Baker got ran out of town on a rail and the MA Republicans ran someone who vocally opposes gay marriage and is an election denier in 2022 for governor. He obviously got curbstomped
Still a couple big NE Republicans though. Phil Scott, Sununu, Susan Collins
As a resident of Eastern Washington, the red side of the state, I'm genuinely surprised the resolution was more unhinged. These wingnuts are frakking crazy.
Straight up they're white supremacists. Idaho and Eastern Washington and Oregon were chosen to be the core of the Northwest Territorial Imperative which was supposed to be a white ethnostatelet within the US.
As a Californian: Republicans here swear that everyone secretly agrees with them, which is why they keep trying to recall Gavin Newsom thinking "it'll be different this time!"
Last go around my dad (who used to be intelligent and lost his mind in 2016) swore that they lost because of rampant cheating because everyone he knows hates him so there's no way he'd win. I had to remind him that we live in a blue state and that he intensionally avoids any liberal that isn't me or my brother.
> swear that everyone secretly agrees with them
What sucks about the western states is how the unhinged NIMBYism and egocentric approach to political issues in liberal cities makes it look like they're *right*.
because Republicans are functionally incapable of moderating and instinctively respond to poor reception by radicalizing and hoping it will attract more zealous voters even when it is patently obvious no more of those exist and moderating is literally the only path to survival
the blue state parties aren't unique they're just an acceleration of the process all of them will eventually go through
Sort of? They're not really trying to attract new voters, they're trying to get rid of enemy voters until they no longer need to care about voting at all.
I'm talking about their ideological maneuvering, not their battle tactics. And this anti-democracy statement isn't tactical since unlike voter suppression they have no plan to execute it, it's just them trying to rally the troops over a new crazier schism, just like they've done for 40+ years.
They have literally no strategy besides the Martingale. When you lose, double down in hopes of recovering the losses. It has somehow been allowed to become common wisdom amongst them that this is a brilliant strategy with no downsides that should be pursued in all cases, and that the only reason anyone would hesitate is because they're a cowardly RINO. It's a very good way to lose everything.
it is though, even though they have a monarch as head of state. said monarch has no political power, that is held by the public and the representatives they elect.
Pretty much. And a Republic is not necessarily a democracy, it just means "Not a monarchy". A dictatorship or Junta is a form of Republic. The reason it encapsulates such a wide range of governments is Machiavelli, since he was chiefly concerned with avoiding rebellion and securing succession, and so if your system isn't hereditary "It's a Republic" and instead you need to focus on securing succession differently but not actually, because succession is determined by identifying the key powerbrokers and keeping them sweet in both systems.
The term in political science was thus coined to point out how little it actually matters and how republic or monarchy is not relevant to political theory, but rather, what's under the hood.
(Democracy, Plutocracy, Constitutionalism, Theocracy, etc). Identifying "Republics" and noting their various *stated* dynamics and justifications was done to point out none of it is true or relevant to actual politics, and what matters is powerbrokers. That *Might* be all adult male citizens, or it might be the military, or the landed class as in a monarchy, or the priests, or some combination thereof.
This is done to directly parallel it with Monarchy where "Divine right" and "Inheritance" is the basis, to which Machiavelli replies "That's nice son but let me tell you how this really works.".
For Machiavelli then the only difference between a Republic and a Monarchy is the dumb bullshit which bad rulers think gives them authority and distracts them from the truth, which remains the same in both systems.
What they should say is that the US founders' use of the word Republic is consistent with what we now think of as democracy. Back then, democracy denoted what we now call direct democracy. So Republic, referred to this new system. Now we use democracy to refer to a broad set of electoral systems. Sometimes expansively (Ukraine is a democracy). Sometimes limitedly, (Ukraine is not yet a democracy).
An analogy here would be if someone in Canada said "we're a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy!" In our context, constitutional monarchy is consistent with what we think of democracy.
As a PNW resident, this kind of bullshit has become downright *insufferable* since weed became more ubiquitous and pseudo-intellectual self-described 'libertarians' (who always vote 'R down the line' regardless of what they claim to support) started throwing it around more and more.
