If he meant “this system isn’t democratic enough”, hard agree. It sounded like the “the founders wanted a republic and we should stop trying to be a democracy” you hear from MAGAs.
When a person says the US is a republic, not a democracy, I take it as them defining “democracy” as a “pure democracy” only, despite the fact that there are other kinds, such as republics. Kinda like saying “that’s not a dog, it’s a Labrador.”
Well, the founders wanted an oligarchy, and we have an oligarchy…
The first step to fixing the problem, is admitting we have a problem: The US was never intended to be a democracy for anyone except oligarchs, and it’s still not a democracy for anyone but oligarchs.
On paper, it was a rejection of monarchism, so a step away from centralized control - but, in the same sort of way as the Magna Carta, where they didn’t make the leap all the way to popular democracy, and instead sought to partially democratize power only among the ruling class. More democratic features have been added since then (suffrage, equal protection clause, etc.), though not nearly enough. IMO we do need to completely throw the system out and start over, only carrying over things for the sake of streamlining/continuity.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
A republic you say?
Republic just means a country without monarchy.
China is a Republic
North Korea is a Republic
The US is a Democratic Republic
Where do you think the name of the political party “Democratic-Republicans” come from?
North Korea is also. Democratic Republic too!
So much good, amirite?
xD
Technically true. But instead of two-party system, they get one-party system. Decision is overrated anyways!
Hail the the supreme leader 🫡 /s
Hey now! The US is much more democratic, because we get to choose between two hand picked selections from our oligarchs.
I mean yeah the US absolutely is much more democratic than North Korea, but it’s the lowest of bars
A republic is a kind of democracy.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
In other words, a republic is a kind of democracy.
Oh my god, can you people shut up with this already.
The senate, and SCOTUS are verrrry democratic.
Not having primaries for either of the two available parties is very democratic.
The electoral college is the most democratic way to make sure the minority voice maintains a dictatorship.
If he meant “this system isn’t democratic enough”, hard agree. It sounded like the “the founders wanted a republic and we should stop trying to be a democracy” you hear from MAGAs.
When a person says the US is a republic, not a democracy, I take it as them defining “democracy” as a “pure democracy” only, despite the fact that there are other kinds, such as republics. Kinda like saying “that’s not a dog, it’s a Labrador.”
Well, the founders wanted an oligarchy, and we have an oligarchy…
The first step to fixing the problem, is admitting we have a problem: The US was never intended to be a democracy for anyone except oligarchs, and it’s still not a democracy for anyone but oligarchs.
On paper, it was a rejection of monarchism, so a step away from centralized control - but, in the same sort of way as the Magna Carta, where they didn’t make the leap all the way to popular democracy, and instead sought to partially democratize power only among the ruling class. More democratic features have been added since then (suffrage, equal protection clause, etc.), though not nearly enough. IMO we do need to completely throw the system out and start over, only carrying over things for the sake of streamlining/continuity.
But I like fish.
He wrote “it’s not a democracy, it’s a republic” originally.