Republic or democracy? For your friends who don't get it.

[Quartus]

I know that all of us - being well educated patriots - know the difference and how important it is. But for those of you who want a short treatise on the subject to help you in educating your friends, I suggest:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40605

James Madison was not a democrat. He denounced popular rule as "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." Democracy, he observed, must be confined to a "small spot" (like Athens). Indeed, the Bush administration's deafening demagoguery notwithstanding, democratic majoritarianism is thoroughly un-American.

Madison and the other Founders attempted to forestall democracy by devising a republic, the hallmark of which was the preservation of individual liberty. To that end, they restricted the federal government to a handful of enumerated powers. Decentralization, devolution of authority, and the restrictions on government imposed by a Bill of Rights were to ensure that few issues were left to the adjudication of a national majority.

 

[Zundfolge]

Will Wilkinson said it real well a while back in his blog.

Source

...democracy is a genus, not a species. Getting a democracy is rather like getting a mammal for a gift. Kittens are nice. Wolverines will lunch on your eyeballs. You don't drop a wolverine in your friend's lap, and then walk away feeling you've done them a favor, since the best pets are mammals. Democracy names a vast range of possible institutional structures. There are good reasons to believe that certain kinds of democracy promote stable, mutually advantageous social order. However, other forms of democracy create incentives for corruption, dominance by special interest, and social instability. It's true that the best pets are mammals, but it's not an especially useful thing to know. What we're really interested in is whether, say, Vizslas are better with kids than Weimeraners.

 

[Quartus]

Q: How many deconstructionists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: The Nile is the longest river in Egypt.


"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." --Humpty Dumpty


We've been dumbed down a long way.

 

[Dwight55]

Whenever the politicians start running their chops, . . . I truly enjoy sitting back listening to the ignorance of the Kennedy's, Kerry's and "whats his face from down south" as they go on about our great democracy.

Then I just quietly sit back and recite the pledge of allegiance I have made for the last 50+ years: " . . . . and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, . . .

Guess they really are from different planets, time zones.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[Hugh Damright]

From Federalist 51:

There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.