If they don’t nip this in the bud, what’s next? Children thinking for themselves? [shudder]
This week, a spokeswoman for Utah’s Republic, a group that advocates for a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, asked the Alpine Board of Education to scrap its democracy-centered mission statement. The issue has sparked a dust-up over the past month, garnering petition signatures from hundreds of Alpine parents and a rebuke of the school board by the Provo Daily Herald’s editorial board.
Alpine’s mission statement is “Educating all students to ensure the future of our democracy.”
But this nation is a republic, not a democracy, said Oak Norton, a Highland father of five and the founder of Utah’s Republic. The Constitution guarantees every state a “republican form of government.” “Karl Marx said, ‘Democracy is the road to socialism,’ ” Norton said. A true democracy, he said, relies solely on majority rule and inevitably devolves into anarchy, which then sprouts socialist dictators.
[...]
Susan Schnell, a Highland mother of five, became alarmed when she visited the district’s professional development center and saw the phrase “Enculturating the young into a social and political democracy.”
[...]
Schnell also found a link from the school district’s mission statement online to an essay, “America: Republic or Democracy?” that she found offensive. She sent an e-mail to other parents and many of them protested the essay, which refers to the nation’s founders as “predatory elite” who chose the republic form of government to maintain control over slaves and those with less socioeconomic clout.Parents also were troubled by other works by the essay’s author, William P. Meyers, including “Vampires or Gods,” a satire about the possibility that Jesus and other deities were really vampires.
Those wacky, Utahovians.
As an 11th generation descendent of the “predatory elite”, I approve this message.
“This week, a spokeswoman for Utah’s Republic, a group that advocates for a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution” /// I know what legal scholars mean when they use these words and even then it is virtually meaningless.
Puzzle me This: when our SC recently struck down the corporate limitations on spending money on politics were they being “activist” by not following 100 years of their own precedent and by striking down the legislative laws passed by the Congress and Signed by the President, OR == were they being strict constructionists?
Bonus==how can you be a strict constructionist when corporations ((in the main)) did not even exist at our Founding? Much less 90% of anything else that comes to the court? Infringing digit media in the age of radio broadcasts? Patentability of genetic sequencing??
Asking for a strict constructionist court is totally retarded.
OMG these people are stupid. We have both a Democracy and a Republic. We have Democracy in that the citizens (not royalty or privileged few) get to vote. We have a Republic in that we don’t vote on EVERY specific individual action of government, but for representatives who then do the work of government on our behalf. These are NOT mutually exclusive. We have a Democratic Republic. Idiots.
Remember, not ONE…not one single Republican candidate for President in 2008 believed that evolution was real. But they all believed that an invisible being lived in the sky who told Jews not to eat bacon and Christians to avoid gay marriage. Seriously. I’m not making that up. These are our LEADERS in the 21st century. WTF
““Karl Marx said, ‘Democracy is the road to socialism,’ ” Norton said. A true democracy, he said, relies solely on majority rule and inevitably devolves into anarchy, which then sprouts socialist dictators.”
Wow. Clearly someone read the “American Cliff’s Notes” version of Marx, or else completely misunderstood what he was saying. Clearly, not the type of dude I’d want teaching my kids anything about Government.
…and to continue on what #4 said:
Just because the word “Republic” was used to describe the system in the 18th century does not mean that the nation is a republic in the modern sense, nor does the word “democracy” mean the same now as it did two and a half centuries ago (and this goes for the supposed words of good old Marxy as well – his exact wording is just as irrelevant).
These days, republic and democracy are two completely separate measures – you can be 100% maxed out on both without the slightest bit of conflict between their meanings.
Democracy = the people – through representatives or otherwise – decide on the political agenda, rather than a single person or group with no accountability or sensitivity towards the common man.
Republic = the various heads of state are elected officials, rather than hereditary peers.
America is a Constitutional (i.e. bound by rules) Republic (i.e. not monarchy) with democratically elected representatives (in theory).
Bobbo – Basic commercial corporations have been around before Christopher Columbus was born. The ones who signed the U.S. Constitution were familiar with them.
Ice Cream mmmmmm!
#4 … I’m not sure we are in Democratic Republic.
We have laws and procedures heavily favoring the candidates of the two major parties, which is a defacto choice limitation at the ballot box.
George Washington railed against the idea of political parties and how they affect democracy and promote extremism (think of each party’s wingnuts: truthers, birthers, etc.)
We have something less than a Democratic Republic because essentially the choices are made for us in advance by non-Democratically elected entities … which includes the party power structures and rules/policies governing elections by elected officials that acts a heavy filter.
#11: The parties in most states do have primaries or caucuses that nominate their parties’ candidates by precincts or other political boundaries. In some states, a voter can switch to another party at the polling place, but in others you have to declare party affiliation before a primary.
