OPINION: Constitutional Republic, or Democracy?
The distinction should be fertile ground for a constructive, unifying civics lesson. Too often, it's being weaponized.
By Phil Huber
GUEST WRITER
Over the past few years, more Republicans have insisted that America is a republic, not a democracy, often as a conversation‑stopper. On one side, activists and thinkers on the right lean hard on the Constitution’s guarantee of a “Republican Form of Government” and the Founders’ very real fear of pure majority rule.
On the other, many citizens, commentators, and scholars see “republic” and “democracy” as overlapping descriptions of the same basic system: popular self‑government under law. What could be a useful civics lesson instead becomes another trench in the culture war.
The Founders did fear “democracy” in the classical sense: an Athenian‑style assembly where a bare majority could instantly impose its will. They had seen how majorities can become mobs and how factions can trample rights. Their answer was to build a republic—a government with no king, where authority flows from the people but is filtered through elected representatives, separated powers, and a written Constitution.
By modern standards, that early republic was hardly democratic. Enslaved people, women, most Native Americans, and poor whites were excluded from political participation. It took the abolition of slavery, the Reconstruction Amendments, the 19th Amendment, and the civil‑rights revolution before the United States even approached what we now mean by a “democracy”: a system where adults of all races and genders can vote and enjoy at least formal legal equality.
As institutions and rights expanded, the vocabulary shifted. Courts and political scientists began to describe systems like ours as “representative democracies” or “liberal democracies” in which the people choose leaders in competitive elections and those leaders are constrained by constitutions, independent courts, and basic rights.
Abraham Lincoln captured the blend in 1861 when he posed the Civil War as a test of “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 used the terms together because he understood that the real question was not about labels, but about survival of a particular kind of self‑government.
Today, the meanings are often weaponized. When some conservatives say, “we’re a republic, not a democracy,” they are sometimes making a legitimate constitutional point: our system is not a simple national plebiscite, and institutions like the Senate, the Electoral College, and an independent judiciary are meant to check raw majority impulses. Too often, though, the phrase functions as a shield for arrangements that allow durable minority rule—extreme gerrymandering, structural over‑representation, or efforts to overturn electoral outcomes.
On the other side, when people talk about “our democracy,” they are rarely imagining a perpetual town meeting. They are pointing to something more basic: that government’s authority should rest on the consent of the governed; that votes should matter; that no person, not even a president, should be above the law; and that rights should not depend on party, race, or zip code. In that sense, most Americans who say, “our democracy” and those who say “our Republic” are gesturing at the same constitutional order, even if they are standing in different rhetorical traditions.
If this terminology fight is obscuring that shared core, it may help to look at it through a more human lens.
Think of parenting. Most parents start with a firm sense of how children ought to be raised. Over time, both parents and children change. New research emerges. Old assumptions are challenged. Methods and language evolve. What once was called “spare the rod, spoil the child” might become “authoritative parenting,” then “gentle parenting,” then something else entirely. But in a healthy family, the goal doesn’t change: to raise a healthy, educated, independent person capable of standing on their own feet and living well with others.
Our constitutional development is messy, but the analogy holds. Early Americans adopted a “parenting style” for government—republican institutions designed to restrain dangerous passions. Over generations, the country adjusted that style as it enlarged the circle of people considered fully human and fully entitled to a say. The language of “democracy” reflects those changes. What began as a republic for a privileged slice has been pushed, often painfully, toward a republic of and for more of its people.
If one group of “parents” wants to call that project “republican government” and other calls it “representative democracy,” the crucial question is not whose label is purer. The question is whether the child—the constitutional order and the people living under it—is becoming healthier, more educated, more capable of self‑government. Are elections genuine? Are rights secure? Do losers accept results and compete again next time? Do winners respect limits and the equal status of their opponents?
The Pledge of Allegiance quietly offers a way through. It asks us to pledge allegiance “to the Republic for which [the flag] stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” In a single sentence, it affirms the constitutional word—Republic—and then immediately defines the moral project: unity, liberty, and justice not for some, but “for all.”
That is a description that both “republic” people and “democracy” people can own.
James “Phil” Huber lives in Fredericksburg.
Local Obituaries
To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit the link that follows.
Support Award-winning, Locally Focused Journalism
The FXBG Advance cuts through the talking points to deliver both incisive and informative news about the issues, people, and organizations that daily affect your life. And we do it in a multi-partisan format that has no equal in this region. Over the past year, our reporting was:
First to break the story of Stafford Board of Supervisors dismissing a citizen library board member for “misconduct,” without informing the citizen or explaining what the person allegedly did wrong.
First to explain falling water levels in the Rappahannock Canal.
First to detail controversial traffic numbers submitted by Stafford staff on the Buc-ee’s project
Our media group also offers the most-extensive election coverage in the region and regular columnists like:
And our newsroom is led by the most-experienced and most-awarded journalists in the region — Adele Uphaus (Managing Editor and multiple VPA award-winner) and Martin Davis (Editor-in-Chief, 2022 Opinion Writer of the Year in Virginia and more than 25 years reporting from around the country and the world).
For just $8 a month, you can help support top-flight journalism that puts people over policies.
Your contributions 100% support our journalists.
Help us as we continue to grow!
This article is published under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND. It can be distributed for noncommercial purposes and must include the following: “Published with permission by FXBG Advance.”
This nails the core problem with how these terms get thrown around in arguments. The parenting analogy really worked for me, like how my own family keeps tweaking things overtime while the goal stays the same. The Electoral College example is key here beccause it shows the republic's checks actually functioning, not as anti-democratic but as a safegard against regional tyranny when properly used. Most people dunno that Lincoln used both terms together deliberately.
Thank you to both the author and the publisher (editor) for this clarifying essay.