For as long as I can recollect, the left has been sneering at anyone who points out that the United States is a state, not a republic. They find the idea to be almost as sophisticated and fascist as flying a flag from the innovative age.
Also some people I admire reject the democracy/republic discussion as a conceptual distraction. They should n’t.
The other day, CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan tried to make Trump supporters who repeat this scientific argument look like a handful of naive, lockstepping authoritarians. To explain the problem, CNN also recruited “democracy” professional Anne Applebaum, who noted that,” America is a republic. It was founded as a republic … the phrase’ democracy’ and the term’ state’ have often been used colloquially. There is n’t much of a difference between them.
Sure it is.
Ask the modern leftists who target almost every security we have against crowd law in the name of “democracy” — attacking the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, democracy, the legislature, the Senate, and even the existence of states. They understand the difference, even if just naturally.
Ask liberals who treat the “popular vote”, certainly as a wishcasting deal, but as means of legitimizing national elections. An American “republic” is not appealing to those who want a few large claims to rule the country through direct national politics.
A different population in a vast country can live comfortably and govern themselves by blurring the federal government’s power over state and the country’s power over people. The” save politics” types who refer to these lengthy- standing federalist organisations as “minority law” do not see “democracy” and a constitutional republic as interchangeable ideas.
Smaller blue-state governors who mark a nationwide vote compact, which dilates their state’s authority and circumvents the Constitution, do the same. They love a strong politics. A legal nation? Not so much.
When authors at The Atlantic, where Applebaum is a source, talk about” The Democrats ‘ Last Chance to Save Democracy”, they are n’t lamenting Biden’s extraordinary professional abuse, but the “democratic imbalances in the Senate and the Electoral College”— as if these institutions were n’t especially instituted to diffuse centralized power. They know the difference.
Democrats who want to “expand” the Supreme Court for failing to follow democratic trends, do n’t care about the “republic”. After all, many of the high court’s most historic decisions, including Dred Scott and Plessy, cut the legs out from under “democracy”.
Or adopt the so-called moderate Democrats who want to end the filibuster, or use the flimsiest of fleeting majority to force through massive, generational-wide “reforms” without any national consensus, like Obamacare or The Deficit Reduction Act [sic]. They’re aware that “reforms” will overturn hundreds of state and local laws. They claim that they want local minorities to be subordinate to the whims and obnoxiousness of national majority groups.
Then again, the more “democracy” we have, the more demagoguery thrives. Of course they’re fans.
Turns out, some Trump supporters are aware of this distinction even if they are unable to define it in political terms, according to CNN.  ,
Then again, if O’Sullivan wants to dunk on them, maybe he should take a civics refresher himself.  ,” There is, of course, a legitimate debate to be had on what form of democracy we have here in the United States — direct democracy, representative democracy, in fact, constitutional republic, which you heard people mentioned in that piece, that is a form of democracy”, the CNN host explained.
There is,” of course”, zero “legitimate debate discussion” to be had over whether we are a “direct democracy”. Not today, nor ever. ” Democracy” is n’t even mentioned anywhere in any founding document, much less a direct one. No one of the framers even gave any considerations about majoritarianism or federal power that might even jive loosely with those that are currently popular among the left.
People will often tell me that, sure, we might be a republic, but we also have “democratic institutions”. We do, of course. We also have numerous nondemocratic institutions. The Bill of Rights, for instance, is largely concerned with protecting individuals from state and the mob. The steadfast use of “democracy,” which is primarily understood by modern voters as majority rule, is intended to undermine the significance of those countermajoritarian rules and traditions.  ,
” ]F ] or centuries“, insists O’Sullivan ( italics mine ),” America has celebrated its democracy”, before playing clips of Ronald Reagan and others praising the notion of “democracy”.
Indeed, the word “democracy” — from “demos”, the people — has been used as a shorthand for self- rule since before Pericles. In the past, we’ve used it to convey respect for a set of liberal ideas about liberties and rights, as well as self- determination. I’m sure I’ve used it in that way, too. Most Americans probably comprehend the notion of “democracy” in the same, vague context.
These days, though, a bunch of illiberal progressives ( and others ) have taken universal notions that once fell under the umbrella of “democracy” and cynically distorted them to champion a hypermajoritarian outlook.  ,  , It’s no accident the people who demand you call us a “democracy” also champion the idea that 50.1 percent of the country should be empowered to lord over the economic, religious, cultural, and political decisions of 49.9 percent.
It’s the point.  ,
