when did "conservatives " begin to distinguish between a "democracy" and a "republic?"

is there such a great difference between a system in which the citizens elect senators and congresscritters to represent them and a system where the citizens elect members of parliament to do the representing?

 

No, hardly any at all except for details. Both are Republics

Democracies are like you have in certain areas of New England and other areas They have "Town Meetings". All the registered voters show up and they consider agendas periodically. They may or may not have a mayor and other municipal employees but they mainly don't have a permanent and ongoing organization called the "government" as such.

Look up "Athenian Democracy" to get a good definition of one and read "The Republic" by Plato for a good definition of the other. Understand also that neither one of these two gave more than a small minority of the total free population any real role in how the polity was governed.

A major difference between the two is that in a Democracy every individual has an ongoing voice in the government. In a Republic, you elect a representative and they (theoretically )represent your "BEST INTERESTS", NOT your individual will.

The USA's bicameral legislation is an obvious attempt to combine the two sorts

The Italian Republics and the Netherlands are other sorts, but they shade over into Oligarchies to a greater or lesser extent.

 

in more obvious examples of "republics," the roman senate and the uk house of lords, the patricians and nobility emulate plato's class of "guardians." all are hereditary and represent the polis by tradition rather than election. wouldn''t the italian republics be similar, with de medici (as the florentine example) as hereditary aristocrats?

 

It started around the same time that the popular vote and the Electoral College results inverted.

 

As "republic" is a subset of "democracy", it is merely a matter of distinction. In the U.S., the House of Representatives is directly elected along population lines, which is democratic. The President is indirectly elected in a manner that seeks to homogenize the collective choice, and is, thus, republican. Current political dialog has, as with virtually every other word and term, attempted to make these distinctions into binary "good" and "evil" simplicities.

 

I generally agree with this. I would just like to point out in regards to New England that you may be referring/thinking of another country. New England isn't actually a country. It's actually a set of 6 states in the NE part of the US. Its more cultural now a days than any sort of system of government. The government in those States are still modeled after the rest of the US States and Federal government. Mayors, governors, legislatures etc etc.

 

When will liberals admit they do not care about democracy?

 

Liberals actually do care about democracy. Its the leftists that would rather have socialism. Don't confuse the two.

 

like most every other word and term, this distinction is stretched in the conservative monolog to suit their own manichaeist world view.

 

A republic simply means, a government of appointed or elected leaders, as opposed to a monarchy or an emperor, etc.

So, 'republic' is a general term, it doesn't necessarily equal 'parliament' or 'American style government', you have to qualify it.

Is it an Islamic republic republic? Or, Is it socialist republic? Is it a Democratic Socialist Republic? Is it a Fascist Republic?

Is it a People's Republic? Is it a Unitary Republic? Is it a Federal Republic?

Or, is it a democratic republic?

America is a democratic republic.

But, 'democracy is further qualified, as there are direct democracies and representative democracies.

So, America to be precise, I would say America is a federalist representative democratic republic presiding over a union of states with their respective governments. But, note that, in America, there are many elections. There are elections for the electors/delegates (faithful to the president of choice), for the presidential nominees, for congresspersons, for US Senators, for Governors, for Attorneys General, for ballot initiatives, special elections, for education boards, supervisors, assembly persons, state senators, mayors, etc. And, in ALL of those elections, all but one are direct elections. Only in the general presidential election, is it representative, where the electorate elect electors who, in turn, select the president (jeez, it's complex, I think I got that all right). Anyway, America is all about elections, and to those who claim America is 'not' a democracy, but a 'republic', you are waving a flag, and on that flag, it shouts, 'look everyone, I'm ignorant!'. America is, and always has been, a democracy.

 

in many small new england towns democracy is still participatory.. amazingly the region has not devolved into mob rule (since the witch trials , anyway)

 

Republic is the broader term, it means, appointed or elected leaders as opposed to a monarchy. There are Islamic republics, Socialist Republics, People's republics, and Democratic republics, among a few.

So, it seems to me, that you got it backwards, a democracy is a subset of republic.

America is a democratic republic of a certain type called 'representative democracy'. A Federal government presiding over a union of states.

 

No democrat I know is against democracy, noting that the democratic socialists' wing of the DNC want the democratization of private enterprises, i.e, private enterprizes as democratic syndicates ( which I oppose, it means businesses ruled by democratized committees, which is a sluggish way to run a business ). That's what 'socialism' means for the democratic socialist. For the DSists, it does NOT mean classic socialism where the state owns ALL means of production and distribution (though dems favor government sponsored medicare, but where the clinics who are sponsored are privately owned and are certainly allowed private clients and HMOs). DSists have hijacked the term.

In my view, Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, but he really isn't, he just favors a whole slew of government programs. I would wager that most DSists haven't really studied the term, and assign it to themselves because they like the sound of it. What they really are are 'social democrats' or FDR styled democrats. I have concluded this by querying a few real socialists, who really know what the term means and have studied it who are not democrats, but members of some socialist party in their state. I agree with Milton Friedman in that traditional socialism starts off advertising 'democracy' to entice popularity but once it's thoroughly installed, democracy falls by the wayside, and something inconvenient to socialist goals. History proves this.

 

Your post is a non-sequitur to the title. The difference between our elections and parliamentary elections is, generally, the separation of independent powers -- Executive, Legislative, and Judicial -- in America's system of governance. The difference between a democracy and a republic is roughly the degree of power resting in the central government as opposed to residing more in a set of sub-territories -- states in our case. This gets a bit muddy because republics can have a democratic voting process of sorts for electing government officers.

True political conservatives refer to themselves as supporting a "constitutional republic."

 

As I understand it the Electoral College is something else entirely. It's not part of Plato's concept nor any part of the later European formulations to my understanding, though there may be branches and functions of all sorts that resemble it superficially. I may be wrong here but I was always told it was sui generis, within the American Constitution and whatever other governments have it do so entirely in imitation of the American example

 

Socialism is the most democratic system ever proposed. In capitalism you spend half of your work days deprived of any democracy.

 

What is the point of any kind of government unless it is to help and make easier the life of the citizens it supposedly serves.

 

The purpose of a government should be to preserve and protect individual liberty first and foremost.

 

Which only happens if the people that make up the govt do that.

 

when did "conservatives " begin to distinguish between a "democracy" and a "republic?"

3rd or 4th grade.

 

They're the same, except for all the things that make them different
;lol:

 

So said Mr. Jefferson.

 

Yeah.....tell that to all the people that has been killed by it.

 

A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. In a Constitutional Republic all individual rights are protected. The only form of government guaranteed by the Constitution is a Republican (not the political party) form of government, all others, including a democracy are unconstitutional.

 

Very true.