Republic, not a democracy. Although a direct either/or comparative is not conducive, it is imperative that we bring serious light onto the subject of what kind of government we have under our Constitution.
A direct comparison cannot be made in detail because a republic is a widely generalized form of government, while democracy suggests a style of governing: “republic” is passive; “democracy” is active.
However, our founders clearly researched and discussed what form of government would be best for a newly freed people who knew (do to years of being actively involved with throwing off the shackles of a Crown) rights do not come from government, but flow to government.
Federalist Papers #10- “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
Federalist Papers #14- 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, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.”
How large? Even a state is much too large, thus, Const. Article 4, section 4.,”The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government, …” (there is no requirement for counties, Burroughs, cities, etc. to be set up in any particular way.)
Besides the issue size relative to governing, “(d)emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security OR THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY (my emphasis); and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” –Federalist Papers, ibid
A republic is a stubborn thing, causing our federal government to heed its actions and respect the states as sovereigns. However, if a plan was laid out to reeducate (brainwash) the people: substituting and/or equalizing the words republic and democracy, then propagandize society over time to soften the former understanding of democracy, then to later reinforce it as the way for the people to have a voice, mob rule can then be threatened as a tactic to bring to power those few who can make choices for us, even against our will.
Enter the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS), and their eventual leaders, Harry Laidler and Norman Thomas.
Prior to 1900 it was common to refer to one’s self as a state citizen first, then to acknowledge being American second; Kentuckians, Californians, Georgians, Carolinians, etc. Further, as an interesting point to research, I did a lot of paralegal work back in the 1990’s and it dawned on me one day –as I sat in a law library with stacks of reference books filling the table, the era around 1900 is an interesting dividing point for jurisprudence—prior to that time period it is common place in case law to find reference to our republic AND to God, but as we begin to move into the 1900’s, both references become less and less findable. Ideological war was upon us and the word republic seems to drop off the proverbial cliff, but there is another casualty as well, the word democracy becomes reborn, now describing America’s traditional Constitutional republic. The founders hoped we would be able to maintain a clear understanding of the two principles (republic and democracy), and it is in their hope that the socialists knew they job #1 was to do mingle these two concepts and allow democracy to command its counterpart, republic. This was the job of the ISS.
A group of known Marxist/Leninists met in New York City in 1905 and they begat the ISS. They swore to follow a particular path of subversion and quickly had more than 60 chapters established on college campuses all across the country. As they grew they began working on forming a leadership and came up with co-directors, Harry W. Laidler, and Norman Thomas. The loud mouth Laidler once described the purpose of the ISS was to “throw light on the world-wide movement of INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY, known as SOCIALISM.”
This movement is alive and well today. Both the Clintons, before they were married, were associated with the Young Democrats, as well as many others who are now seen as power brokers for Laidler’s industrial democracy, aka. Socialism. And you already know about the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers, etc. Today we are fighting things much bigger than many of us care to acknowledge. But fight we will.