Posted on Apr 24, 2018
VetSpective: Democracy Is Dying — Veterans, We Must Defend It Again
57K
748
205
150
150
0
Right, left. Republicans, Democrats. Libertarians, Liberals. Conservatives, Conservationists. Trump, Never-Trump.
These are just some of the frames through which we, as a nation, have contemplated American politics and have driven American political discourse. Yet, some believe that politics in the United States is no longer left versus right. Rather, they argue, it is now nationalist versus globalist.
There are certainly structural changes occurring within our politics. But this framing fails to capture what should actually be the dominant frame within our politics.
The great political challenge of our time is between those who support, defend, and believe in democracy — and those who do not.
In short, democracy is dying.
And recently departed national security advisor, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster said as much in a speech last week in Washington DC:
“Tonight, we celebrate this proud history at a critical moment for our nations and the world – critical because we are now engaged in a fundamental contest between our free and open societies and closed and repressive systems….We are presently engaged in competitions with repressive and authoritarian systems to defend our way of life, to preserve our free and open societies.”
This contest is not just playing out overseas. It is unfolding right here at home.
A recent Washington Post-University of Maryland poll found that negative attitudes among Americans in relation to democracy continues to rise with the percentage doubling in the last three years: from 18-percent to 36-percent. In the same poll, seven in ten Americans said that our country’s divisions are as big as they were during the Vietnam War era. Moreover, 71-percent of respondents said that “problems in American politics” have reached a dangerously low point.
And among Millennials, the retreat from democracy is even more alarming. According to an October 2017 study by Pew Research, 46-percent of Millennials are more likely to prefer technocracy to democracy. Equally concerning, in another survey published in the Journal of Democracy, one-quarter of Millennials agreed that “choosing leaders through free elections is unimportant.” In fact, young people surveyed in both Europe in the United States have such a negative view of democracy that they are open to trying something new. Say, a military coup…
That’s right, shockingly only 36-percent of Millennials in Europe and 19-percent of Millennials in the United States “believe military takeover is not legitimate in a democracy.”
And this is all happening within a context of Russian President Vladimir Putin aggressively pursuing a new form of warfare known as “maskirovka” — a warfare that attacks the most precious assets in the United States — the American people — to amplify and enlarge negative attitudes about our democracy. An insidious strategy of undermining us from within.
As McMaster asserts:
“He [Putin] may believe that his aggressive actions in the parks of Salisbury and cyberspace, in the air and on the high seas can undermine our confidence, our institutions, and our values. Perhaps he believes that our free nations are weak and will not respond – will not respond to his provocations.”
So, what does this all mean for us?
We, Veterans, must defend democracy again — but now here at home.
Veterans must become the unifying voice that protects our democracy. We must support the will of the people by running for and participating in elections. We must advocate for the rule of law over the power of any individual. We must demonstrate the power of free societies to create and build. And we must defend our Constitution and the values and principles of enlightenment that underpin it. Why? Because, simply put, unlike many Americans, we have seen the alternative — up close and personal.
We have been eyewitness to the torture, enslavement, oppression, and murder of communist and authoritarian regimes. We, veterans, must stand up against those who either glamorize or apologize in the unwitting service to authoritarian and repressive regimes.
There is no doubt that democratic self-governance requires an enlightened citizenry. We must also invest in education — particularly civics education. And we must focus on and celebrate the strength and power of democracy and free peoples. Again, McMaster:
“...Russian aggression is strengthening our resolve and our confidence. We might all help Mr. Putin understand his grave error. We might show him the beaches of Normandy, where lingering craters and bullet holes demonstrate the West’s will to sacrifice to preserve our freedom. We might bring him to our concert halls and theaters, where the music and art of our people reveal our freedom to create, imagine, and to dream. We might take him to our universities, where the free exchange of ideas among young men and women displays our freedom to learn, to speak, and to achieve our highest aims. We might lead him to the stately buildings here in Washington, where inscriptions carved deep into stone proclaim that we are free to worship, equal under the law, and opposed to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
We have a new mission. A mission to defend our democracy — in our communities, our states, and in our country. Let us become the stalwart stewards of our democracy, chief advocates for our liberty, and thoughtful caretakers of our founding.
