Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They'll usually say we're a 'Republic' not a democracy, as if that were some sort of knock down argument. Republics usually have a representative democracy, as the USA has always had, but apparently the new conservatives think that a Republic led by an meatheaded autocrat is preferable.Maybe this has been happening for a long time and I just haven’t seen it but I’m seeing a TON of “conservatives” making the argument we are not a democracy, democracy is a stupid form of government, and we should distance ourselves from the term. Trust me, I understand the philosophical nuances of our constitutional system, but this strikes me as a massively dangerous argument in the hands of today’s resident autocrats. Anyone else seeing a huge uptick in this language?
Yeah that’s the sense I’m getting. They’re actively rooting for late-stage Rome.They'll usually say we're a 'Republic' not a democracy, as if that were some sort of knock down argument. Republics usually have a representative democracy, as the USA has always had, but apparently the new conservatives think that a Republic led by an meatheaded autocrat is preferable.
That's what I hear as well, but honestly, conservatives have been saying this for a long while, well before Trump. I remember hearing it in the 80s and 90s - "we're a republic, not a democracy" which is technically accurate, but they don't mean it that way. When they use the term "republic" what they really mean is some form of government in which people like themselves will nearly always be in charge of the government, and the government should be rigged as much as possible so that people like them stay in charge of the government. They're not even really in favor of a republic if it means that people like Obama or Kamala might be in charge of the government - they want it fixed so that only "likeminded" Real Americans like them are in charge of things. So when you hear them say "we're a republic, not a democracy" what they're really telling you is that they favor a form of government that will ensure that people like them will be running the government and setting policy, not people who are "different" from them.They'll usually say we're a 'Republic' not a democracy, as if that were some sort of knock down argument. Republics usually have a representative democracy, as the USA has always had, but apparently the new conservatives think that a Republic led by an meatheaded autocrat is preferable.
You’re probably right this has been happening for a long time. I think I’m just noticing the volume turning up significantly as they get closer and closer to a permanent autocracy.That's what I hear as well, but honestly, conservatives have been saying this for a long while, well before Trump. I remember hearing it in the 80s and 90s - "we're a republic, not a democracy" which is technically accurate, but they don't mean it that way. When they use the term "republic" what they really mean is some form of government in which people like themselves will nearly always be in charge of the government, and the government should be rigged as much as possible so that people like them stay in charge of the government. They're not even really in favor of a republic if it means that people like Obama or Kamala might be in charge of the government - they want it fixed so that only "likeminded" Real Americans like them are in charge of things.
it frustrates me because you could argue that "democracy" as it is currently imagined in the United States does have some real issues - namely, that loud pluralities or minorities can be completely ignored. rather than the productive dialectics imagined, in some form or other, by most of the great philosophers, one side can just steamroll the other. Texas gets imagined as a red state because of, mathematically speaking, a pretty slight majority, and the fact that there are more Dem voters there than any other state than California doesn't matter because of this vision of democracy.Absolutely. The American right’s suspicion of democracy draws from both European aristocratic tradition and homegrown reactionary instincts. You can trace a straight line from Burke’s elitism to the Founders’ fear of the “rabble,” to the Birchers smearing civil rights as mob rule, and now to MAGA loyalists openly calling democracy a threat.
What’s consistent across all these moments is the belief that real democratic power, especially in the hands of the poor, the colonized, the non-white, or the uncredentialed, is dangerous.
Majority rule is inherently flawed (and Kenneth Arrow proved it's not even truly possible!) but less flawed than other forms of government, and certainly less flawed than other types of government that have ever been implemented on a large country scale.I think that failure isn’t because majority rule is inherently flawed
I was just using your phrase. I am certainly not attached to the idea of "inherently flawed."I largely agree with what you’re saying.
Majority rule isn’t perfect, no system is. I hesitate to frame it as “inherently flawed” because that can quickly become a license to distrust the people entirely. That’s a slippery slope that’s been used for centuries to justify elite vetoes over democratic action.
Two of five, unless we're only counting Trump once. But your point is well taken.It’s definitely a serious concern, but I think it’s worth recognizing that the erosion of popular power isn’t something Republicans are about to do, it’s something they’ve been doing for decades, often under the cover of constitutionalism and procedure. They’ve just stripped most of the pretenses now.
The presidency is a prime example. We already don’t have majority rule there; two of the last four presidents took office after losing the popular vote. For a long time, that was treated as a quirk of the system rather than a democratic crisis. It’s only now, as the right drops the pretenses entirely, that some are starting to see the danger. But the structure was always built to constrain majorities; it’s just being wielded more bluntly now.
So, Joe Freeman is the right-wing douche who has about 30-50 user ID’s on this site, right?Conservatism comes and goes. It is coming. The democratic party has lost much of middle America to pander to rich and fringe. The republican party has been reshaped by Trump. The national debt is now a burden and must be addressed. Thus, fiscal conservatism. As for social conservatism it is now coming back.