise though. There was give and take on both sides. Frankly, I glad Hamilton's vision didn't come to full fruition at that time.

 

[BoberFett]

This is a baffling argument. Who cares if the laws were written by dead people? I don't care about social security because people cared about it 50 years ago, I care about it because people care about it now. Where did you come up with this nonsense?

I want a small, limited federal government. Just because you don't care what the framers of the Constitution thought doesn't mean I don't care.

What I don't care about is social security. So why is that your opinion about which dead people we should or should not care about is more valid than mine?

You're right, we definitely should not care about what dead people think. We should care about what living people think though, and they don't want to gut the federal government. Pretty simple, huh?

Lots of living people DO want to gut the federal government. Again, what makes your opinion more valid?

 

[dphantom]

My biggest issues is that I have no faith in the moral restraint of politicians

I do as well. I think the idea of a government that is asked to meet all our wants has evolved over time and is one if not the major reason why we are departing from our Founding.

The more we ask of our government, the more control that government needs to deliver on those wants. And the centralization of power and growth of bureaucracy grows in conjunction with the fulfillment of those wants.

Our central government was designed to be limited, only with specific enumerated powers. Over time, those restraints have loosened or been interpreted such that I believe our Founders would not agree.

 

[soulcougher73]

I also dont really care what these dead people envisioned. If we can envision something better today than we should adopt these changes as our constitution allows for this. Times change, people grow smarter. Cant be stuck in the past all the time with CBD.

Im not saying we cant learn from these people, but they are not the end all be all of thinking.

 

[fskimospy]

My biggest issues is that I have no faith in the moral restraint of politicians. The founders didn't intend for people to make a lifetime career of being in congress. They were expected to serve for a while then have to go back to live with the consequences of the laws they passed. Our country is so polarized today that the rancor between the two sides would push towards a never ending 'we won' attitude, leading to the potential for tyranny of the majority. I thinks this is part of what drove the compromise decision to have 2 houses of congress, not just a blind copy. Just out of curiosity, how much of the writings of the founders have your read? I admit I'm not an expert, but I do know a few people who are VERY literate on the founders and have had many discussions about their thoughts.

I'm not so sure that they didn't want career politicians. Quite a few of them were effectively career politicians. As an example of some differing views, Alexander Hamilton wanted a democratically elected president who would serve for life. Basically a democratic king.

I'm modestly familiar with their writings. I've read all the major federalist papers, but that was about 8 years ago.

 

[fskimospy]

I want a small, limited federal government. Just because you don't care what the framers of the Constitution thought doesn't mean I don't care.

What I don't care about is social security. So why is that your opinion about which dead people we should or should not care about is more valid than mine?

I'm not sure where you're getting this whole line of argument. I don't think we should care about any dead person's opinion. My support for social security is entirely based on living people's opinions.

If anything, you appear to be reinforcing my point about how silly it is to care about what dead people think.

Lots of living people DO want to gut the federal government. Again, what makes your opinion more valid?

Because far more living people don't want to gut the federal government. Considering the type of system we live in, that might not make the opinion more valid, but it does make it the opinion that we're going to follow.

 

[dphantom]

I also dont really care what these dead people envisioned. If we can envision something better today than we should adopt these changes as our constitution allows for this. Times change, people grow smarter. Cant be stuck in the past all the time with CBD.

Im not saying we cant learn from these people, but they are not the end all be all of thinking.

And there is a process called amending the constitution to do that if you do not like what old dead guys developed.

But to date, I have seen little that would make me believe our elected body has anywhere near the insight to make changes that would be better than what was done in the original Founding.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I do as well. I think the idea of a government that is asked to meet all our wants has evolved over time and is one if not the major reason why we are departing from our Founding.

The more we ask of our government, the more control that government needs to deliver on those wants. And the centralization of power and growth of bureaucracy grows in conjunction with the fulfillment of those wants.

Our central government was designed to be limited, only with specific enumerated powers. Over time, those restraints have loosened or been interpreted such that I believe our Founders would not agree.