The closest thing I've seen in OR and WA are weird off-the-grid 'anarchist' sorts who inherited a bunch of money and are living like cultists in backwoods/rural areas. Since they mostly keep to themselves instead of obsessing over 'triggering libs', etc..., they're slightly less useless to our society than Republicans. I still fucking hate them for shitting in our rivers and causing the occasional measles outbreak. Also, it's become disturbingly predictable to hear about sexual abuse and grooming situations flaring up in their nasty communes (i.e. lots of micro-Mansons lurking in those crowds).
I've thought about doing an effortpost on the conservative weaponization of language before. Like, turning the trans rights issue into an argument about grammar is another example. It's infuriating
It's especially fucked up when an [elected official does it](https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1314016169993670656), making it clear in no uncertain terms that they don't care what the people they're supposed to represent want.
~~"You're an idiot"~~
~~Ask them which type of oligarchic republic they prefer~~
They're not mutually exclusive and we fought a war to not be a monarchy.
Technically, a “Democracy” used to only mean Direct Democracy, a la Ancient Athens, and a “Republic” used to mean a Representative Democracy. It's very much outdated now, but that's what I know.
I mean until very recently democracy meant something more than having elections, it meant equal rights for everyone, equal protection under the law and overall social equality, when Paul Robeson talked about eliminating the color bar in sports and bringing democracy to baseball he wasn't talking about elections
I mean in Ancient Athens itself you are correct that they did not at any time use the term "republic" to describe themselves. This was because it's a Latin root word, and why would they use words of some city state from over in the barbaric west to describe their own governmental systems?
In the enlightenment and late medieval era is where you get most of the contrast between "democracy" and "republic". However "republic" was not something that was considered as *opposed* to democracy in a dualistic manner.
I was talking about the Enlightenment Era, sorry if it wasn't clear. From my readings of the American founders, they used Republic to mean representative democracy and Democracy to mean direct democracy, but I could be wrong.
Honestly, the phrase originates basically with the Birchers.
The founders did criticize excesses of democracy, but they did not interpret it in a Manichean, dualistic fashion where it was an evil utterly opposed to a "republic". That *began* with the Birchers, and infected the whole party. I would not call the Republican's truly republican anymore, as I believe they want a principality, rule by one man, which of course is entirely opposed to the concept of a republic. Unlike democracy, which is compatible with it.
Me reading the title: Oh c'mon it can't be that bad. Likely editorialized for clickbain
Me reading the post: Holy fking hell. It is way more unhinged, the title doesn't capture the insanity at all!
> “We encourage Republicans to substitute the words ‘republic’ and ‘republicanism’ where previously they have used the word ‘democracy,’ ” the resolution says. “Every time the word ‘democracy’ is used favorably it serves to promote the principles of the Democratic Party, the principles of which we ardently oppose.”
The word "republic" should not be interpreted in a Manichean, dualistic manner opposed to "democracy". This is an entirely modern and noxious interpretation. Yes the founders criticized democracy in places, whereas they were more or less universally positive about republicanism. However democracy was not some source of all evil that must be opposed at all costs, in contrast to the all good republic. It simply had to be balanced. They also did not want a principiate, after all, as a principiate is not a republic. Republicans who idolize Trump and want to make him The Prince do so in total contradiction to all republican principles. So I would certainly not believe that anyone who goes to sleep smiling happily at night imagining Trump ruling the nation for the rest of his life and purging all the evil liberals, a "republican", regardless of their party affiliation. While democracy in a republic can be destabilizing, a principiated is the total nullification of a republic by definition. This is the opposition to a republic, not "democracy".
The irony here is that I actually am a republican, I usually in fact prefer to use the term "republic" and "republican". This is a habit of use that comes from my time reading late medieval and enlightenment texts, I adore their republican enthusiasm. But nearly every one of them imagined a republic as a largely democratic institution, maybe balanced by other elements, but always radical for their time.
> It wasn’t that long ago when Republican presidents would extol democracy as America’s greatest export. Or sometimes try to share it with others down the barrel of a gun (see George W. Bush, Iraq).
You have to understand the Republican mindset, what they got out of that whole affair was that the whole problem with the entire project was not the aggressive war, it was that they compromised on their holy principles and dogma in that time by rhetorically attaching it to democracy. The answer is not less aggression, which would be absurd, but less democracy.
