Slashdot Mirror
Utah To Teach USA is a Republic, Not a Democracy
0ryan0 writes "Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, because a 'Democracy' would have 'Democrat' in it." The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utopia!
because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.
This is completely unsupported by the linked article. Either include the proper links to back up your statements, or stop editorializing in your submissions.
the coolest club on
From TFA:
HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism.
Is it just me, or does that sound a just a little bit more defensible than the spin in the summary?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
a democracy is where everyone makes every decision
Wrong. What you're thinking of is direct democracy. Contrast that with, say, representative democracy.
I was suprised to find that you are right about TFA.
Then. . .
But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.
“This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said.
Ah, yes. That's the stuff.
The quotation from the Bill's sponsor sure does its best to make the case that the(technically correct) assertion that the US is a republic is being (re)emphasized in the school curriculum by special intervention of the state legislature for reasons other than a learned concern for the dissemination of accurate information...
"But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum. “This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said."
Yo, Mark, I love that supporting evidence there. I can definitely see how having the legislature intervene to insure that politically sensitive issues are handled in a doctrinally correct manner will save the kiddies from socialism. Perhaps we can appoint a Political Commissar for each classroom, to make sure that our freedom remains ideologically pure?
We're going to ignore the fact that this is more accurate, as a democracy is where everyone makes every decision, which is impractical on any large scale, while a republic is where we elect people to make decisions for us.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):
democracy |dimäkrs|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)
Or Merriam Webster:
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
plural democracies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)
Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words:
democracy
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)
Regardless of that, it must be noted that the article makes no mention of Utah making the decision because "democracy" suggests a relation to the "Democratic" party.
Actually, we really are just a democracy. Where and when the unmodified term "democracy" got morphed into being interpreted as "direct referendum on practically everything" is unknown to me, but it never was a definition that any state in history actually ever met, even the ancient greeks who it supposedly came from. A democracy is just a broad category meaning a state that conducts free and fair elections for public office and guarantees certain rights to association, speech, etc in its social contract. Actually, in Political science research you normally get the label "democracy" just for having free elections. "Republic" is almost the same word except that the people who 'represent' the governed don't have to be (but usually are) directly chosen in an election.
Unknown because the "morphing" never occurred. That is the original meaning of the word.
And Chewbacca was a wookiee on Endor! That just doesn't make sense!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Assuming that there's any accuracy at all to the stories in the Bible (a big assumption I'll grant you) he was likely literate. He's often called "Rabbi" in the text and has a much greater understanding of the Torah and supporting literature than an illiterate man would be likely to have. Joseph is typically portrayed as a very prosperous carpenter, and a leader in his community. The whole bit with the manger wasn't becasue they couldn't afford a better room, there just weren't any available. Part of the reason it's considered so odd that he makes friends with fisherman, thieves, and laborers is becasue he wasn't one himself.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Is the US a republic? Yes.
Does the US use democracy? Yes.
Does the US have a constitution? Yes.
So we're a democratic constitutional republic. Kind of like the thing about passwords, something we are, something we do, and something we have. So of course saying we're a democratic republic or a constitutional republic is also correct, though not as fully informative.
Saying that we're a republic and not a democracy is false, unless by democracy you actually mean "direct democracy," and twisting words like that as part of an argument to use correct terminology as the Utah lawmakers seem to be trying to do is rather asinine.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Important thing to note. Constitutional governments are one where there is a high binding law, above even the governing bodies, that isn't subject to change in the same manner as other laws. The reason to note it with regards to various governments is when you say a government is "Constitutional," it generally means "Has a functioning constitution that actually places some restrictions on the government." Also republics aren't the only kind of governments that can be as such, there are Constitutional Monarchies and so on.
But you are correct, the US is a republic, and always has been. There's a very strong democratic tradition in the US, more than many nations and at the state and lower level you see a lot more of that (like people directly voting on propositions) but it is a republic in structure and function.
One really good example of it that is more concrete to many people is presidential elections. You do NOT elect the president, you elect a person to go vote for the president. When you cast your vote, what you are doing is determining what electors you'd like to go and vote for the president. Who the electors are, the specifics of their choosing and so on varies state to state a bit, but that is how it works and how a president can win the popular vote but lose the election (And Bush v Gore isn't the first time it has happened).
