"Democtats" and "Republicans"?

[Liar]

"Democrats" and "Republicans"?

This is not a political thread. And if it deteriorate into one, I'll flood it with gay porn or something.

I just got curious after having a discussion with a friend of mine yesterday about the names of the two major US parties.

How did they come up with them? What's the difference?

Doesn't Republicans dig democracy? Or did the Democrats just nick that name to make the other guys look non-democratic?

Doesn't Democrats want a republic? People who call themselves republicans in large parts of Europe are those that does not want their official chief of state to be the king, they want to off the royal houses. As opposed to royalists.

Anyone got a crash course on these matters? How did they reason when they choose the names, and when did this happen?And what the hell has donkeys and elephants got to do with it?

curiously,
#L

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Liar, I wanted to make this exact question so many times. Thank you.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't know where the names come from. They were probably chosen to be innocuous and essentially meaningless. The truth is the US is a representative republic, where the citizens elect the people who represent them in government, as opposed to a democracy, where the people themselves are the government.

The Republican Party was founded in 1854 to oppose the westward expansion of slavery in the US. Its politics have changed significantly since then, and now Republicans are considered right-wing, pro-business, socially conservative, and--since the 80's--increasingly associated with religious fundamentalism. The elephant symbol is a result (I think) of a political cartoon by Thomas Nast from back in the nineteenth century.

I'm sure the Democrats' donkey comes from a similar source. The Democratic party goes back to Thomas Jefferson and it too has undergone major changes in philosophy. These days Democrats are generally in favor of government-sponosred social programs, labor unions and workers, liberalism and various progressive issues.

Republicans favor less government and more individual freedom. Democrats generally look to government to provide solutions to social problems. Republicans are right wing; Democrats left.

---dr.M.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

The truth is the US is a representative republic, where the citizens elect the people who represent them in government, as opposed to a democracy, where the people themselves are the government.

You know, whenever I see someone saying (and only people from the U.S. seem to say it) that "we're a Republic, not a Democracy", the thought that pops into my mind every time is, with no offense, Dr.M, "what the fuck is he talking about?"

A Democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. Its antonymous is an autocracy, government by a single person having unlimited power.

A Republic is a "form" of exerting Democracy. It's a political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Saying that the U.S. is a Republic as opposed to a Democracy is the same thing as saying that you drink a glass of water as opposed to water.



edited to add:
The funny thing is that Democracy and Republic mean basically the same thing, except one is derived from Greek and the other from Latin.

 

[rgraham666]

One of the main reasons Americans use 'republic' instead of 'democracy' is that at the beginning of the nation, 'democracy' was considered as anarchy, shortly to become a dictatorship.

This, I gather, was because of The French Revolution. Which proved this point to the minds of many.

The Alien and Sedition Acts specifically targeted 'Jacobins' as enemies of the state.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

One of the main reasons Americans use 'republic' instead of 'democracy' is that at the beginning of the nation, 'democracy' was considered as anarchy, shortly to become a dictatorship.

Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Indonesia are Republics.

United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, are not.

(I was going to say something about the American Constitution and anarchy, but I won't because Liar doesn't want a political thread )

 

[Pure]

mab said,
Republicans favor less government and more individual freedom. Democrats generally look to government to provide solutions to social problems.

Respectfully, I would differ: This is Bush's view: "I'll put money in people's pockets; they know best; the Dems want to take it out your pocket and spend as the Government thinks best."

The Republicans in general equate "freedom" with 'free market,' including in prices and wages. Hence they generally don't like minimum wage laws (or want the wage to be extremely low).
They often favor 'free speech,' thought of in terms of sounding off in the local paper; they do not look at the comparative power and scope of the 'free speech' of those who own the TV networks.
The 'republic' of Republicans (or republicans) may be somewhat selective as to who gets a say or a vote. E.g. a Senate of millionaires, like now, does not bother a Republican.

Dems of the left or liberal persuasion think this woman making 5 dollars an hour is NOT so free, since she can't pay her kids' medical bills, and may see a baby die; since she can't take time to upgrade her skills beyond their present state. Since she will die much younger than her more prosperous friends, and her kids won't go to college.