As the saying goes, democracy doesn't survive long after the citizens discover that they can vote themselves funds from the public treasury.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I'm not so sure that they didn't want career politicians. Quite a few of them were effectively career politicians. As an example of some differing views, Alexander Hamilton wanted a democratically elected president who would serve for life. Basically a democratic king.

I'm modestly familiar with their writings. I've read all the major federalist papers, but that was about 8 years ago.

True, which is why I'm glad Hamilton's opinion didn't prevail

 

[FerrelGeek]

Smarter??? Really???? I agree that we have advanced scientifically / technologically since their day, but that doesn't mean that we're smarter by any means. You have to have CBD to make a claim like that. accumulation of scientific / technological knowledge does not necessarily translate into increased intelligence or (more importantly) wisdom.

I also dont really care what these dead people envisioned. If we can envision something better today than we should adopt these changes as our constitution allows for this. Times change, people grow smarter. Cant be stuck in the past all the time with CBD.

Im not saying we cant learn from these people, but they are not the end all be all of thinking.

 

[dphantom]

You have to have CBD

proudly displaying CBD.

 

[Knowing]

This is incorrect. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not visions of the founders. Understanding that our law is based on current documents that are legally in force and not the presumed whims of individuals that are centuries dead is an important part of understanding how our system of government works.

We can make the Constitution whatever we want. Indeed, the current Constitution differs dramatically from their "vision". So again I ask, why do we care what they thought?

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't care what they thought when we re-mis-understand what's written in the document instead of amending it according to the process that they set up when we want to change it arbitrarily with a minimum of muss and fuss?

Or are you saying that since we've deviated so far from what they envisioned that we should disregard it entirely and start over?

The very definition of democracy is voting for anything related to the government.

This is wrong, curse wikipedia for insisting with no basis that it's true.

It doesn't have to be all people voting that are being ruled either. As long as there is a voting process and that some form of government function is being altered by the voting process that is a democracy by definition.

Then how would anything occur in a pure republic? If they vote on it then there is no republic because it's a democracy.... then of course you'll say "A-ha! That's because every republic is a democracy!" Which is, of course, incorrect.

Republic comes from Res publica or "a common affair," modern idiots have conflated anything that doesn't have an aristocracy as a republic. This takes the whole sovereignty (the royals were sovereign) out of the equation when that is central and inseparable from it. In a democracy only the majority opinion is sovereign. If the majority opinion is not sovereign, then it's not a democracy it is merely democratic. The US is a republic because all political power is derived from all of the people, who all have documented rights that supersede the will of any simple majority.

We have voting for various government functions at all levels of government. Votes range from ballots to placing in government officials. The range of voting goes from local to the top federal level.

You said United States so I commented on the United States, which is not a democracy. I mentioned that the states, which are geographic and political entities within the United States, are more democratic. Still, none of them can be democracies because the constitution guarantees a republican form of government and all the states ratified the constitution and some created their own. Since these documents -by definition- supersede the power of a simple democratic majority the form of government cannot be a democracy.

Democracy doesn't state that everything must be voted upon either. The moment any government function at any level is decided by a vote of any sort, there you have a democracy by definition.

No, you have a democratic process. Sharing candy around the holidays doesn't make a classroom communist.

Hence our government has always been a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

Still incorrect.

 

[FerrelGeek]

proudly displaying CBD.

lol.

Don't mean to derail the thread, but I'd love to see what the scientists / engineers of the 19th - mid 20th centuries could do with our technology.

 

[fskimospy]

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't care what they thought when we re-mis-understand what's written in the document instead of amending it according to the process that they set up when we want to change it arbitrarily with a minimum of muss and fuss?

Or are you saying that since we've deviated so far from what they envisioned that we should disregard it entirely and start over?

Neither of those. Try again!

 

[Knowing]

Neither of those. Try again!

It'd be easier for you to just tell me.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Well we've got militarized peace officers galore, far reaching executive orders and the NSA to govern us now with plenty of folks who are just fine with that situation/arrangement. People are more concerned with those pesky terrorists or dancing with the stars than their own civil liberties being flushed down the shitter.Throw in the disregard for basic accountability, the new definition of leadership and the nonstop partisan hackery from our President, Congress and even on these boards and we've been effectively divided and conquered. Congrats....