My fellow Veterans, our service to the nation is only beginning.
We must defend democracy — from dying.
Alex Gallo is the author of “VetSpective” and a veteran.
These are just some of the frames through which we, as a nation, have contemplated American politics and have driven American political discourse. Yet, some believe that politics in the United States is no longer left versus right. Rather, they argue, it is now nationalist versus globalist.
There are certainly structural changes occurring within our politics. But this framing fails to capture what should actually be the dominant frame within our politics.
The great political challenge of our time is between those who support, defend, and believe in democracy — and those who do not.
In short, democracy is dying.
And recently departed national security advisor, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster said as much in a speech last week in Washington DC:
“Tonight, we celebrate this proud history at a critical moment for our nations and the world – critical because we are now engaged in a fundamental contest between our free and open societies and closed and repressive systems….We are presently engaged in competitions with repressive and authoritarian systems to defend our way of life, to preserve our free and open societies.”
This contest is not just playing out overseas. It is unfolding right here at home.
A recent Washington Post-University of Maryland poll found that negative attitudes among Americans in relation to democracy continues to rise with the percentage doubling in the last three years: from 18-percent to 36-percent. In the same poll, seven in ten Americans said that our country’s divisions are as big as they were during the Vietnam War era. Moreover, 71-percent of respondents said that “problems in American politics” have reached a dangerously low point.
And among Millennials, the retreat from democracy is even more alarming. According to an October 2017 study by Pew Research, 46-percent of Millennials are more likely to prefer technocracy to democracy. Equally concerning, in another survey published in the Journal of Democracy, one-quarter of Millennials agreed that “choosing leaders through free elections is unimportant.” In fact, young people surveyed in both Europe in the United States have such a negative view of democracy that they are open to trying something new. Say, a military coup…
That’s right, shockingly only 36-percent of Millennials in Europe and 19-percent of Millennials in the United States “believe military takeover is not legitimate in a democracy.”
And this is all happening within a context of Russian President Vladimir Putin aggressively pursuing a new form of warfare known as “maskirovka” — a warfare that attacks the most precious assets in the United States — the American people — to amplify and enlarge negative attitudes about our democracy. An insidious strategy of undermining us from within.
As McMaster asserts:
“He [Putin] may believe that his aggressive actions in the parks of Salisbury and cyberspace, in the air and on the high seas can undermine our confidence, our institutions, and our values. Perhaps he believes that our free nations are weak and will not respond – will not respond to his provocations.”
So, what does this all mean for us?
We, Veterans, must defend democracy again — but now here at home.
Veterans must become the unifying voice that protects our democracy. We must support the will of the people by running for and participating in elections. We must advocate for the rule of law over the power of any individual. We must demonstrate the power of free societies to create and build. And we must defend our Constitution and the values and principles of enlightenment that underpin it. Why? Because, simply put, unlike many Americans, we have seen the alternative — up close and personal.
We have been eyewitness to the torture, enslavement, oppression, and murder of communist and authoritarian regimes. We, veterans, must stand up against those who either glamorize or apologize in the unwitting service to authoritarian and repressive regimes.
There is no doubt that democratic self-governance requires an enlightened citizenry. We must also invest in education — particularly civics education. And we must focus on and celebrate the strength and power of democracy and free peoples. Again, McMaster:
“...Russian aggression is strengthening our resolve and our confidence. We might all help Mr. Putin understand his grave error. We might show him the beaches of Normandy, where lingering craters and bullet holes demonstrate the West’s will to sacrifice to preserve our freedom. We might bring him to our concert halls and theaters, where the music and art of our people reveal our freedom to create, imagine, and to dream. We might take him to our universities, where the free exchange of ideas among young men and women displays our freedom to learn, to speak, and to achieve our highest aims. We might lead him to the stately buildings here in Washington, where inscriptions carved deep into stone proclaim that we are free to worship, equal under the law, and opposed to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
We have a new mission. A mission to defend our democracy — in our communities, our states, and in our country. Let us become the stalwart stewards of our democracy, chief advocates for our liberty, and thoughtful caretakers of our founding.
