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 a symbol flew during the revolution era. People dismiss the democracy/republic discussion as pretentious or a conceptual distraction. They should n’t.
Advertisement
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 politics… the phrase’ democracy’ and the term’ state’ have often been used colloquially. There is n’t a meaningful difference between them ..”.
Convinced it is.
Ask the modern leftists who target almost every security we have against crowd rule in the name of “democracy”– attacking the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, federalism, the filibuster, the Senate and even the existence of states. They understand the difference, even if just naturally.
Ask socialists about using the “popular vote” as a means of legitimizing national elections rather than a wishcasting exercise. People who want a few large states to rule the country through a direct federal politics are not interested in a “republic” that derives energy from the controlled but one that strips regional command and specific rights from those they oppose.
Blunting the state’s and the federal government’s power over people is a must in order to ensure that a diverse population in a vast country you live comfortably and independently. The” save republic” types who refer to these lengthy- standing federalist organisations as “minority law” do not see “democracy” and a constitutional republic as interchangeable ideas.
Advertisement
Smaller blue-state governors who sign a national vote compact that not only weakens their state’s authority but also circumvents the Constitution do n’t do so. They love a strong democracy. 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 unprecedented 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 use the supposedly moderate Democrats who want to abolish the filibuster to force through massive, generational-unanimous federal “reforms” like Obamacare or The Deficit Reduction Act [sic]; They’re aware that “reforms” will overturn hundreds of state and local laws. They want local minorities to be subordinate to the whims and whims of national majorities.
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.  ,
Advertisement
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 came up with any ideas about majoritarianism or federal power that might even resemble the ones that the Left is currently practising.
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 only way to dispute the importance and acceptance of those countermajoritarian rules and traditions is to insist on using “democracy.”  ,
” ]F ] or centuries”, insists O’Sullivan,” 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. No doubt, most Americans also comprehend the notion of “democracy” in the same, vague context.
Advertisement
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 % of the country should be empowered to lord over the economic, religious, cultural, and political decisions of 49.9 %.
It’s the point.
