"it’s an instinct that has served the democracy well."
What "democracy" would that be? The one that the Founders warned us against? Perhaps the one that is not to be found in the Constitution, yet the republican form of government is there: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ..." U.S. Constitution.
Now, why would the founders denote a “Republican Form of Government” instead of a “Democratic Form of Government”? Were they imprecise in their wording? Were they ignorant of the two forms, or perhaps they were fully aware of the two and knew the strengths and faults of both? Which is more likely?
Why are the people on the left always using "our democracy" and avoiding "our Republic" as if it was the vilest of blasphemy?
Ranconteur, this is a very interesting question. The finer distinctions between ‘republic’ and ‘democracy’ are real, but they are often overstated in modern debates. When the author says that an instinct has ‘served the democracy well,’ the reference is not to pure, unchecked majority rule—which the Founders clearly feared—but to our republican system of popular government, what is now usually called a representative democracy. In that system, authority comes from the people, but it is exercised through elected representatives and constrained by a written Constitution and protected rights.
The Constitution’s promise of a ‘Republican Form of Government’ was deliberately framed to mean elective, non‑monarchical government under law. That design is broadly recognized today as one of the main forms of democracy, imperfect but preferable to the alternatives—much in the spirit of Churchill’s quip that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others tried. In that sense, when some citizens speak of ‘our democracy’ and others of ‘our Republic,’ they are, for the most part, affirming the same constitutional order and expressing a shared commitment to preserve it, even as they argue—sometimes fiercely—about which policies best honor that shared system.”
You defended my point for me. Either we are a republic or not. Just because some people are too ignorant to appreciate the differences, is certainly no reason to use improper verbiage. The Founders were quite explicit about establishing a republic and expressed their views at length during the 1787 Constitutional Debates and in letters. Their abhorrence of democracy was also put in strong terms. Why use an improper term, just because some crave to have "democrat" in there, or even wish to have a democracy, instead of a republic?
BTW who calls our republic a representative democracy, other than the ones trying to eliminate the Electoral College and make our republic into a democracy? I question why they want that. But then I have the words of the Founders telling us explicitly what the dangers are and what those people want. No, thank you.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. Have a pleasant holiday!
Raconteur, I’d suggest we set aside the idea that people who say “democracy” are ignorant or using “improper verbiage.” The real question isn’t whether some commentator prefers one word or the other; it’s how our own institutions and leaders talk about our system.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly described the United States as a representative democracy and a democratic society, while at the same time enforcing the Constitution’s guarantee of a “Republican Form of Government.” That is, it treats republican government as a democratic form of government, not as its opposite. Abraham Lincoln in his July 4, 1861, Special Session Message to Congress stated: “It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic, or democracy—a government of the people, by the same people—can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes.” He clearly used the terms together rather than as enemies. Ronald Reagan regularly praised American democracy and our experiment in self government while also celebrating the Constitution and the Republic. President Trump himself, in his current term inaugural address, talks about “the journey to reclaim our Republic” and in the very same address promises “to give the people back their faith, their wealth, their democracy, and indeed, their freedom.” to the American people. Using both phrases in the same address undercuts the notion that “republic” and “democracy” are inherently opposed; he treats them as complementary aspects.
National polls follow this pattern, overwhelmingly asking people about the health of “American democracy” rather than “the republic,” because in common and scholarly usage a constitutional, representative republic is understood as a type of democracy. And if we want a shared civic touchstone, the Pledge of Allegiance already gives us one: “to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The pledge marries the constitutional term you emphasize—Republic—with the ethical core others mean by democracy: a self governing nation, held together, committed to liberty and justice for all, not just for a temporary majority.
On that basis, it seems more accurate—and more constructive—to say that serious people on all sides are talking about the same constitutional order, using overlapping language, and disagreeing passionately about policy. The real test is not which label we prefer, but whether we are willing to defend the “indivisible… liberty and justice for all” part together.
Thanks again for such an interesting and thoughtful exchange. Wishing you and yours a very Merry Christmas.
Martin, I enjoyed this article. Let me add one more important myth. External threats have long functioned as a unifying American myth, but in this administration that story has been turned inward. Once, rival powers like Russia and China reminded us that, despite our quarrels, we shared a common fate. Now the language of danger is increasingly aimed at neighbors, migrants, and political opponents, hollowing out the old promise that security could bind, rather than break, the civic “we.”
This matters for those of us whose sense of civic responsibility—of protecting the nation—has been the constant thread keeping us engaged and unified. Service and vigilance were never meant to be partisan. If external threats are to unify again, the story must return to that older understanding: national security as a shared duty, not a tool for punishing internal enemies.