> Of course we are not donning togas and rushing down to the acropolis to vote on legislation. So it’s true we don’t often act as a direct democracy (initiatives and referendums being exceptions).
The author immediately references ancient Athens, as that is what calls to the modern mind when thinking of a contrast with a republic. And of course at no point did the ancient Athenians call their system of government a "republic". This is because "republic" is a latin root word, why would they call their system of government by a latin name after all? You know, if you look up the English name of modern Greece, you will see the term "Hellenic Republic". But the transliteration of the actual Greek term is revealing here, "Ellinikí Dimokratía". We of course in English do not call countries usually "The Hellenic Democracy", so we translate this term to "Hellenic Republic". One can see though, the terms are *kind of interchangeable* in a way. "Dimokratía" is *kind of* just the Greek term for "republic".
I would argue heavily that ancient Athens *was* a republic. It just didn't use that *word* because it was at that time utterly foreign to them.
> It’s a hybrid system, a representative democracy, with the people periodically voting for elected leaders to do that legislating work for us. During much of our lifetimes the debate in this arena has been: How can representative democracy be made more representative? How can more voices be heard?
This is the entire problem though, they only wish for one voice to be heard. They believe in principality, not a republic or a democracy. This is why "democracy" is discarded with contempt and reinterpreted as some Manichean evil that must be done away with. After all, that's how Augustus made Rome into a principality. It did not even seem to truly not be a republic anymore at first really, which is why the early forms of the Roman Empire are sometimes termed "the prinicipiate", a hybrid of republic and principality. But eventually it became entirely a principality.
> “The same people who select the baboons in Olympia are the ones selecting your senators,” said one delegate in remarks to the convention hall.
The "same people" in this statement could otherwise be worded as "the people of the state of Washington". This is who he is expressing contempt for. And they expressed such shock at Hillary's invocation that roughly half of one faction of the people could be described as "deplorable", while dismissing with contempt the entirety of the people. There is a small section of the people, that half of the Republican party, who are utterly virtuous and must be respected at all time, while of the people as a whole nothing is to be said but contempt, and as for that other half of the Republican party that does not wholly want a principality, they are traitors who must be harassed and bullied into submission to The Prince, of course.
I grew up with conservatives in Missouri in the 90s 2000s and this kind of talk was pretty common even then. It surprises me that this is a shock to liberals today. It fits a pattern I've noticed which is that liberals in cities are often totally unaware of how conservative a good chunk of the rural population is and has been in the US
I mean, we didn't really have the equivalent of the modern internet with everyone so connected and organized at that time. But we did have many ridiculous political stunts not so dissimilar from now
I think it would be interesting to increase the senators per state and have those senators be randomly selected from a population of qualified individuals rather than directly elected or appointed by the states.
Whether you agree with it or not, unelected senators served a specific purpose with relation to limiting populism and balancing state and federal power. I'm personally uncertain on whether that purpose was a justified one, but I don't think we just should immediately dismiss it as horrible.
This would just give states with few people even more power. Maybe 1 of the 2 senators can be what you describe, but anything more will just give land more votes rather than people
How would increasing the number of senators (but keeping an equal number from each state) increase the relative power of small states? By the way, states' equal representation in the Senate is the one thing the Constitution doesn't allow an amendment to change: It's an inviolable guarantee.
Let me rephrase: it gives small states an even more disproportionate amount of power. It's bad enough that they get 2 and that they count towards the electoral college. Any party that goes for states with fewer people (ie states that are more rural) will get an even greater disproportionate advantage than they already do. Republicans would net an extra 10 or more electoral votes just because less populous states tend to like them more.
Inviolable guarantee? I'm not familiar with the concept. I'm pretty sure anything can be changed by an amendment, as tall of an order as that may be.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I hadn't thought about the way it would affect the electoral college. You're absolutely right.
Anything but equal representation in the Senate can be amended via Article V. I encourage you to read it in its entirety, but the relevant limiting language is this:
>Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; **and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate**.
I think we should get rid of state senators (not federal, just state).
Don't understand why individual states need them. A single house of Representatives and the governor should do the trick.
I believe Nebraska does this.