 

[fskimospy]

It'd be easier for you to just tell me.

I already did.

 

[fskimospy]

Well we've got militarized peace officers galore, far reaching executive orders and the NSA to govern us now with plenty of folks who are just fine with that situation/arrangement. People are more concerned with those pesky terrorists or dancing with the stars than their own civil liberties being flushed down the shitter.Throw in the disregard for basic accountability, the new definition of leadership and the nonstop partisan hackery from our President, Congress and even on these boards and we've been effectively divided and conquered. Congrats....

It's actually pretty alarming how ok the founding fathers were with things like that. I mean the Alien and Sedition Acts were pretty horrifying and yet they were signed into law by one of those freedom loving founding fathers and passed in a Congress that contained quite a few freedom loving founding fathers.

 

[alzan]

The US government contains no element of representative democracy. None of our democratically elected representatives are obligated in any way to vote how their constituents want them to. Incumbency is a powerful thing.

Actually they are obligated, just as we are obligated to tell them our thoughts on a particular piece of legislation; else we can vote them out next election. The citizenry has just as much a role in how our government operates as those we elect.

The fact that corporate lobbyists, greed and the desire for power have more influence over our elected representatives shows only how the system has become perverted.

It is incumbent on us all to participate in this representative democracy to the best of our ability.

 

[HumblePie]

This is wrong, curse wikipedia for insisting with no basis that it's true.
.

Curse wikipedia? LOL. That is the very definition and etymology of the word. It is how it is used also in common parlance. If you are voting for someone you are going through a democratic process.

Origin of the word is greek from "rule of the people" which means that multiple people have an equal say in how to rule. As demos in greek is people, and kratia in greek is power. Power to the people.

A true democracy government would be one where practically everything was put to a vote by all members of the society for any government structure. That is for the most part impractical and always has been. That why any "true" democracy government has only been done on small scale. But a government can still be a democratic based government as long as the democratic process is part of the layering range of the government structure. Don't care if you don't believe that, but it is true.


http://www.ushistory.org/gov/1c.asp

Really you need to go back to class on this.

 

[HumblePie]

It's actually pretty alarming how ok the founding fathers were with things like that. I mean the Alien and Sedition Acts were pretty horrifying and yet they were signed into law by one of those freedom loving founding fathers and passed in a Congress that contained quite a few freedom loving founding fathers.

They had high ideas, but still also had the same law past history from England. Look up the whiskey rebellion and what our first president did there. Look at how the treasury was establish as well as centralized banking. Heck they still allowed slavery.

Still, the had the intentions of making as free a country as possible with the ground work in the future to hopefully be freer as possible. But things don't always work out the way they were intentioned.

 

[DrPizza]

Yes, I read it. Where did I blast anything?

It's very obvious what this country is, and how it was intended to be. Anyone who thinks its anything close to a democracy needs a lesson on history and government.

Your hypersensitivity is getting the best of you. :\

If you read the OP, then you have some serious reading comprehension problems. Though the article describes a democracy, Aristotle's and other's thoughts on why democracies are bad, and some of the things that went wrong with Athens; it doesn't suppose for a moment that the US is anywhere near a democracy. Why don't you re-read the last 3 paragraphs. edit: fixed.

 

[alcoholbob]

I wonder why the Constitution was never amended with the clarifications from the Federalist Papers? It seems like we could have saved alot of time an effort and Supreme Court exercises if the Constitution had simply been more clear, rather than publishing some op-eds in the newspaper.

 

[Vic]

Quick question: why do we care what the founders envisioned? They've been dead for several centuries.

The more important question IMO is how can they claim to know what the founders envisioned? Not because they're long passed, but because they had very divided opinions while they were still alive.

Anyway, to address the article, the federal and state governments are still very much republican, as required by the Constitution. Local governments, city and county, seem to run the spectrum from hyper democracy to quasi-dictatorship, but this is allowed by the Constitution too.