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!
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.
P.S. Registered Democrat speaking here.
... 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system. The US is absolutely a constitutional republic with representative democracy - an attempt to avoid the common problems of both mob rule and dictatorships.
Hate much?
there's no evidence he was illiterate, and there's no evidence from the story that the recommendations are because the word democrat is offensive. The article makes no mention of the reason behind it, other than perhaps ACCURACY.
But maybe we could consider going out on a limb here and teaching the kiddies about systems of government rather than telling them to memorize the correct label(Which, unless you are cynical enough to say "Plutocratic empire with democratic republican ceremonial elements", is "Republic).
Hey Kids! Athens was a "Democracy". Rome, pre empire, was a "Republic"; both looked absolutely fuck-all like our government. How can this be? Let's talk about the differences between a "Republic" and a "Democracy" and what sorts of variations are possible within the broad heading of each... We may have to skip cramming names and dates for a week; but I think you'll learn something...
And hey, while we are at it, let's remember to mention that(depending on which historians you talk to), there have been at least five reasonably distinct periods during which different political parties, with different names(in some cases quite confusing, since they are the same as today's; but mean different things) vied for control... Raise your hands everyone who knows that the Democrats used to be the southern conservative party, and the Republicans the northern liberals? And that there was a "Democractic-Republican" party, (arguably the one whose name actually corresponded most closely with our governmental form), that hasn't existed in almost 200 years?
Yes and it needs to stop. They don't even know what they're saying. Effectively the pledge of allegiance is an oath to blindly serve and follow your government; if they tell you to slaughter innocents it's okay, because you've sworn to that anyway and besides, american lives are way more important than foreign scum.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I always find this argument hilarious because people act as if "democracy" and "republic" are terms that have one extremely precise meaning each, and are mutually exclusive.
Etymologically, "republic" comes from the Latin phrase "res publica", which means "common thing" or "common substance". It was meant to contrast the Roman state, which was the possession of the entire Roman citizen body, with foreign kingdoms that were (in the view of the Romans) "owned" by a single despot. The English phrase "commonwealth" is a more or less literal translation. (The Romans continued to use this name for their state well after the oligarchic system we call the "Roman republic" was replaced by the one-man rule we call the "Roman empire," by the way.)
Etymologically, "democracy" comes from a Greek phrase that means "people power", or, perhaps more accurately, "citizen body power" ("demos" referring to the body of people with citizen rights, not the population as a whole). It was used as a term of abuse even back in the days of ancient Athens, when the state went back and forth between various systems of government, some of which involves large-scale participation of the citizen body in day-to-day decisions, others not so much.
The two words have been used to describe an incredible variety of political systems over the past 2000 years or so. The modern use of the word "republic" probably emerged in the late 18th/early 19th century, when it came to specifically denote states that weren't monarchies (as this was a live question in that era). The modern use of the word "democracy" is similarly broad, denoting a system of government where the citizens have a significant say in how the country is run. Since there are virtually no instances of states run by direct democracy, the term is understood as being wholly compatible with representative government, in which citizens elect officials to run the state on their behalf.
You can have states that are democracies but not republics (e.g., the UK and Sweden), that are republics and not democracies (e.g., Syria, Belarus), that are both (e.g., the U.S., France), or that are neither (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Brunei).
> Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct...
Even better would be if they would actually teach some of the fundamentals of our form of government. Teach what a Republic is and what a Democracy is and the important differences between them. Teach the difference between the Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution entails and what the Rule of Men we now have is and why that is important to them.
Hell, these days if the kids graduate knowing we have three branches of government and can actually name them correctly they are ahead of the average voter.
Democrat delenda est
there is no difference in between them. these morons, and i say morons, not to mormons but to the right wing ignorant circles in usa, utter this word as if it is contrary to centralization. "but this country is a republic !!"
iiiis iiit ? so, france is also a republic. and there are no state rights or states there.
switzerland is also a republic, and the decentralization there is MUCH bigger than the one in usa.
these ignorants seem to think that 'republic'/'democracy' etc have anything to do with centralization/federalization/decentralization.
they do not. you can have fascism, yet it can be decentralized (like in feudal times), you can have a democracy/republic, yet it can be more centralized than anything else.
its all about who does the decision making. elected representatives of people, or else.
its appalling that even here there are fools that have the same misconception - hey, doing a google search and reading a wikipedia article with endless references to political science documents is not that hard ? why not take action now, and dont make out yourself come out as an ignorant bimbo.
Read radical news here
Its a CONSTITUTIONAL representative Republic, with a bicameral house, an executive and a judicial branch.
Two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner is democracy.
Sharia is democracy.
Also, the Senate was purposely designed to be obstructionist and to give small states as much power as large states.
Improperly educated people of today, largely devoid of critical thinking skills and the ability to abstract concepts (e.g. banning smoking is a gateway to ALL statutory behavior modification, seems like its serving the greater good but its a gateway to a radical totalitarian authoritarian police state controlled by oligarchical collectivists), gladly subscribed to things that were clearly outlined in book like:
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
We - Yevgeny Zamyatin
Nineteen Eighty-Four - George Orwell
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
Animal Farm - George Orwell
1984 - George Orwell.
Given IPADs and Kindles, its shocking people aren't reading more of this material.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.