Repubs would reply that she 'freely' sells her labor for what it's worth; the 'market' set her wage as a janitor, and perhaps as an illegal worker. She is 'free' to quit any time, or ask for a raise; the boss is free to give the raise, or fire her if unhappy with her work. She may 'upgrade' herself, lift herself by her own bootstraps, as it were. She is 'free' even to write a letter to the newspaper, or set one up herself, in which she takes her boss or that industry to task. She is 'free' to go on TV and tell her story and ask everyone to send money to support her kids in college.
-----

I agree with Lauren that the terms 'republic' and 'democracy' may have similar meaning, though I would say a 'republic' might have less or no role for popular election of legislators and high executives in the government. Further, though both terms may imply elections, the question of who can vote (who's a 'full citizen') is an open one. I.e., most would say the US was a republic and democracy in 1900, before women could vote, and before *anyone* at large could vote for Senators (those in the upper house, with at least as much power as the lower, elected house).

I believe Jefferson's 'party' was called the 'democratic republicans', implying a bit more stress on the common man (not woman, in his day), and the government acting in his interest-- small farmer vs. large corporate entity. However I think it's fair to say Jeff did not envision ordinary workers who had no property (land, house), having a right to vote. There was a similar view in the British republic and democracy till at least 1850 probably later?? (someone British can find the exact date).

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I agree with Lauren that the terms 'republic' and 'democracy' may have similar meaning, though I would say a 'republic' might have less or no role for popular election of legislators and high executives in the government. Further, though both terms may imply elections, the question of who can vote (who's a 'full citizen') is an open one.

OK, if you consider that the President of the U.S. is elected by an electoral college, I suppose you can call it a non-democratic Republic.

You'd have to strike all that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" crap, though.

 

[Liar]

Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Indonesia are Republics.

United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, are not.

You're saying 'are'. RG is saying 'was'. This was one of the things that I suspected was the reason, that at the time and age of the forming of the parties, the word democracy had another connotation than it has today. Maybe not in the dictionary, but in the minds of the people who lived and was politically active then. Differences that time have eradicated.

#L

 

[Pure]

I didn't have that [electoral college] in mind, so much, because electors are, in general legally bound to reflect, in a fashion, the popular vote in the state they represent. But yes, the electoral college gives a measure of indirectness to the US democracy, in presidential elections -- makes certain voters more important than others (so as to give states more say, as it were).

In a couple revisions (sorry), I mention such things as an unelected (at large) senate, till 1913 (In a sense mirroring the House of Lords in Britain, which was NOT thought to preclude Britain's being a republic and (at least partial) democracy.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I didn't have that in mind, so much, because electors are, in general legally bound to reflect the popular vote in the state they represent.

Oh, but they are not.

Electors are actual human beings, with all the properties that go along with that. In particular, when they meet in December in their respective state capitals, they sometimes do not vote for the candidate they are officially pledged to. In 1948, for example, Truman elector Preston Parks of Tennessee, voted for Strom Thurmond who was running on the pro-segregation Dixiecrat ticket. In 1960, Nixon elector Henry D. Irwin of Oklahoma voted for Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd, then an ardent segregationist. In 2000, one of Gore's D.C.'s electors, Barbara Lett-Simmons, cast a blank ballot in protest of the District's lack of congressional representation.

(in http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.html)

 

[Lauren Hynde]

You're saying 'are'. RG is saying 'was'. This was one of the things that I suspected was the reason, that at the time and age of the forming of the parties, the word democracy had another connotation than it has today. Maybe not in the dictionary, but in the minds of the people who lived and was politically active then. Differences that time have eradicated.

#L

Point taken.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Athens was a democracy. In Athens, all the land-owning males would meet in assembly to pass legislation and make decisions by majority vote. That's not how it works here. Here we elect representatives and they enact legislation. There's a layer of expertise between the citizen and policy.

True democracy is technlogically difficult in a large nation, but it's possible these days and it's starting to show up in things like California's referendum system, where citizens can circumvent the repesentative form of government and put legislation directly on a ballot for popular vote. It has advantages, like citizen empowerment, but drawbacks too, in that the most popular choice isn't always the best choice, and the public at large is not the best place to go for maturity of judgment and depth of understanding.

Personally, I prefer the rupublican form of government. I think most issues are too complicated these days for a general show of hands.

---dr.M.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

True democracy is technlogically difficult in a large nation

Actually, it's very easy. All registered voters (citizens over 18, for example) meet in assembly every four years (let's call it elections) and then they choose amongst them a governing committee.

A Democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. Its antonymous is an autocracy, government by a single person having unlimited power.

 

[Sabledrake]

I'm sure the Democrats' donkey comes from a similar source.

A Canadian friend asked this just the other day. The donkey goes back to Andrew Jackson, who was tagged "the Jackass" by his detractors. Being a smartass kind of guy, he adopted it as his symbol.