My fellow Veterans, our service to the nation is only beginning.
We must defend democracy — from dying.
Alex Gallo is the author of “VetSpective” and a veteran.
Military History
Mentorship
VetSpective
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 76
91
91
0
Sorry to be the one to point this out, but it needs pointing out. We didn't sign on to defend democracy. We swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Sadly, we haven't been doing a very good job. The government has grown far beyond the enumerated powers. The three branches of government have been usurped by the bureaucracy and the separation of powers is gone. All powers - executive, legislative, and judicial - are now consolidated in federal bureaus and agencies. It's now like the Cold War. They are at war with us while we pretend that peace reigns. We need a Ronald Reagan to kick us in the pants and put us on the offensive before its too late. I fear it may already be too late...
(91)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
America was not founded as a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic! Democracy must be stamped out everywhere it rears it's ugly head. Democracy is the pathway to tyranny and that is just what most on the Left want. Our oath is to 'Defend and protect the Constitution', not a democracy.
(4)
(0)
SFC Dagmar Riley
Also, children in schools must get better education about History, Government, Politics; many are totally clueless. I had a 23 year old ask me the other day about the procedures of voting and how to get information on what votes are coming up; that’s the very basic stuff and should have been covered in Highschool when you graduate from there. Needless to say the individual was showered with lots of information by me along with many government links they can use to get even more information. How is it even possible that kids today graduate without even having the basic knowledge of how their country is run and how to get laws changed etc.?
(6)
(0)
Cpl Phil Hsueh
A good start would be for the President to look at the overlap in government agencies and get rid of that overlap. Whichever agency has been doing X for better or longer is in charge of X and all others need to stop and let the personnnel that do that retire, quit, transfer, or whatever.
Next would be to limit Congressional staffs, every Senator and Congressman only gets so many staff members, anything beyond that number comes out of their paycheck.
Next would be to limit Congressional staffs, every Senator and Congressman only gets so many staff members, anything beyond that number comes out of their paycheck.
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
64
63
1
CPT Alex Gallo This long treatise is along the same lines and worrysome. I DO NOT KNOW WHO AUTHORED THIS….SURE MAKES YOU THINK !
How do civil wars happen?
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge.
That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.
The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.
What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.
That's a civil war.
There's no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.
This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship. Your very own dictatorship.
The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without the judge's say so, that's the civil war.
Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system that runs this country. The Democrats' system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.
If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.
But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him. That's how the game is played That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.
When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.
The Constitution has something to say about that.
Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.
Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in it if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.
Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.
That's not a free country.
It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.
Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.
How do civil wars happen?
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge.
That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.
The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.
What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.
That's a civil war.
There's no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.
This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship. Your very own dictatorship.
The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without the judge's say so, that's the civil war.
Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system that runs this country. The Democrats' system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.
If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.
But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him. That's how the game is played That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.
When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.
The Constitution has something to say about that.
Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.
Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in it if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.
Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.
That's not a free country.
It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.
Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.
(64)
(1)
PO1 Gerald Sutton
Wrong. The supreme court gave bush his first term. Hillary won the popular vote by three million. The electoral college put trump in.