I’m sure there are areas (Chicago?) where party committees pick candidates, though I haven’t lived in those places.
@ Floyd
A better question: where in the Constitution does it say that these political parties are allowed to make all these choices for us?
Both the political parties are defacto governmental entities that pedal influence and favors and constraints on our voting.
And the media, being a willing co-conspirator likes to use words like “bipartisan” to dope the populace on the status quo but the constitution doesn’t have a special privilege for political parties.
So essentially we have these extra undesignated entities (leaches) attached to our government that make decisions and pick candidates for us.
Democratic People’s Republic of America.
Ah, the signs of a public school education.
The lack of ability to think and reason.
A Republic is a government where the electorate vote for ‘representatives’ to make their political decisions for them.
A Democracy is a form of government where the electorate vote on all the issues. 1 person 1 vote. A democracy is an organized anarchy, which is why Marx predicted it’s downfall into socialism.
We the people do NOT have a vote on our political issues. We elect ‘representatives’ to do this for us. (Some states have added a sort of veto vote) You CAN have a 2 party republic. You CAN have a multi party republic.
You can NOT have a 1 party republic. (That would be like the Chinese socialism)
Drilling for oil shall henceforth be known as “looking for freedom earth juice”
-Minitrue
#9–Me==er, YOU!!!===errr, oh heck==Number Nine Posting. I tried to give a context by noting my characterization was “in the main.” My meaning was that they “were not common” and were not much on the mind of the Founding Fathers as the Constitution was written.
Fun subject to google though. I would take with a grain of sale what is written on this website, but what it says would be a worthy goal for us to return to today. Like so much else in America==whatever the original purpose of something was, it has become so corrupted as to be irredeemable:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
These people worship the word “Republic” way too much. Without actually understanding it. Probably because they chose to be Republicans. But they should realize that the word is NO guarantee of freedom or human rights. Most of the dictatorial nations of the world, call themselves Republics too. Such as the Soviet Union, Red China, etc.
Republicans and a Republic are not the same thing. A Republic is a nation governed by laws. And yet most US Republicans state they want few laws. Few regulations, and less government oversight (State or Federal). Thus more anarchy and more of what what would be termed a pure democracy. Rule by the majority. Thus nobody would have any guaranteed rights, or any laws protecting them. As these would be those nasty inconvenient laws, enforced by a Republic, that many get in the way of the richer class wanting to throw their weight around. Who would rather have a system of majority votes (resulting from most money spent pushing their view) winning all decisions.
A democracy within a republic, still allows for the people to change their government, by electing representatives who will enact just laws. And hopefully not reverse too many good ones, in the course of time. And that’s the system the US has to date. But unfortunately it’s not perfect. And probably never can be. And the wealthy will always be trying to find ways to game the system for their own benefit, over the common good of the people.
And it seems they choose the Republican party to do this thru most often. Though if the Democrats were to retain majority control for too long a time. They’d soon switch over to corrupting that party, to get their own way, once more. And the media propagandists who favor the Republicans now, would be singing the praises of the Democrats, in some future time, once money interests latched onto that party. Then “republic” would be the dirty word of the day.
This person is correct that a republic was established because those people in the 1st and 2nd Continental Congress’ believed in an oligarchic form of government. A government based on an “elite” class of rule. the elite of their time were lawyers, land owners and Caucasians. As all three of these were males for the majority of cases, women were not allowed to hold such positions.
And this is not a democracy. It is indeed a constitutional republic. Where we have democratic reforms as well as socialist and even communist reforms. Portions of these systems are useful and appropriate for the basic governmental functions of a republic.
Democracy, like communism, cannot exist in a real world application with human beings.
A democracy means that people must vote on every issue. So even if you live in Utah, you would still have to vote on a new stop light being erected in Baton Rouge Louisiana. This is time consuming and will mean with a nation of this size detrimental to people’s lives. They would have no time to themselves.
So it cannot exist. It would be fine if there were only 13 people in a rowboat. But not a nation of 300+ million.
Since the rise of the industrial revolution, the percentage of representation in the republic, in all three branches, whom are in the top tier of wealth has increased. Making this oligarchic style of republic one that is decidedly plutocratic. As of now the gap between the representation and the people in wealth is staggering. In fact to BE a representative one MUST be a plutocrat. There is no other way to function and be heard and counted among the party system in place.
This has led to obvious abuses and will continue to do so until we scrap the current republic and create a new one.
Cursor_
I personally think that since these people are Republicans and not Democrats, they have an emotional, unthinking bias toward calling the country a Republic and not a Democracy. They’ve been programmed to think Democrats are evil (Demoncrats!), so they don’t want to think of the country as a Democracy.
Doesn’t make sense if you think about it, but thinking is obviously not these people’s strong suit.