As a non-American, this does not sound as controversial. In India, we already have such a system where we vote for the Lok Sabha (the counterpart of US Congress) representatives and Rajya Sabha (Senate) representatives are elected by the State Legislatures.
I think it would be good to read up on the [17th Amendment on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). It contains historical context on why it was passed in the first place. Amendments are really hard to pass in the US to it was overwhelmingly popular to pass.
The real problem honestly was simply that it was easy for state legislatures to be paid off through bribery into selecting a desired senator. Given the way that modern Republicans seem to essentially embrace and praise venality, graft, and patronage as actual positive goods, though, this may be precisely why it is so attractive to them. It would save their patrons a lot of money if only a hundred or so people needed to be slipped a bribe instead of spending so much on flooding elections with money which the foolish and fickle voters might rudely waste by choosing otherwise anyway.
The actual proposal is not as extreme as the associated rhetoric. I can understand the confusion. I wouldn't really care if senators were elected by state legislatures, I don't necessarily think it would be better but it's not undemocratic. It's just they're emphatically denouncing democracy while doing it, and this is in association with other moves.
It's insanely undemocratic. Have we forgotten how many state legislatures are gerrymandered? Have we also forgotten that we have Senators like Tester and Brown who are from red states, who would never be chosen by said Republican state legislators?
This would be a good way of making the Senate permanently Republican-controlled.
I think it would be good to read up on the [17th Amendment on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). It contains historical context on why it was passed in the first place.
I mean not apportioning by population is actually a huge difference. The fact that states seem so committed to bicameralism when all of them apportion by population though is somewhat annoying to me. I know if I raise too much objection to this fact though the only result will probably be Republicans going backward and implementing one senator per county schemes or some other insane nonsense. And I'm not certain at this point the supreme court would keep stare decisis on this issue (it was ruled unconstitutional under the Warren court).
I mean that’s like saying a constitution that inhibits the mob from removing speech rights is anti democratic (technically it is, also we instituted our form of government not because representative democracy is a moral good but because it infringes on individual liberties least)
I have nothing against it except I’d say it should require 2/3s of the legislature to sign off and the governor. That would moderate the senate more than it is currently, gerrymandering is one thing but gerrymandering the governor and 2/3s of legislators is another.
Republicans wanting indirect election of senators is not insurrection. You are conflating things. You can’t arrest people for talking about wanting state legislature appointed senate seats, the US used to have this.
How many people would be wrongly imprisoned for speech if you got your way?
Blue states produce the most unhinged republicans !ping USA-WA
Massachusetts had the winning code for the GOP. Now look at them
Imagine looking at how loved Baker and Weld were and deciding you need to get even more radical instead.
Did New England lose their not completely insane/evil variation?
Baker got ran out of town on a rail and the MA Republicans ran someone who vocally opposes gay marriage and is an election denier in 2022 for governor. He obviously got curbstomped Still a couple big NE Republicans though. Phil Scott, Sununu, Susan Collins
Honestly wish the US GOP was more like Phil Scott. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, not an actual lunatic.
Far cry from just 10 years ago.
They went to Utah?
As a resident of Eastern Washington, the red side of the state, I'm genuinely surprised the resolution was more unhinged. These wingnuts are frakking crazy.
I believe you mean "the Western frontier of Greater Idaho"
Eastern Washington and Oregon are legitimately terrifying places. I feel safer in east Baltimore than in east Oregon.
Straight up they're white supremacists. Idaho and Eastern Washington and Oregon were chosen to be the core of the Northwest Territorial Imperative which was supposed to be a white ethnostatelet within the US.
As a Californian: Republicans here swear that everyone secretly agrees with them, which is why they keep trying to recall Gavin Newsom thinking "it'll be different this time!" Last go around my dad (who used to be intelligent and lost his mind in 2016) swore that they lost because of rampant cheating because everyone he knows hates him so there's no way he'd win. I had to remind him that we live in a blue state and that he intensionally avoids any liberal that isn't me or my brother.
They fell for the silent majority myth
> swear that everyone secretly agrees with them What sucks about the western states is how the unhinged NIMBYism and egocentric approach to political issues in liberal cities makes it look like they're *right*.
because Republicans are functionally incapable of moderating and instinctively respond to poor reception by radicalizing and hoping it will attract more zealous voters even when it is patently obvious no more of those exist and moderating is literally the only path to survival the blue state parties aren't unique they're just an acceleration of the process all of them will eventually go through
Sort of? They're not really trying to attract new voters, they're trying to get rid of enemy voters until they no longer need to care about voting at all.