(3)
(0)
PO1 Gerald Sutton
SPC Erich Guenther if you buy into fox version of what's happening, you are part of the problem
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
The Mueller investigation is just an investigation. Doesn't anybody want to know the truth? Or we are just into slandering only? The investigation has convicted how many people? Some of them pleaded guilty. It is either our court system is totally broken or the investigation is doing its job. The last investigation was about the Whitewater scandal and the investigator turned to the POTUS's extramarital affairs. Was it related to the Whitewater scandal? No. Do these convictions from the Mueller's investigation relate to the subject of investigation? If the investigation didn't find anything, good. The POTUS can say that he didn't do anything wrong. If we labeled an investigation to be politically charged and it shouldn't happen, we should just abolish the prison system now. The prisoners are not criminals, just victims of the political system.
(3)
(0)
Cpl Bill Johnson
It wasn't a bunch of democrats at the Capitol on 1.6.21, that were trying to overturn an election, Sgt Major. I am disappointed to hear the victim screed come from a career senior NCO.
(0)
(0)
43
43
0
The so-called danger to our Constitutional Republic is that we have an underground element that believes they know more that the voting public and are determined to effect the outcome of our Constitutionally elected officials. All we, as active duty military, and veterans need to do is be true to the oath you took when you joined the military.
"The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin) "
"The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin) "
(43)
(0)
CSM Clifford Fargason
MSgt Steve Sweeney - That quote may be spurious, but his point is correct. We are definitely not a Democracy. When voting for President we actually vote for electors, not one of the candidates (do some research on the Electoral College). It took an amendment to the Constitution for senators to be elected by popular vote, by design they were supposed to be appointed by state legislators.
(3)
(0)
CSM Clifford Fargason
MSgt Steve Sweeney - You need to do some basic research. In the US we elect representatives who then make the decisions, thus a republic. In straight democracy the people vote on everything, and it eventually becomes mob rule. Our government is designed so that the more populous states cannot run roughshod over the smaller states, so not a pure democracy.
You are also incorrect in your comment about a communist or islamic republic. The people of those countries get to vote. Opposition parties will be hobbled and harassed, vote counts may be manipulated, but they do have a vote.
You are also incorrect in your comment about a communist or islamic republic. The people of those countries get to vote. Opposition parties will be hobbled and harassed, vote counts may be manipulated, but they do have a vote.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Yea, where you suffer a fundamental misunderstanding of our Republic versus other Republics, and the relationship between the base-sovereign - "The People." While the government derives it's just powers from the "consent of the governed," the Governed don't do any governing. The American Republic, which operates using some democratic principles, is governed by elected representatives and based on LAWs made by those representatives with their consent (as they were elected to those positions democratically, by the people, thus granting their consent to be governed).
As far as your cited, and expressly valid quite that you assert projects the notion of America is a Democracy in the eyes of Lincoln, I would contend a few things for you to open your mind to consider: Lincoln refers to "Our Republic," and "This Republic" in nearly every speech he ever gave and never refers to the United States as a Democracy that I can find... If you can, tell me please. The inference YOU see int eh statement, "... that government of the people, by the people, for the people..." could just as easily be interpreted to promote Republicanism and the Republican form of Government. Let's break it down. 1) "...a government of the people..." is a government, as described above who provide their consent to be governed by electing representatives from within their ranks and society; representatives who are Americans, and understand American issues and concerns - a government not run by an elite Royal Class, Wealthy Aristocracy, or Foreign Power (note: this is the one way our Republic may be questionably in violation of the spirit of this phrase...) 2) "...a government by the people..." is a government, as described above who provide their consent to be governed by, a. voting for representative who they approve to govern in their stead and with the expectation that they will be responsive to them as constituents, and b. not rising perpetually in rebellion under the established system for peaceful transition of power when elected representative terms are expired. Finally 3), a government "...for the people..." implies that the Representatives doing the governing are held accountable to the people by the people and the system for that is not direct Democracy or mob rule aka civil disturbance, but the election cycle and process and if applicable, term limits.
Let me remind you, as stated in my initial response here that, [The establishment of the United States under the Constitution of the United States articulates very clearly that ... "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." (Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution). ] this statement is irrefutable in it's place in the Constitution and a such is definitive. You can push the spirit of Democratic Rule, which is in practice in some aspects of American Government, but it IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. The fact that the People of the U.S. Consent to this government does not make it a Democracy - Democracy is a government ruled by the people, without the implication that there are laws governing such rule - A Republic is a government ruled by the peoples elected/selected representatives within a structure of LAW.
