XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.law-enforcement   
   From: s@krulick.com   
      
   Eric Johnson wrote:   
   >   
   > On 13-12-2003 05:57, in article   
   > 3513d8b1.0312122057.6d712b56@posting.google.com, "ulTRAX"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > > TRANSLATION: The US Constitution is anti-democratic... therefore fails   
   > > the test of moral legitimacy prescribed in the Declaration of   
   > > Independence. If this anti-democratic formula helps the RR'tards on   
   > > the Right impose their 1st  century Christian psychosis on a 21st   
   > > century  nation... then it's morally legitimate.   
   > >   
   > > Do I have you pegged Fluffy? Feel free to just confess you have no use   
   > > for, or respect for, democracy.   
   >   
   > Coming from a small state, I have no respect for rule by mob.   
      
   Straw. Where does a "mob" rule? (outside of "Little Italy"!)   
   >   
   > The USA is not a Democracy. It is a Republic, which is steps removed from   
   > democracy...on purpose, in order to prevent mob tyranny.   
      
      
   Madison, in the Federalist (14) draws a distinction between a   
   republic and a "true" or "pure" democracy: "It is, that in a   
   democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in   
   person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their   
   representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be   
   confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a   
   large region... As the natural limit of a democracy is that   
   distance from the central point which will just permit the most   
   remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions   
   demand, and will include no greater number than can join in   
   those functions."   
      
   That being said, democracy IS currently defined as:   
   "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."   
      
   That is certainly broader than Madison's "true" democracy, but   
   certain trolls and disingenuous obfuscators wish to ignore how   
   words are actually used in context, but, like Humpty Dumpty, use   
   words just as they want to use them, even defining OTHER persons   
   idiosyncratically.   
      
   Is this the old "We're a REPUBLIC, NOT a DEMOCRACY!" wheeze?   
      
   If so, ObiRush has brainwashed you well, young Jedi!   
      
   Here's another one: "Dubya is a husband, not a father." One   
   more: "Ice Cream is a dessert, not a food."   
      
   See the way this works... say that something is one thing, and   
   therefore can't be something else. Now, maybe this can work in   
   clearly mutually exclusionary cases -- "Steve is a boy, not a   
   girl" -- but that isn't always so.   
      
   We live in a constitutional representative democratic republic.   
   We live in a republican democracy.   
      
   Why don't we see what the dictionaries say:   
      
   Democracy:   
      
   Merriam-Webster New Collegiate: 1b) a government in which the   
   supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them   
   directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu.   
   involving periodically held free elections.   
      
   American Heritage Dictionary: 1) Government by the people,   
   exercised either directly or through elected representatives.   
      
   Let's see what Dubya said at his Inaugurauction:   
      
   "Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom   
   and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon   
   the wind, taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is   
   more than the creed of our country. It is the in-born hope of   
   our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear   
   and pass along... The most important tasks of a democracy are   
   done by everyone..."   
      
   Personally, I think he's bloviating; and since the majority of   
   voters did NOT vote for him, but he claims to be Prez in spite   
   of that, I think he should be restricted from using the word   
   "democracy," and have his knuckles rapped each time he utters   
   the sacred meme.   
      
   How about another prez, Ike, at his farewell from office?:   
      
   "In the councils of government, we must guard against the   
   acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or   
   unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for   
   the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.   
   We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our   
   liberties or democratic processes...  It is the task of   
   statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and   
   other forces, new and old, within the principles of our   
   democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our   
   free society... We want democracy to survive for all generations   
   to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow..."   
      
   I could go on and on with speeches from US presidents and   
   from public documents going back over two hundred years, all   
   matter-of-factly referring to the US as a democracy, indeed, the   
   world's oldest continuous democracy. (What do you think   
   Jefferson and his colleagues were thinking when they called   
   their political party "Democrat-Republican"?)   
      
   Trent Lott called Sen. Jeffords move to independence: "... the   
   impetuous decision of one man to undermine our democracy!" OUR   
   democracy? What do you think he was talking about? Is Lott   
   standing at the head of some mob rule tyranny of the masses we   
   never realized? Does he really believe in direct voting on   
   legislation by the mob? Or was he just posturing and bloviating   
   like Bush?   
      
   Do YOU want to adhere to some musty and narrow Aristotelian   
   equation that makes democracy = mob rule = tyranny of the   
   masses?   
      
   I will only accept people using Aristotle's narrow definition of   
   democracy (mob rule! tyranny of the masses!) if they can explain   
   it in original Greek!   
      
   Are you a strict Aristotelian who can't abide standard usage of   
   words as they've been used for over two hundred years? To quote   
   fellow poster mahabarbara:   
      
   > Yes, the United States is an indirect or representative democracy,   
   > which is a type of democracy.   
   >   
   > The United States is NOT a pure or direct democracy, which is another   
   > type of democracy.   
   >   
   > Tell me ... where did all this hysteria about "democracy" come from?   
   > It's true the Founding Fathers (who were, after all, a pack of 18th   
   > century aristocrats) didn't use the word much, but since about the   
   > 1820s people commonly referred to the United States as a democracy,   
   > understanding "democracy" to mean what it literally means -- rule of   
   > the people. We've managed to limp along all these years like that.   
   > What's the deal?   
      
   Indeed, here's some commentary from the First Congress, 1789,   
   during debates over the 1st Amen:   
      
   GALES & SEATON'S HISTORY OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS   
   761-762 / 771-772   
   August 15, 1789   Amendments to the Constitution   
      
   Mr. Page: ... The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells you, that in   
   England this principle is doubted; how far this is consonant   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)