Now I'm not saying that this bill is a useful thing, frankly the legislature shouldn't be concerned on this. However I don't think it is a bad idea to teach kids about different kinds of government and get them a good understanding of clear labeling.
Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows:[7]
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity[6] but decided against it - knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.[8]
Also amusing:
One objection[18] states that a democratic republic built on freedom of dissent should not require its citizens to pledge allegiance to it, [...] Another objection lies in the fact that the people who are most likely to recite the Pledge every day, small children in schools, cannot really give their consent or even completely understand the Pledge they are taking
Most people can't even completely understand the pledge, amusingly most people don't even associate the term pledge with an oath. It's just "something you do" and "you're supposed to."
I'm amused that there's actually controversy over this; but dismayed that most complaints are due to religion and the use of the term "God." The other arguments seem more legitimate, and I really did think I was the only one that noticed.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Indeed. I'm not sure what the hell any of this is supposed to mean. A republic isn't defined by how the executive and/or legislative branches are chosen, and you can have dictatorial, autocratic and democratic republics, or some combination thereof.
The United States is a representative democracy, with a bicameral legislature elected by popular vote and a presidency chosen by an electoral college, so is somewhat indirectly democratically elected. The United States is a democracy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Oh good grief... does *anyone* remember what they were taught in government in junior high? [...] Yes, sometimes the elected President did not get the majority of the popular vote. The Electors are not bound by law (in all states) to cast their vote according to popular vote. This is one of the checks and balances, designed by the founders of the nation, that prevents popular will from overcoming individual freedom. We're all taught this in school.
Apparently you don't understand how the electoral college works any better than the people you're trying to teach, which makes you just like Glenn Beck. My 8th grade history teach taught that exact same tripe. He also constantly mispronounced words (which had pronunciation guides in the textbooks!), and corrected other people's mispronunciations with his own. If you want to understand government, you should probably go back to high school or college level classes, where things aren't simplified to the point of being wrong.
The years where the electoral college result didn't match the popular vote had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the electors can make their own choices. The instances where an elector has voted contrary to his/her state's popular vote has never affected the result of the overall election. What has made that difference is the fact that just like Congressmen, electors are divied out to each state based on population, plus an additional two electors purely by virtue of the state being a state. This means that smaller states get a slightly proportionately larger voice per capita than larger states. And that is why the electoral college results don't always match the popular vote.
Here's another bit of trivia you might not have known, which explains why electors normally stick with the voters in their state:
When you vote, you're not telling a set of electors which candidate to cast their vote for, because there's not just one set of electors per state. Each party organization in each state picks a set of electors, and the popular vote decides which party's set of electors gets to cast their votes. Electors chosen in the last election by the Democrat party in a state where the popular vote went to the Democrat would have been very unlikely to vote for a Republican candidate -- they were chosen specifically by their party because they would vote for the party's candidate!
The few instances where an elector has voted contrary to the popular vote (and contrary to their own party) in their state has been more of small symbolic act of protest, knowing that it won't change the election.
The workings of the electoral college do very little to emphasize the role that electors play as representatives, as they represent their own party more than anything else. What the electoral college does do is emphasize the importance of the power of individual states.
Having met many of these legislators (indeed, having previously been in a position where I would headdesk regularly at their antics), even if the article doesn't say it, I can vouch for the fact that those pushing the bill are in the ultra-conservative wing of Utah's already conservative (and controlling) Republican party.
Pretty much anyone from Utah County, including Sen Madsen (R-Eagle Mountain), Sen Dayton (R-Orem) and Sen Stephensen (sp?; who sits just across the north border of the county) are at the extreme conservative end of the political spectrum, and regularly introduce legislation designed to disrupt public education. For example, a couple of years ago, Sen Dayton (on the word of a single constituent who thought alike, and despite resistance from every education-saavy person I know) went on a crusade against the International Baccalaureate program, decrying it as a socialist takeover of state's rights (never mind that each school, and thus each locally elected school board, must choose to opt in).
The representatives from the same area (unsurprisingly) act similarly, and most of them would like to see a complete dismantling of public education in favor of a completely market-based approach. Now that's a whole different kettle of fish, but it provides some insight into why they are so consistently disruptive--and I don't mean in the positive innovation-friendly sort of way, but rather the time-consuming, prevent-actual-innovation-because-of-extra-work sort of way.