"it’s an instinct that has served the democracy well."
What "democracy" would that be? The one that the Founders warned us against? Perhaps the one that is not to be found in the Constitution, yet the republican form of government is there: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ..." U.S. Constitution.
Now, why would the founders denote a “Republican Form of Government” instead of a “Democratic Form of Government”? Were they imprecise in their wording? Were they ignorant of the two forms, or perhaps they were fully aware of the two and knew the strengths and faults of both? Which is more likely?
Why are the people on the left always using "our democracy" and avoiding "our Republic" as if it was the vilest of blasphemy?
Ranconteur, this is a very interesting question. The finer distinctions between ‘republic’ and ‘democracy’ are real, but they are often overstated in modern debates. When the author says that an instinct has ‘served the democracy well,’ the reference is not to pure, unchecked majority rule—which the Founders clearly feared—but to our republican system of popular government, what is now usually called a representative democracy. In that system, authority comes from the people, but it is exercised through elected representatives and constrained by a written Constitution and protected rights.
The Constitution’s promise of a ‘Republican Form of Government’ was deliberately framed to mean elective, non‑monarchical government under law. That design is broadly recognized today as one of the main forms of democracy, imperfect but preferable to the alternatives—much in the spirit of Churchill’s quip that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others tried. In that sense, when some citizens speak of ‘our democracy’ and others of ‘our Republic,’ they are, for the most part, affirming the same constitutional order and expressing a shared commitment to preserve it, even as they argue—sometimes fiercely—about which policies best honor that shared system.”
You defended my point for me. Either we are a republic or not. Just because some people are too ignorant to appreciate the differences, is certainly no reason to use improper verbiage. The Founders were quite explicit about establishing a republic and expressed their views at length during the 1787 Constitutional Debates and in letters. Their abhorrence of democracy was also put in strong terms. Why use an improper term, just because some crave to have "democrat" in there, or even wish to have a democracy, instead of a republic?
BTW who calls our republic a representative democracy, other than the ones trying to eliminate the Electoral College and make our republic into a democracy? I question why they want that. But then I have the words of the Founders telling us explicitly what the dangers are and what those people want. No, thank you.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. Have a pleasant holiday!
Raconteur, I’d suggest we set aside the idea that people who say “democracy” are ignorant or using “improper verbiage.” The real question isn’t whether some commentator prefers one word or the other; it’s how our own institutions and leaders talk about our system.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly described the United States as a representative democracy and a democratic society, while at the same time enforcing the Constitution’s guarantee of a “Republican Form of Government.” That is, it treats republican government as a democratic form of government, not as its opposite. Abraham Lincoln in his July 4, 1861, Special Session Message to Congress stated: “It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic, or democracy—a government of the people, by the same people—can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes.” He clearly used the terms together rather than as enemies. Ronald Reagan regularly praised American democracy and our experiment in self government while also celebrating the Constitution and the Republic. President Trump himself, in his current term inaugural address, talks about “the journey to reclaim our Republic” and in the very same address promises “to give the people back their faith, their wealth, their democracy, and indeed, their freedom.” to the American people. Using both phrases in the same address undercuts the notion that “republic” and “democracy” are inherently opposed; he treats them as complementary aspects.
National polls follow this pattern, overwhelmingly asking people about the health of “American democracy” rather than “the republic,” because in common and scholarly usage a constitutional, representative republic is understood as a type of democracy. And if we want a shared civic touchstone, the Pledge of Allegiance already gives us one: “to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The pledge marries the constitutional term you emphasize—Republic—with the ethical core others mean by democracy: a self governing nation, held together, committed to liberty and justice for all, not just for a temporary majority.
On that basis, it seems more accurate—and more constructive—to say that serious people on all sides are talking about the same constitutional order, using overlapping language, and disagreeing passionately about policy. The real test is not which label we prefer, but whether we are willing to defend the “indivisible… liberty and justice for all” part together.
Thanks again for such an interesting and thoughtful exchange. Wishing you and yours a very Merry Christmas.
Martin, I enjoyed this article. Let me add one more important myth. External threats have long functioned as a unifying American myth, but in this administration that story has been turned inward. Once, rival powers like Russia and China reminded us that, despite our quarrels, we shared a common fate. Now the language of danger is increasingly aimed at neighbors, migrants, and political opponents, hollowing out the old promise that security could bind, rather than break, the civic “we.”
This matters for those of us whose sense of civic responsibility—of protecting the nation—has been the constant thread keeping us engaged and unified. Service and vigilance were never meant to be partisan. If external threats are to unify again, the story must return to that older understanding: national security as a shared duty, not a tool for punishing internal enemies.