You would identify as?

[Procrustes Stretched]

democratic republic

 

[Arawyn]

Of course we are a Republic. Gawd, you tools piss in the wind over the smallest points and yet you miss so much. United States Government - MSN Encarta

Tools for wanting accuracy? Pissing in the wind only because expecting it

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is the United States a democracy?

The Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).
Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).
In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."

ThisNation.com--Is the United States a democracy?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course we are a Republic. Gawd, you tools piss in the wind over the smallest points and yet you miss so much. United States Government - MSN Encarta

I think it's you who missed something considering that there was more to my post than simply correcting you on what form of government we have.

 

[Arawyn]

That's why people believed that certain revisions to the Articles would be good, however they still favored the system of governance established by the Articles. If they didn't then they would have called the conventions to create a new Constitution rather than to simply revise the Articles. Let's not forget that Rhode Island and North Carolina were the last two states to ratify the Constitution and until such time remained under the supposedly failed Articles of Confederation.

I'm not forgetting that. However, the power players of the day, Washington, et al., pushed for a Constitution. And once Washington, the national teflonic hero was behind it, the Articles didn't stand a chance.

Washington, though not an official member of the party, was a Federalist. However, not all the power players of the day pushed for the Constitution. Jefferson, though not present at any of the conventions, had his concerns with the new Constitution, and Patrick Henry vehemently opposed the Constitution.

"The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration." - Patrick Henry

Clearly these men did not believe that the Articles had failed.

Yes, I know, about Washington, but if there was ever a teflonic hero in politics in this country, it was Washington. His support to a "ideal" ended up with the ideal usually being enacted.

I submit, the reason that the Constitution passed was because of the politics in play AND it's backers.

 

[Arawyn]

Of course we are a Republic. Gawd, you tools piss in the wind over the smallest points and yet you miss so much. United States Government - MSN Encarta

I think it's you who missed something considering that there was more to my post than simply correcting you on what form of government we have.

*raises hand* I did though LOL

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not forgetting that. However, the power players of the day, Washington, et al., pushed for a Constitution. And once Washington, the national teflonic hero was behind it, the Articles didn't stand a chance.

Washington, though not an official member of the party, was a Federalist. However, not all the power players of the day pushed for the Constitution. Jefferson, though not present at any of the conventions, had his concerns with the new Constitution, and Patrick Henry vehemently opposed the Constitution.

"The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration." - Patrick Henry

Clearly these men did not believe that the Articles had failed.

Yes, I know, about Washington, but if there was ever a teflonic hero in politics in this country, it was Washington. His support to a "ideal" ended up with the ideal usually being enacted.

I submit, the reason that the Constitution passed was because of the politics in play AND it's backers.

I think we derailed ourselves from our original conversation, however. We were discussing whether the Articles of Confederation failed.

 

[Arawyn]

Washington, though not an official member of the party, was a Federalist. However, not all the power players of the day pushed for the Constitution. Jefferson, though not present at any of the conventions, had his concerns with the new Constitution, and Patrick Henry vehemently opposed the Constitution.

"The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration." - Patrick Henry

Clearly these men did not believe that the Articles had failed.

Yes, I know, about Washington, but if there was ever a teflonic hero in politics in this country, it was Washington. His support to a "ideal" ended up with the ideal usually being enacted.

I submit, the reason that the Constitution passed was because of the politics in play AND it's backers.

I think we derailed ourselves from our original conversation, however. We were discussing whether the Articles of Confederation failed.

As they stood, they failed. Whether revisions could have been made to save them, is a good question, moot, but a good question.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, I know, about Washington, but if there was ever a teflonic hero in politics in this country, it was Washington. His support to a "ideal" ended up with the ideal usually being enacted.

I submit, the reason that the Constitution passed was because of the politics in play AND it's backers.

I think we derailed ourselves from our original conversation, however. We were discussing whether the Articles of Confederation failed.

As they stood, they failed. Whether revisions could have been made to save them, is a good question, moot, but a good question.

If you look at it in the context that they failed because they were replaced then it could be said that they failed. However, if you take into consideration the functionality of the Articles and why the Constitution was created then I think you have to come to the conclusion that they did not fail in any way shape or form.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Independent.

Though people would call me a paleo-con/libertarian.

However, I have views from all over on many issues...so its hard to define me, haha!

 

[Nevadamedic]

I am.................Complicated...................

 

[Arawyn]

I think we derailed ourselves from our original conversation, however. We were discussing whether the Articles of Confederation failed.

As they stood, they failed. Whether revisions could have been made to save them, is a good question, moot, but a good question.

If you look at it in the context that they failed because they were replaced then it could be said that they failed. However, if you take into consideration the functionality of the Articles and why the Constitution was created then I think you have to come to the conclusion that they did not fail in any way shape or form.

I am saying they failed because they failed to address the issues I mentioned earlier, debt, etc. revision was required to make them workable......

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As they stood, they failed. Whether revisions could have been made to save them, is a good question, moot, but a good question.

If you look at it in the context that they failed because they were replaced then it could be said that they failed. However, if you take into consideration the functionality of the Articles and why the Constitution was created then I think you have to come to the conclusion that they did not fail in any way shape or form.

I am saying they failed because they failed to address the issues I mentioned earlier, debt, etc. revision was required to make them workable......

I think if you use the fact that some revision was necessary as a failure then you would also have to come to the conclusion that the Constitution has failed as well.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course we are a Republic. Gawd, you tools piss in the wind over the smallest points and yet you miss so much. United States Government - MSN Encarta

I think it's you who missed something considering that there was more to my post than simply correcting you on what form of government we have.

mea maxima culpa

 

[JBeukema]

Personally, I would say classical liberal/libertarian

The purpose of the state is to protect the populace; the central authority should be as weak as it can be kept while being able to perform its duties. Decentralization and federation help maintain liberty.

Update: a more accurate term would be Social Democracy. With further eduction, I became of the total failure of classical liberalism