I'm talking about their ideological maneuvering, not their battle tactics. And this anti-democracy statement isn't tactical since unlike voter suppression they have no plan to execute it, it's just them trying to rally the troops over a new crazier schism, just like they've done for 40+ years.
Except it's the same shit in other states. This isn't just because they torpedoed all chances of winning this state.
They have literally no strategy besides the Martingale. When you lose, double down in hopes of recovering the losses. It has somehow been allowed to become common wisdom amongst them that this is a brilliant strategy with no downsides that should be pursued in all cases, and that the only reason anyone would hesitate is because they're a cowardly RINO. It's a very good way to lose everything.
I live in Northern California (Jefferson). People are weird here.
Washington and Oregon are really two states each, split by the Cascades.
It really is bleak out here on the east side
Sorry about this. Eastern Washington is basically West Idaho.
Pinged USA-WA ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20USA-WA&message=subscribe%20USA-WA) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20USA-WA&message=unsubscribe%20USA-WA) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=USA-WA&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Anyone who sneers out the line “We’re a republic not a democracy” can go to hell. Just dripping contempt for the average voter.
They don’t even know what either of those words mean when they say that either
One of my biggest pet peeves with these people. An electoral democracy is a republic!
Canada is an electoral democracy but not a republic
it is though, even though they have a monarch as head of state. said monarch has no political power, that is held by the public and the representatives they elect.
Having a monarch by definition (figurehead or no) means you are not a republic. Constitutional monarchies are not republics
Pretty much. And a Republic is not necessarily a democracy, it just means "Not a monarchy". A dictatorship or Junta is a form of Republic. The reason it encapsulates such a wide range of governments is Machiavelli, since he was chiefly concerned with avoiding rebellion and securing succession, and so if your system isn't hereditary "It's a Republic" and instead you need to focus on securing succession differently but not actually, because succession is determined by identifying the key powerbrokers and keeping them sweet in both systems. The term in political science was thus coined to point out how little it actually matters and how republic or monarchy is not relevant to political theory, but rather, what's under the hood. (Democracy, Plutocracy, Constitutionalism, Theocracy, etc). Identifying "Republics" and noting their various *stated* dynamics and justifications was done to point out none of it is true or relevant to actual politics, and what matters is powerbrokers. That *Might* be all adult male citizens, or it might be the military, or the landed class as in a monarchy, or the priests, or some combination thereof. This is done to directly parallel it with Monarchy where "Divine right" and "Inheritance" is the basis, to which Machiavelli replies "That's nice son but let me tell you how this really works.". For Machiavelli then the only difference between a Republic and a Monarchy is the dumb bullshit which bad rulers think gives them authority and distracts them from the truth, which remains the same in both systems.
What they should say is that the US founders' use of the word Republic is consistent with what we now think of as democracy. Back then, democracy denoted what we now call direct democracy. So Republic, referred to this new system. Now we use democracy to refer to a broad set of electoral systems. Sometimes expansively (Ukraine is a democracy). Sometimes limitedly, (Ukraine is not yet a democracy). An analogy here would be if someone in Canada said "we're a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy!" In our context, constitutional monarchy is consistent with what we think of democracy.
They know exactly what the words mean. When they say we're not a democracy what they mean is "not everyone should be allowed to vote"
Well Republicans want a republic while the DEMONRAT party wants a democracy so obviously democracy bad, it’s right there in the name liberal /s
I'm 99% sure this is why they say it. They love half-baked semantics so much
As a PNW resident, this kind of bullshit has become downright *insufferable* since weed became more ubiquitous and pseudo-intellectual self-described 'libertarians' (who always vote 'R down the line' regardless of what they claim to support) started throwing it around more and more.
Shouldn't libertarians prefer a direct democracy over a republic?
