Monday 3 February 2020

You Say Democracy, I Say Republic

The terms are interchangeable descriptions of the American political system, yet a fight over their meaning could have outsize consequences.

One of this age’s great crank ideas, that the U.S. is a “republic” and not a “democracy,” is gaining so much ground that people in Michigan are trying to rewrite textbooks to get rid of the term “democracy.” And the discussion is such a mess that a New York Times article about the fight manages to get it wrong.

The truth is actually simple: For all practical purposes, and in most contexts, “republic” and “democracy” are synonyms. 1 The big difference is that the first comes from Latin and the latter from Greek. To say that the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, is like claiming to eat beef and pork but not cows and pigs.

The debate may seem like hair-splitting, but it is important in the same way all assaults on knowledge are important – it’s part of the never-ending fight against attempted partisan intervention into education, whether it’s denying evolution or pretending the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. But it’s most important because opposing the idea of democracy can be a step toward opposing the reality of democracy, at a time when voting and other structures of formal equality are at risk.

In the Michigan case, the eradication of the word “democracy” is being pushed by conservatives, who want the K-12 social studies curriculum to “be based on a close, originalist reading of the United States’ founding documents,” according to the Times. Why they care isn’t really clear. Perhaps it’s in service to ultimate policy goals, but it may just be yet another form of identity politics, setting off True Conservatives from everyone else. At one point, conservatives were equally obsessed with being for “liberty” and not “freedom.” Now it’s this one.

Get the verdict, here (Bloomberg).

20 comments:

  1. Liberty has an organizing principle. Freedom, does not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imagine a highway system with no rules of the road or requirement to stay "right" (or left in your case).

      Delete
    2. Which case would maximize your ability to "go where you want" in the least amount of time? A highway with rules governing vehicle operation, or one without any rules governing same? Freedom is a bellum omni contra omnes.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I thought you would want to respond to this one!

      Delete
    4. ...and just for the record, I prefer "timocracy".

      Delete
    5. ...and NOT in the "modern" sense. In the ancient one, where the organizing principle isn't money, it's honour.

      Delete
    6. [...] it's honour.

      Does it come with an omerta? ;-)

      Delete
    7. Let him go ahead.
      Ares is a democrat.
      There are no privileged people
      on a battlefield.
      - Archilochus of Paros

      Delete
  2. 1.a form of government in which possession of property is required in order to hold office.

    2.a form of government in which rulers are motivated by ambition or love of honor.


    ORIGIN

    late 15th century: from Old French timocracie, via medieval Latin from Greek timokratia, from timÄ“ ‘honor, worth’ + -kratia ‘power’. timocracy (sense 1) reflects Aristotle's usage, timocracy (sense 2) Plato's.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It all smacks a bit of intellectual masturbation to me, farmer. Playing with syllables...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a bit of that, no doubt. But that doesn't mean we couldn't profit from the founding of a 'modern' Dionysian Chorus )Plato, "Laws") (w/corresponding exultations to virtue) to "build a new sense of identity".

      Delete
    2. erratum - "exhortations" for 'exultations', above

      Delete
  4. btw - What do you think of Michael Bloomberg's recent leveraged buyout of the DNC? Think he can shut Bernie out at the betting window?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bloomberg spiked the Iowa caucus results... Bernie has no lead and Biden is still viable... lol!

      Delete
  5. Dunno about MB but if that story is even only half true it's still a strong argument to get Big Money out of Big Politics.

    Won't be easy though. France e.g. has had a cap on campaign funds for decades. But it's also has campaign slush fund scandals for decades!

    And in the US it will even be harder to cap campaign spending... 'cos Freedom!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm convinced that Robert Mercer's donations swung it for the Leave campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://youtu.be/R_voNrPcJT0 : JD

    ReplyDelete
  8. Clinton apologists are morons by definition. But there's no shortage of them. See e.g. Neera Tanden a Debbie WS...

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete