IOW, we are a Republic with a Democratic form of government, or so it was thought until recently. The Republican Party and Rove/Dubya do not like the system as it is, so they have set about attempting to change it to favor the extreme right-wing faction of their party.

we are a Republic that is ruled by the people. a Democratic Republic, in the true sense, no like in Chinas official name...

regardless of the similarity in the names of our partys (Republican, Democratic) they dont really correlate with the meaning of the word republic or democracy.

Politics have no relation to moral- Niccolo Machiavelli

 

Anyone who studies governments knows the problems associated with "Pure Democracy". It's impractical for large groups, hence we have representative democracy. This is our form of government and is commonly referred to as a "Republican Democracy". Nevertheless, 'Democracy' suffers from an even more serious flaw; it tends to result in "mob rule" or the "tyranny of the majority".

The 'generalization' of the term Republic into the word Democracy isn't by accident; Democracy is the preferred form of government by those who seek to gain undue control over the government (and subsequently, the people), allowing for the "majority" party to rule as it pleases. It's subtle, but it's very much against the vision of the Founding Fathers, and bodes poorly for the freedom, liberty and independence of individuals, and the minority (as opposed to the majority), no matter how large, of the people.

Our Founding Fathers, attempting to incorporate the best elements of Democracy, while implementing a Republic, via the use of a founding document, the Constituion, built in a system of checks and balances, required the government to operate under the "rule of law", and to ensure the freedoms and liberties of the people by requiring the laws, and enforcement of those laws, are consistent with the Bill of Rights.

"Faction" is the bane of Democracy; people, following human nature are unable to avoid developing sub-groups based around their preferences. These factions then begin to try to force their vision upon others. Our government automatically makes it difficult for the factions to enact their own laws (this begins to break down when the "majority" takes over all three branches); but when considering the executive branch, based around enormous power being assigned to a single individual, the need for having individuals who are not patisan (particularly, members of the majority faction) becomes seriously important. The only protections we had were the method by which the president was selected; ensuring a difficulty for a majority faction from electing one of their own members. Of course, we also have term limits; but that is of only modest help. Most people don't even know that our government was originally designed to prevent the presidency/vice-presidency from being partisan or at least of even being in the same party, and really intended to obtain neutral or non-factional choices. Of course, times changed.

I was generally unaware of how corrupted our government really was, relative to the ensured fairness built into it originally. The development of super-factions or "political parties" wasn't something the Founding Father's had prepared for. They didn't realize people would give up thinking for themselves and deliver their votes over to individual political parties (at least, it seems this wasn't considered fully), especially just two. By virtue of political parties, our whole approach to selecting an independent president has been completely tossed out by actual amendments to the Constitution. The result is the spectacle of highly partisan public campaigns for the presidency; something most of us couldn't imagine not having. Indeed, we almost feel that our ability to vote for president is our most important freedom, and our most important input into our government.

Nevertheless, if you've ever wondered why we seem to have so little input into the selection of which candidates are presented to us as potential presidential contenders, that's the reason. That's the reason we end up having to choose between bad and worse, dumb and dumber or the lesser of two evils. Ultimately, in terms of our best interests as a people and a nation, the best approach, the original approach, actually means that we as a people wouldn't have a great deal of input into who is chosen for our president. Considering the 'flaws' inherently involved in "majority rule", if we're honest, we really should suspect the 'wisdom' of a president elected based on popularity (popular vote) (or "mob rule"). We've seen examples of just how misguided such a vote can be, how easily it can be manipulated by the media (especially since the advent of television and the science behind advertising--almost mind control). Properly speaking, the presidency isn't even supposed to be as "Powerful" as it is; it's just one branch of the government, and the more powerful it gets, the closer to despotism we come. Surely most of us have a sense of how wrong things have gone in our government, our "democracy". A time when one has to actually do some research to discover that many of the great minds have all agreed that pure democracy is seriously flawed, and we seem to have collectively forgotten the wise reasoning our founding fathers used when they deliberately included so many mechanisms to avoid the flaws of Democracy (and how hard it is to accept that it has been perverted by the rise of organized partisan politics).

While I think I'm doing a tolerable job of explaining this, the source is ever so much better. Therefor I refer you to the actual explanation; a paper which reviews the history of presidential elections, the constitution, the founder's intentions, what has happened and how it affects our lives and country.

It really is worth a read; it's worth it for the understanding of history alone. I think it could have a more easily understood title, but the material is very clear. Please check it out; if only to set me straight.

"The Descent of America from Constitutional Republic
into a Legislated Social Democracy"

By Kamron Kirkconnell

http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/decent_of_the_republic.htm

Any form of government is preferrable to a republic. In a republic the people submit to allowing others to rule over them. They have no self respect and no honor. At least in a dictatorship the people have not submitted to their rulers. The rulers seize power. But in a republic people forfeit their souls by SUBMITTING to others. I'll give you the ultimate accomplish of a republic - the Roman republic crucified God's son Jesus. That is what you get from a republic and the supporters of a republic, those foul liars the republicans. The best form of government is a democracy. In a democracy people all have equal power. People have referendums to decide issues. That is what a true democracy would look like. The present form of government here in the United States was heavily influenced by slave holders and Indian haters and killers. While I agree with the freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights ( which are of course under constant attack by the republicans ) I think the entire election system and government bureaucracy needs to be revamped. We need stronger protections for civil liberties and less powerful politicans and more power to the people via referendums and a fair, effecient and verifiable voting system. This whole republic nonsense dates back to that ass Plato. Just read his book Republic which reveals his foul notion of philosopher kings , that some people are better than others and should hold governmental over the rest of the people. Smell a conservative rat here - of course you do. Liberals and democrats support the idea that all people are created equal - now if God loves all of us and God created all of us why should some elite group of philosopher kings rule over us. The conservatives believe the opposite of equality - their minds are bent on the idea that some people are better than others - which they measure in terms of money, political power, etc. They hate the liberal notion that people are equally important and that every person has uninalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

if you look into the ongoing conflict in the Chiapas, Mexico between the Mexican government and the Zapata's... you'll see people resorting to basic methods of community/government.... for the most part it's a mix between anarcho-syndicism, anarcho-communism, and consenus based democracy... I'd rather not go into it extensivly here, cause it's not appropriate to the topic of discussion, but I think it might intrest you to read more about...

*note: the Zapata's are a completely a-political military opposed to the Mexican government, they leave power vacume in there wake and let whatever forms in this vacume to exisist un-infringed by either the Zapata's or the Mexican Government....

email: blackerthenred@hotmail.com

accidental multi-post, deleted