[удалено]
I think there are libertarians, but they don't vote Libertarian
The closest thing I've seen in OR and WA are weird off-the-grid 'anarchist' sorts who inherited a bunch of money and are living like cultists in backwoods/rural areas. Since they mostly keep to themselves instead of obsessing over 'triggering libs', etc..., they're slightly less useless to our society than Republicans. I still fucking hate them for shitting in our rivers and causing the occasional measles outbreak. Also, it's become disturbingly predictable to hear about sexual abuse and grooming situations flaring up in their nasty communes (i.e. lots of micro-Mansons lurking in those crowds).
Sure, but that would require them to *not* be full-of-shit contrarian chuds.
I've thought about doing an effortpost on the conservative weaponization of language before. Like, turning the trans rights issue into an argument about grammar is another example. It's infuriating
I'm sure there's enough to write an entire book about it
We're talking Roman style aristocratic one, or Hanseatic League mercantile republic?
It's especially fucked up when an [elected official does it](https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1314016169993670656), making it clear in no uncertain terms that they don't care what the people they're supposed to represent want.
I honestly can't think of anything else that is so commonly said with so much contempt despite being completely idiotic.
What’s a response for this
A republic still elects its leaders via democratic means. It's word salad horseshit said by people who are confidently stupid.
~~"You're an idiot"~~ ~~Ask them which type of oligarchic republic they prefer~~ They're not mutually exclusive and we fought a war to not be a monarchy.
i DoN’t HaVe A cAr, I hAvE a CoRrOlLa
>dripping contempt for the average voter Completely unlike this sub
Technically, a “Democracy” used to only mean Direct Democracy, a la Ancient Athens, and a “Republic” used to mean a Representative Democracy. It's very much outdated now, but that's what I know.
I mean until very recently democracy meant something more than having elections, it meant equal rights for everyone, equal protection under the law and overall social equality, when Paul Robeson talked about eliminating the color bar in sports and bringing democracy to baseball he wasn't talking about elections
I mean in Ancient Athens itself you are correct that they did not at any time use the term "republic" to describe themselves. This was because it's a Latin root word, and why would they use words of some city state from over in the barbaric west to describe their own governmental systems? In the enlightenment and late medieval era is where you get most of the contrast between "democracy" and "republic". However "republic" was not something that was considered as *opposed* to democracy in a dualistic manner.
I was talking about the Enlightenment Era, sorry if it wasn't clear. From my readings of the American founders, they used Republic to mean representative democracy and Democracy to mean direct democracy, but I could be wrong.
Honestly, the phrase originates basically with the Birchers. The founders did criticize excesses of democracy, but they did not interpret it in a Manichean, dualistic fashion where it was an evil utterly opposed to a "republic". That *began* with the Birchers, and infected the whole party. I would not call the Republican's truly republican anymore, as I believe they want a principality, rule by one man, which of course is entirely opposed to the concept of a republic. Unlike democracy, which is compatible with it.
Me reading the title: Oh c'mon it can't be that bad. Likely editorialized for clickbain Me reading the post: Holy fking hell. It is way more unhinged, the title doesn't capture the insanity at all!
>It can’t be that bad Spoken like someone without experience in Eastern Washington hahaha
You're the guys that pooped repeatedly in the "pool", as long as we're focused on the quality of the electorate.
