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
I mean, the USA IS a republic... a (supposedly) democratically elected republic, but a republic nonetheless. Maybe we should leave the terms democratic and republic alone and rename the political parties. How about lazy jackasses and fat ugly elephants instead?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Nonsense. Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination. That's exactly like saying slavery isn't inherently bad as long as the overseer is merciful.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
The Economist had an article, 10+ years ago, about countries' names. They wrote, "People's Republics . . . usually aren't."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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).
And Chewbacca was a wookiee on Endor! That just doesn't make sense!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
We are a Constitutional Federal Democratic Socialist Republic, technically. We have a Constitution, we use a Federal system of governance, we use democracy for elections, socialism for helping old or needy people, and we are a country of the people. So, technically, we are a Constitutional Federal Democratic Socialist Republic.
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
> 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
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.
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.
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.