" A Republic, if you can keep it"

[Caliman73]

This line of "American lore" is stated to have been said by Benjamin Franklin, coming out of the Constitutional Convention that ratified the Constitution. He was asked what kind of government had been created.

Most people, if they know the line at all, it is my guess, see it as a throwaway line, something akin to George Washington and the cherry tree.

The problem is that it was not a throwaway line. It wasn't just some sharp retort. It was a warning, and a challenge.

Up to then, most governments were basically dictatorships albeit they were called monarchies, or constitutional monarchies. They were simply top down, "I tell you what to do and you do it" forms of government. The system of government set up by the founders, though flawed from the start, was one in which ideally, the government was supposed to be a representation of the collective will of the people. There were to be sure, skeptics within the lot. We know that some argued about "mob rule" and having "3000 tyrants" etc... Some did not trust the average person with holding the levers of power. It wasn't until 1913, more than 100 years after the Constitution was ratified that Senators were chosen by direct vote of the people. Both parties, Democratic and Republican have at times, in history tried to limit the vote to certain people. Before anyone accuses me of bothsiderism, I will say that in both instances, the ideological idea behind restricting the vote has been Conservatism. Democrats in the South had wanted to limit the vote to White people. Republicans today seem to have the same idea in mind with the added emphasis on conservative White people.

A republic is a form of government in which the people have a large say in choosing people to represent their interests in making laws. Not direct democracy where we vote on everything, but supposedly a system where the representatives are answerable to the people.

So, my proposal for discussion is:

What is it that is needed to "keep" our republic?

[walkingman]

1. Just think about for a few minutes - would you really want the entire US

to be like Texas?? or Mississippi??

What is needed? - pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act

[Caliman73]

4. Certainly, voting protections are important.

Fundamentally however, I think the issue lies deeper.

We need an educated (not just schooling, though it is important) electorate. We need people that are engaged and know what the issues are.

Even without the onerous laws that are being proposed now, we average 50% or less of the eligible electorate participating in elections to begin with. Most people don't seem to even pay attention to what their representatives are doing, or who is running and what they stand for, until the week before elections.

We had one of the most qualified and most intelligent Presidential Candidates in our history running for office in 2016 and she lost to a narcissistic asshole at least partly because of a 30 year smear campaign that lead people "not to trust" her. In one election the idea of a candidate, "I would like to have a beer with" was an actual selling point. We got a rich dunce who's grand daddy and daddy got him into Yale when he couldn't even get himself into the University of Texas.

I agree with you, but I think it is WAY more than just voting rights.

[OAITW r.2.0]

2. I remember debates at FreeRepublic about us being a Republic and not a Democracy.

I always thought that was a difference without a distinction. We elect the folks to run the Republic. Or the Democracy. But really, these folks wanted a few people that reflected their values to run the whole thing. That was and is their endgame. They want a single Party....let's call it the Republican Party. Where only their voice counts. They are not quite Tories, but they are 1st cousins.

Thoughtful folks want a vibrant 2 Party system where national change can be effected. The idea being to progress as times change and new facts are uncovered. I am so old that I remember when legislation got passed by coalitions of liberal/moderate Democrats and Republicans. The conservative Democrats/Republicans were a reliable losing bloc.

How times have changed.

One constant from Nixon through Trump - Roger Stone and the "Republicans" just like him.

[Caliman73]

5. I liken it to a problem with the political ideology of Conservatism.

The Tories are definitely the cousins of our Conservative movement. We don't have the same history with the monarchy, but there is certainly a desire for some type of aristocracy of the Wealthy White, that has run through American history. Whether reflected by the Plantation Class that formed the Democratic Party Antebellum and after the Civil War, to today's Republican party. There is a core of people who prefer that "the best" among us rule, not that we are "governed by consent of the governed".

[OAITW r.2.0]

7. Neo-Trumpism, perhaps? The new conservativism.

Problem is, their idea of "best" is my idea of "worst".

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. People to realize that voting is a duty and a responsibility

Not something to be tossed aside every two years if you don't get your pony, or don't love absolutely everything about your candidate.
If more people realized this we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Caliman73]

6. Amen.

I remember reading an article from a French newspaper where during a more recent election there was a sense of embarrassment at the ridiculously low voter turnout rate of 75%. Can you imagine even having a turnout of 75% of eligible voters here?

We were trumpeting the astoundingly high rate of almost 67% during the 2020 election. So a little more than 2/3ds and we are amazed while France laments only 3/4 of their voters coming out.

[Metaphorical]

8. I was thinking on this before I saw your note

I recently had the line "We're a republic, not a democracy" thrown yet again by ignorant Trumpers, a line that seems to have become a battle cry. My response is typically as follows:

Yes, we are a republic. So is Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, and just about every other country on the planet. A republic means primarily that the leadership of the country is not determined by inheritance, but is instead elected. Even countries that are nominally monarchies (such as the United Kingdom) have for the most part reduced their monarchies to symbolic positions.

When Franklin made his famous quote, the vast majority of all countries were hereditary monarchies, including England and France. At the time, being a republic was a very novel thing. Today, not being a republic is very unusual, even though many countries that are republics are not necessarily true democracies.

The US is a representative constitutional democracy - we elect proxies to represent us in congress. At the time of the ratification of the constitution, this was really the only form of democracy possible, as communication and travel delays made direct democracy impossible. Today, it is possible to move to a direct democracy model, but it would require the representative democracy to dissolve itself first, something that I see as highly unlikely.

Traditional Republicans and Democrats have long argued about who gets the franchise, but they seem to be in agreement that the franchise is important. The Trumpians on the other hand are fascists - they want a single leader who effectively appoints the representatives, with the assumption being that they will be the ones so appointed. It's a scary worldview that these people have..