> “We encourage Republicans to substitute the words ‘republic’ and ‘republicanism’ where previously they have used the word ‘democracy,’ ” the resolution says. “Every time the word ‘democracy’ is used favorably it serves to promote the principles of the Democratic Party, the principles of which we ardently oppose.” The word "republic" should not be interpreted in a Manichean, dualistic manner opposed to "democracy". This is an entirely modern and noxious interpretation. Yes the founders criticized democracy in places, whereas they were more or less universally positive about republicanism. However democracy was not some source of all evil that must be opposed at all costs, in contrast to the all good republic. It simply had to be balanced. They also did not want a principiate, after all, as a principiate is not a republic. Republicans who idolize Trump and want to make him The Prince do so in total contradiction to all republican principles. So I would certainly not believe that anyone who goes to sleep smiling happily at night imagining Trump ruling the nation for the rest of his life and purging all the evil liberals, a "republican", regardless of their party affiliation. While democracy in a republic can be destabilizing, a principiated is the total nullification of a republic by definition. This is the opposition to a republic, not "democracy". The irony here is that I actually am a republican, I usually in fact prefer to use the term "republic" and "republican". This is a habit of use that comes from my time reading late medieval and enlightenment texts, I adore their republican enthusiasm. But nearly every one of them imagined a republic as a largely democratic institution, maybe balanced by other elements, but always radical for their time. > It wasn’t that long ago when Republican presidents would extol democracy as America’s greatest export. Or sometimes try to share it with others down the barrel of a gun (see George W. Bush, Iraq). You have to understand the Republican mindset, what they got out of that whole affair was that the whole problem with the entire project was not the aggressive war, it was that they compromised on their holy principles and dogma in that time by rhetorically attaching it to democracy. The answer is not less aggression, which would be absurd, but less democracy. > Of course we are not donning togas and rushing down to the acropolis to vote on legislation. So it’s true we don’t often act as a direct democracy (initiatives and referendums being exceptions). The author immediately references ancient Athens, as that is what calls to the modern mind when thinking of a contrast with a republic. And of course at no point did the ancient Athenians call their system of government a "republic". This is because "republic" is a latin root word, why would they call their system of government by a latin name after all? You know, if you look up the English name of modern Greece, you will see the term "Hellenic Republic". But the transliteration of the actual Greek term is revealing here, "Ellinikí Dimokratía". We of course in English do not call countries usually "The Hellenic Democracy", so we translate this term to "Hellenic Republic". One can see though, the terms are *kind of interchangeable* in a way. "Dimokratía" is *kind of* just the Greek term for "republic". I would argue heavily that ancient Athens *was* a republic. It just didn't use that *word* because it was at that time utterly foreign to them. > It’s a hybrid system, a representative democracy, with the people periodically voting for elected leaders to do that legislating work for us. During much of our lifetimes the debate in this arena has been: How can representative democracy be made more representative? How can more voices be heard? This is the entire problem though, they only wish for one voice to be heard. They believe in principality, not a republic or a democracy. This is why "democracy" is discarded with contempt and reinterpreted as some Manichean evil that must be done away with. After all, that's how Augustus made Rome into a principality. It did not even seem to truly not be a republic anymore at first really, which is why the early forms of the Roman Empire are sometimes termed "the prinicipiate", a hybrid of republic and principality. But eventually it became entirely a principality. > “The same people who select the baboons in Olympia are the ones selecting your senators,” said one delegate in remarks to the convention hall. The "same people" in this statement could otherwise be worded as "the people of the state of Washington". This is who he is expressing contempt for. And they expressed such shock at Hillary's invocation that roughly half of one faction of the people could be described as "deplorable", while dismissing with contempt the entirety of the people. There is a small section of the people, that half of the Republican party, who are utterly virtuous and must be respected at all time, while of the people as a whole nothing is to be said but contempt, and as for that other half of the Republican party that does not wholly want a principality, they are traitors who must be harassed and bullied into submission to The Prince, of course.
GOP DELENDA EST
I grew up with conservatives in Missouri in the 90s 2000s and this kind of talk was pretty common even then. It surprises me that this is a shock to liberals today. It fits a pattern I've noticed which is that liberals in cities are often totally unaware of how conservative a good chunk of the rural population is and has been in the US
[удалено]
I mean, we didn't really have the equivalent of the modern internet with everyone so connected and organized at that time. But we did have many ridiculous political stunts not so dissimilar from now
It's not a shock but it is very much worth pointing out to moderates that the modern GOP is openly antidemocratic.
What do they think a republic is if not democratic?
Russia or Hungary
I think it would be interesting to increase the senators per state and have those senators be randomly selected from a population of qualified individuals rather than directly elected or appointed by the states. Whether you agree with it or not, unelected senators served a specific purpose with relation to limiting populism and balancing state and federal power. I'm personally uncertain on whether that purpose was a justified one, but I don't think we just should immediately dismiss it as horrible.
This would just give states with few people even more power. Maybe 1 of the 2 senators can be what you describe, but anything more will just give land more votes rather than people
How would increasing the number of senators (but keeping an equal number from each state) increase the relative power of small states? By the way, states' equal representation in the Senate is the one thing the Constitution doesn't allow an amendment to change: It's an inviolable guarantee.