Re: "other republics" I think you have to be a little less grammatically dogmatic and take them for what they are, not necessarily what they declare themselves to be. Calling yourself a Republic, when your government is actually a statist/centrist oligarchy no more makes you a Republic, than does your affinity for the romantic notion of Democracy make your Republic a Democracy... People will impose their will on the interpretation of what their government is to sway public opinion towards a position relative to that government which advances their political/social aims. That's what those who insist The United States of America is a Democracy, are doing.
As far as your cited, and expressly valid quite that you assert projects the notion of America is a Democracy in the eyes of Lincoln, I would contend a few things for you to open your mind to consider: Lincoln refers to "Our Republic," and "This Republic" in nearly every speech he ever gave and never refers to the United States as a Democracy that I can find... If you can, tell me please. The inference YOU see int eh statement, "... that government of the people, by the people, for the people..." could just as easily be interpreted to promote Republicanism and the Republican form of Government. Let's break it down. 1) "...a government of the people..." is a government, as described above who provide their consent to be governed by electing representatives from within their ranks and society; representatives who are Americans, and understand American issues and concerns - a government not run by an elite Royal Class, Wealthy Aristocracy, or Foreign Power (note: this is the one way our Republic may be questionably in violation of the spirit of this phrase...) 2) "...a government by the people..." is a government, as described above who provide their consent to be governed by, a. voting for representative who they approve to govern in their stead and with the expectation that they will be responsive to them as constituents, and b. not rising perpetually in rebellion under the established system for peaceful transition of power when elected representative terms are expired. Finally 3), a government "...for the people..." implies that the Representatives doing the governing are held accountable to the people by the people and the system for that is not direct Democracy or mob rule aka civil disturbance, but the election cycle and process and if applicable, term limits.
Let me remind you, as stated in my initial response here that, [The establishment of the United States under the Constitution of the United States articulates very clearly that ... "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." (Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution). ] this statement is irrefutable in it's place in the Constitution and a such is definitive. You can push the spirit of Democratic Rule, which is in practice in some aspects of American Government, but it IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. The fact that the People of the U.S. Consent to this government does not make it a Democracy - Democracy is a government ruled by the people, without the implication that there are laws governing such rule - A Republic is a government ruled by the peoples elected/selected representatives within a structure of LAW.
Re: "other republics" I think you have to be a little less grammatically dogmatic and take them for what they are, not necessarily what they declare themselves to be. Calling yourself a Republic, when your government is actually a statist/centrist oligarchy no more makes you a Republic, than does your affinity for the romantic notion of Democracy make your Republic a Democracy... People will impose their will on the interpretation of what their government is to sway public opinion towards a position relative to that government which advances their political/social aims. That's what those who insist The United States of America is a Democracy, are doing.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MSgt Steve Sweeney - You said - "I understand you have attached yourself to an erroneous definition because you don't like Democrats, but your dislike of Democrats does not change the meaning of "democratic", nor does it enhance the word "republic"."
I do not think anyone has stated a single time in this thread... "I don't like Democrats." The fact that you perceive this as a motivation for this argument demonstrates that you DO have an express motivation beyond trying to understand the nature of our United States Government, which is defined by itself, Constitutionally, as a Republic. I was having fun with this debate, despite your condescension, until I saw you wrote this. Now I get you... you're motives are clearly revealed.
I do not think anyone has stated a single time in this thread... "I don't like Democrats." The fact that you perceive this as a motivation for this argument demonstrates that you DO have an express motivation beyond trying to understand the nature of our United States Government, which is defined by itself, Constitutionally, as a Republic. I was having fun with this debate, despite your condescension, until I saw you wrote this. Now I get you... you're motives are clearly revealed.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google