As far back as I have memory regarding the formation of the structure of American government, the phrase “We’re a republic, not a democracy,” has been part of my education. And once I came to understand those two words I recognized how troublesome the distinction has become.
And it was clear to me that when people said this, they didn’t really understand the words.
For all practical purposes in American, a Republic and a democracy are the same thing. Republic means a government of the people with elected leaders, as opposed to a monarch. A democracy is also a government of the people with either elected representatives, or the voting by all the eligible persons. They’re the same thing until you dig into the weeds. It is the second form of democracy that America is not, at least not wholly.
Generally when people push back against democracy from any knowledgeable position, they are thinking of a pure democracy, where everyone votes on every issue, and every decision should reflect the will of the majority on that issue. And no, that’s not so very good. It is unwieldy in anything larger than a small group or straight yes or no questions. Though is done all across the country in ballot initiatives and millage requests. Here the whole population votes up or down on a proposal or request for funding. This may be at the township level or even the whole state. This really is purely democratic. How many want pizza for dinner, and how many want tacos?
A republic uses democratic processes for the people to choose representatives who will advance their interests, and debate with other representatives to arrive at sound decisions for the whole of the people. In our Republic this comes with two caveats: One is that we can’t always get what we want; and the other is that sometimes your representative must decide differently than the majority of their constituents wish, because that is what is best for the whole of the people. We pick representatives to make decisions on our behalf, with the expectation that they will follow the wishes of the people, so far as this is practical and reasonable.
How many want each of these candidates to speak for us in the legislature? That’s democracy in a republic.
So whenever I heard someone present that phrase to me, I first understood that it wasn’t a cogent argument, but a buzzword made to shut down discussion. But I failed to learn that there is another angle to this concept.
There are those who see the republic/democracy line not as a nuanced pedantry of language, but as a difference more profound. They seem to define democracy as mob rule, and republic as rule by a selected group. And with some thought you can make this work. It takes careful selection of definition of each word to get there, but for someone who just doesn’t want to accept democracy as an option it works.
But the meaning is more nuanced to some. Some saw the founding of America as a republic as opposed to a democracy, was because they were declaring that a certain group would do both the electing and the representing. White men.
It is true that when the founders of the United States sat down to form a government that spread the power out away from the central control of a monarch, they limited that spread to the adult white men of the country, and even at first to landowners within that group. But that wasn’t what “republic” meant.
The history of voting has gradually changed over time, and today we have universal suffrage codified in not only law, but in the amended Constitution. Any citizen 18 years of age or older may vote in elections, so long as they are not prohibited by law. Decades before we opened the vote to women, and decades before that to black men.
In a republic, a minority of the people (representatives) make government decisions on behalf of the whole of the people. We use democratic processes (voting) to choose that minority from among the population. But there are those who hold a more, shall I say, traditional view of who that ruling minority should be. In short, they think it should be white men who make up that minority. Or if pressed, at least those who acknowledge the supremacy of that group. There are those who believe there is such a thing as a “real” American citizens, and those who should not have the same influence.
To speak simply and pedantically, a democracy is all of the people voting on all the issues; where a republic is a small group voting on the issues that all must abide by.
The former is impractical beyond a small group, and could lead to mob rule. The latter is simply when the voting group is endorsed by the whole of the people.
This is what the United States is, and the only thing that has changed is the broadening of the population that selects that minority.
Racial supremacists seek to interpret the Constitution in a way that justifies segregation and hierarchy of race. Often they will view new citizens as being less “real” then the established families of the children of earlier immigrants. They are similar to, and often overlap with those who hold deep religious convictions. In America these are almost exclusively evangelical Christians.
Their lack of Constitutional literacy and their uncritical thinking leads many to accept the interpretation of their pastors and other Christian allies. They don’t know what the Constitution says, broadly speaking, and believe the claims they are told. These claims are typically along the lines of declaring that the founders were all Christian and expected subjugation to God as a matter of course. And, when presented with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, they reinterpret meaning into particular words to mean that it is only the establishing of a church of a particular religion that is prohibited, but not following the general religious principles, or making laws reflecting the supremacy of God. Or more importantly regarding the makeup of our current Supreme Court, that the Bible is useful to lawmakers when they are unable to find precedent in law. The Bible is a higher authority, so they claim, which they also claim the founders agreed with.
To say that this interpretation is far from what was intended, is obvious to the plain reading of what those founders said. And it is still not a good idea for exactly the same reason the founders included the Establishment Clause in the first place.
They saw the history of war and persecution throughout Europe, and especially England, over which religion was the right and true representation of God’s will. The Founders were also aware that New England settlements and colonies began with Pilgrims, a devout religious order of Protestants seeking religious freedom. But that freedom was limited to favor them only. They were expressly intolerant of other religions, going way past persecution, and to outright criminal punishment for unorthodox beliefs. Some religions or sects, such as Quakers were banned in places. And only a few generations before, courts in Massachusetts put people to death believing them to be witches.
The founders knew all too well who made up the country. And they knew any interaction between the government and any church could lead to disagreement and even conflict between Americans.
Of all the things that are “America,” it is the supremacy of The People that matters most. This means that we are collectively supreme to any personal belief, regardless of how large or passionate that belief may be. But each still may hold their own beliefs, and practice their religions, so long as this does not interfere with the rights of others.
And that the decision to obey rules (or interpretations of rules) of any religion or any collection of them must be a personal choice. And it must not be one that others are forced to obey. No matter how broadly one casts the religious net, it still must remain an individual choice without persecution or alienation.
The only laws that should be passed, and restrictions that should be placed upon people regarding their behavior, are those laws that can be agreed upon through reason and debate, taking into account the public good, and ensuring the smallest encumbrance upon the liberty of individuals. But encumbrances may happen. Speech that incites violence may be suppressed, and personal beliefs may have to be set aside. If you take a job delivering the Sunday newspaper, you can’t claim religious exemption from working on the sabbath.
On occasion religions and reason will agree. Murder is bad. We are all better off if murder is prohibited against and severely punished. One’s desire to assault someone over a grievance is to be tempered by the wish that one not be also assaulted. There is no need for a commandment from an old book when we can figure that out ourselves. We do not outlaw murder because of some words in an old book. We outlaw murder because it is in the best interests of all, and it protects the individual in their pursuit of happiness.
The problems are when religion proscribes what is not reasonably reached.
Have no other God before me. Hmmm. Is it reasonable to make this requirement of the people? How could it harm individuals? If I accept imposing my religion on others, then I risk allowing others to impose their religion upon me. When I ask if my Bible shall be taught in public school, should I not agree that the religious books of others could be likewise taught to my own kids?
Here we have good reason not to permit such a commandment to become law.
The differences between religions, mostly and especially the Abrahamic religions, is correctness and devoutness of belief.
This is the same thing that led to all that European conflict that figured so prominently in the thoughts of the founders when they formed the government.
So today we have modern puritans, who overlap heavily with those who believe all Americans aren’t “real” Americans, and therefore should not choose the government.
No, the United States of America is not a pure democracy. Though it does have purely democratic elements. And through the democratic process of elections we choose our government agents.
What is common in both words is the supremacy of The People. That means all of the people.
And the government we formed when we drafted the Constitution aspired to a more perfect union of the people. Establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Practice democracy and resist authoritarianism. Vote.