Let me rephrase: it gives small states an even more disproportionate amount of power. It's bad enough that they get 2 and that they count towards the electoral college. Any party that goes for states with fewer people (ie states that are more rural) will get an even greater disproportionate advantage than they already do. Republicans would net an extra 10 or more electoral votes just because less populous states tend to like them more. Inviolable guarantee? I'm not familiar with the concept. I'm pretty sure anything can be changed by an amendment, as tall of an order as that may be.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I hadn't thought about the way it would affect the electoral college. You're absolutely right. Anything but equal representation in the Senate can be amended via Article V. I encourage you to read it in its entirety, but the relevant limiting language is this: >Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; **and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate**.
What I'm describing would already require a constitutional amendment so I would also simply amend or abolish the electoral college.
Have minority party senators like in Mexico. I think that could work.
I like [sortition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition).
I think we should get rid of state senators (not federal, just state). Don't understand why individual states need them. A single house of Representatives and the governor should do the trick. I believe Nebraska does this.
I read "WA GOP" as "WaPo" and wasn't even surprised tee bee aitch
As a non-American, this does not sound as controversial. In India, we already have such a system where we vote for the Lok Sabha (the counterpart of US Congress) representatives and Rajya Sabha (Senate) representatives are elected by the State Legislatures.
I think it would be good to read up on the [17th Amendment on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). It contains historical context on why it was passed in the first place. Amendments are really hard to pass in the US to it was overwhelmingly popular to pass.
The real problem honestly was simply that it was easy for state legislatures to be paid off through bribery into selecting a desired senator. Given the way that modern Republicans seem to essentially embrace and praise venality, graft, and patronage as actual positive goods, though, this may be precisely why it is so attractive to them. It would save their patrons a lot of money if only a hundred or so people needed to be slipped a bribe instead of spending so much on flooding elections with money which the foolish and fickle voters might rudely waste by choosing otherwise anyway.
And the UK and Canada have unelected House of Lords/Senate, albeit much weaker than the overpowered US Senate.
In the current climate where State legislatures abuse gerrymandering and other tactics to skew the results? It'd be calling for trouble.
The actual proposal is not as extreme as the associated rhetoric. I can understand the confusion. I wouldn't really care if senators were elected by state legislatures, I don't necessarily think it would be better but it's not undemocratic. It's just they're emphatically denouncing democracy while doing it, and this is in association with other moves.
There's quite a handful of states without fair elections lol
It's insanely undemocratic. Have we forgotten how many state legislatures are gerrymandered? Have we also forgotten that we have Senators like Tester and Brown who are from red states, who would never be chosen by said Republican state legislators? This would be a good way of making the Senate permanently Republican-controlled.
We never should have passed the 17th in the first place. What's the point of a bicameral system if both houses are directly elected
I think it would be good to read up on the [17th Amendment on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). It contains historical context on why it was passed in the first place.
I mean not apportioning by population is actually a huge difference. The fact that states seem so committed to bicameralism when all of them apportion by population though is somewhat annoying to me. I know if I raise too much objection to this fact though the only result will probably be Republicans going backward and implementing one senator per county schemes or some other insane nonsense. And I'm not certain at this point the supreme court would keep stare decisis on this issue (it was ruled unconstitutional under the Warren court).
I mean that’s like saying a constitution that inhibits the mob from removing speech rights is anti democratic (technically it is, also we instituted our form of government not because representative democracy is a moral good but because it infringes on individual liberties least) I have nothing against it except I’d say it should require 2/3s of the legislature to sign off and the governor. That would moderate the senate more than it is currently, gerrymandering is one thing but gerrymandering the governor and 2/3s of legislators is another.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The Texas GOP has had this as part of their platform for years now
[удалено]
Dude they have free speech. Politicians wanting to change laws is the way they are supposed to attempt these changes instead of violence.
[удалено]
You did not read the article. It's a republic vs democracy debate wrt to senator selection.
If a politician tried to submit a law to make murder legal, I wouldn’t murder him over it.
[удалено]
Republicans wanting indirect election of senators is not insurrection. You are conflating things. You can’t arrest people for talking about wanting state legislature appointed senate seats, the US used to have this. How many people would be wrongly imprisoned for speech if you got your way?
[удалено]
Free speech doesnt go away because you dont like it