19 responses to “Republicanism and Madison”

1. 

   dr

   August 24, 2011 at 7:37 am

   Obviously, despite their choice of terminology the distinction being reached for is between direct democracy and representative democracy. Obviously, you have the training to understand that distinction. Obviously, you have the ability to interpret your interlocutors charitably.

   So what is the point of this (series of) post(s)?
2. 

   Steven L. Taylor

   August 24, 2011 at 9:02 am

   @dr:

   So what is the point of this (series of) post(s)?

   Oh, there are multiple points/motivations.

   1) My basic rule of blogging is “I blog what it occurs to me to blog, more I cannot blog” (and like most writers I write for myself as much as anyone else–call it the Ricky Nelson rule).

   2) The political point is that most people who deploy the “republic, not a democracy” are not, in fact, making the distinction between direct and representative variants, but instead are making claims about majority rule.
3. 

   Ben Wolf

   August 24, 2011 at 9:06 am

   @dr: “Democracy” in the modern usage encompasses all forms of rule by the people. So unless it is that which you oppose (which I strongly suspect), you continued attempt to draw an arbitrary line between democracy and republican forms of government is nothing more than a fierce cry for other people to give you uneeded attention.
4. 

   WR

   August 24, 2011 at 9:33 am

   The first rule of Republicanism: When they have the majority, elections have consequences. When the majority turns against them, we are a republic, not a democracy.

   Shorter version: Heads I win, tails you lose.
5. 

   dr

   August 24, 2011 at 9:50 am

   @Ben Wolf: you are an idiot
6. 

   dr

   August 24, 2011 at 9:53 am

   @Steven L. Taylor: Yes, they are making claims about majority rule. Moreover, those claims are confused. They are trying to say majority rule=direct democracy, and to generate conclusions from that. All of this is obvious. My point is that rather than trying to untangle that confusion, you’ve written a gotcha post. Congratulations! You know more about your field than amateurs.
7. 

   Steven L. Taylor

   August 24, 2011 at 10:19 am

   @dr:

   Well,

   1) What ‘they” mean is amorphous. Having argued with any number of “them” over the years, I can attest that your characterization of “them” is not accurate for at least a subset thereof.

   and

   2) So, is you basic point that I posted something that is correct and demonstrates some level of expertise and you find this offensive? Just curious.
8. 

   michael reynolds

   August 24, 2011 at 11:28 am

   @Steven L. Taylor:
   I find your expertise offensive. Factual information pisses me off.
9. 

   Dave Schuler

   August 24, 2011 at 2:43 pm

   @michael reynolds:

   You’re in luck! You won’t find a great deal of it in the blogosphere.
10. 

    Trumwill

    August 24, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    You are, of course, semantically correct (though I do believe we would be better served we had a word that meant what some people mean when they say “republic”).

    Also worth mentioning is that the will of the majority was and is not only counted by counting people individually, but by counting states individually as well. And that our system, democratic though it may be, put more constraints on majoritarian rule than a lot of other democracies.

    I have no problem saying we live in a democracy, because we do. So long as we are not following that up by saying “But our democracy isn’t right because it has these undemocratic provisions.” Because, perhaps, ours was not intended to be a “right” democracy.

    Which brings us back to semantics. We need a word for what it is supposed to be. It’s a pity that word isn’t “republic,” which is kind of superfluous anyway in its actual meaning.
11. 

    Steven L. Taylor

    August 24, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    @Trumwill:

    Well, it is possible for the US to be a democracy and have undemocratic elements within its institutional structure. The problem is that a lot of people seem to think that that is what makes it a “republic” (which, as noted, it does not).

    And, btw, the fact that there are undemocratic elements (and that some were even intended) does not mean that one cannot criticize them. Why should it?

    That is, I would argue, far more than just an argument about semantics.
12. 

    Steven L. Taylor

    August 24, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    @michael reynolds: I think that there is a market for a t-shirt emblazoned with that slogan.
13. 

    dr

    August 24, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    @Steven L. Taylor: My basic point is that you posted something just to say ‘nyah, nyah, I’m smarter than you are!’
14. 

    Steven L. Taylor

    August 24, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    @dr: I repeat: “So, is you basic point that I posted something that is correct and demonstrates some level of expertise and you find this offensive?”

    Fair enough, I guess.
15. 

    Trumwill

    August 24, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    @Steven L. Taylor: There’s no problem with criticizing the undemocratic elements. It does seem… circular to me… to criticize something undemocratic for being undemocratic and then using the fact that we are democratic against the argument that our system is in places deliberately undemocratic.

    So we are a democracy. Except where we aren’t. In which case we are failing democracy. But to point out the intended limits to our democracy is to deny that we are a democracy, which is absurd. We are a democracy. Except where we aren’t. In which case…

    Keep in mind, I am not arguing the semantics with you. You are quite right on that. But you’re seeming to use the semantics to advance a larger position. I think you know what people mean when they use the incorrect words. Indeed, the second part of your argument is dedicated to the notion Madison was a majoritarian. Which maybe he was. But our system is not democratic-majoritarian, nor was it intended to be. That is not changed by the fact that people use the wrong words in trying to express this sentiment.
16. 

    Steven L. Taylor

    August 24, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    @Trumwill:

    But you’re seeming to use the semantics to advance a larger position

    Actually, no. The issue about word usage is based in my fundamental belief that we (in a generic sense) can never have a real conversation if we don’t understand what we are talking about.

    I do have, ultimately, larger issues that I would like to discuss, yes, but the argument over concepts is an end in and of itself.

    And I do believe that a lot of people are not just using the wrong word, but also poorly understand what they think they are expressing (like the typical conflation of federalism into republicanism, which is simply incorrect).
17. 

    mantis

    August 25, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    dr “obviously” – 09:50 am:

    @Ben Wolf: you are an idiot

    dr “obviously” – 09:08 pm:

    @Steven L. Taylor: My basic point is that you posted something just to say ‘nyah, nyah, I’m smarter than you are!’
18. 

    Trumwill

    August 25, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    @Steven L. Taylor: to me, it’s the focus on the semantics that is far more distracting than the incorrect use of terminology.

    It is rather difficult, to me, to separate the issue of terminology from the larger discussion because the vast majority of the time I hear that phrase uttered, it’s in a specific conversation about the will of the majority being ignored or scuttled.

    With rare exception, the phrase means “We don’t live in the sort of democracy where the majority gets what they want, we live in a federal republic (when the discussion is the Senate, the EC, and related issues) or an indirect democracy that purposefully put barriers between the citizenry and policy (when discussing the filibuster*, or congress failing to pass popular legislation or passing unpopular legislation**).”

    * – Which, of course, the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with. Someone holding up the founding fathers in defense of the filibuster does need a history lesson, for sure.

    ** – The last time I heard this phrase, actually, was when a conservative posted on Facebook “So much for democracy” when PPACA passed, and a liberal said it in response. This is not to suggest that both sides use the phrase in anything approaching parity, but it is a convenient argument when defending unpopular actions by legislators and/or the President. For various reasons, the argument occurs to conservatives more easily (albeit not exclusively).
19. 

    Steven L. Taylor

    August 25, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    @Trumwill: Part of the fundamental problem is a lack of understanding of basic terms and concepts, including federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, bicameralism, and the rules of the chambers (not to mention confusion over whether the Founder’s were of one mind on much of anything, save the very basics as well as the fact that practice and court cases have changed a great deal about our institutions over time).

    It is my experience that the dispute (that, again, I would argue goes well beyond simple semantics) over republic/democracy is reflective of a host of misunderstandings and I think that dis-aggregating the conceptual knot that the debate creates is a useful goal.