Sabledrake

 

[oggbashan]

Loaded meaning

The former East Germany was called 'The German Democratic Republic'.

It wasn't democratic. Was it a republic? If you were a member of the only political party and could vote for the only candidate.

Left and Right have meaning only in the context of the particular country.

UK Conservatives are well to the left of the US Democratic Party on some issues such as publicly funded health and social services.
They introduced laws to curb the power of trade unions. Their natural allies in Europe are the Christian Democrats.

UK Labour is to the right of the US Democrats on some issues such as Iraq and the operation of market forces. They haven't repealed the laws on trade unions that the Conservatives enacted. Their allies in Europe are the Socialist group yet some of that group regard Tony Blair's Labour as an enemy because he and his party are too far right...

UK Liberal Democrats are closer to US Democrats than either yet see themselves as Centrists. They introduced the first state pensions (before the 1st World War) and opposed the Suffragettes.

However hard you look for European parallels with the US you will find vast differences from either Republican or Democrat policies.

Politics is the art of the possible - in the context of the country's institutions.

Og

 

[Pure]

Well, let's say that the electors are morally and traditionally bound, casting votes reflective of their states 99% of the time. The fact the three examples of exceptions could be found among several hundred electors voting every four years (a few dozen times) shows the main point, which I've duly rephrased





This is indeed said in another para from the site you visited:

Each state determines how its electors are chosen by state law and the process varies from state to state. In states with primary elections, each presidential candidate usually designates a slate of electors who then appear on the November ballot. The voters are then actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to one candidate or another. In caucus states, the electors may be chosen at the state caucus. Electors are actual human beings, with houses, children, jobs, and very occasionally, their own opinions.

 

[gauchecritic]

Re: Loaded meaning

The former East Germany was called 'The German Democratic Republic'.

It wasn't democratic. Was it a republic? If you were a member of the only political party and could vote for the only candidate.

Og

I'm just wondering how many people actually believe this sort of propoganda about Socialism as practiced in the USSR?

I can't find anywhere a definition of democracy that states anything about the existence or diversity of political 'parties', only that candidates be representative of or directly taken from, 'the electorate'.

A one party state doesn't have one candidate in elections, that would be a vote passed nem con. (without dissent, naysayers being uncounted) In fact with only one candidate there would be no vote called. (passed unopposed) This wasn't the case. The fact of one party politics gives scope and freedom to vote for the actual person standing rather than the 'Party' he or she represented. Far from being 'disenfranchised', the voting populace have a potentially far larger choice of candidates than in a two party system.

If you believe that the UK or US give a better option of whom you can vote for, then you are sadly mistaken, they are less of a democracy (following that definition) than any 'practical'
communist state.

Very few of my Eastern European relatives are or were party members yet they could all vote in elections. (these days party membership is akin to being a mason)

The same goes for 'republic'; A political order whose head of state is not a monarch.

In fact (from Dictionary.com)
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

A 'body of citizens' is far removed from the inferences derived from the word democracy. And thus makes our PM closer to a democratic republican than any president of the US.

As for elephants and donkeys they are two sides of the same coin.

Gauche

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The party names go way back. This all out of memory, so if it's wrong I apologize. The first two parties were the federalists and the anti-federalists, who became the Republican party, founded by Jefferson. Federalists basically favored a strong central government with power to do things, whle the Anti-federalists favored a weak central government, much closer to the confederacy modle. Technically, the democrats are actually the republican-democratic party.

When the federalists dissolved it was th eonly party for a while. For a while the Whig party provided something of a loyal opposition party.

Andy Jackson split the party, Taking more than half with him, they kept the name Republican Democrats as opposed to Adams who 's supporters became the National Democrats. Jackson's faction dropped republican from common usage and became just plain democrats in every day parlayance.

The republican party was formed by people opposed to the westward exapansion of slavery. The whig party was defunct as well as the National Democrats. They hearkened back to Jefferson's Repuvblican-democrats and took the Name republicans, more than anything to distance themselves from the Democrats.

Unless my highschool American History fail's me, that's wehre the party names come from.

In basic terms of outlook, the Democratic party carries liberal policies, favors a regulated version of capitalism and champions social welfare.

The Republicans favor conserveative policy, an unregulated market and would like to see social welfare done away with in most forms and those that remain privatized.

There are only about a million minor differences on policy, but that's the basic outlook. they both favor a republic, they both favor democracy, they just have radically different ideas about what for that republic should take.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Actually, [a democracy--DM] is very easy. All registered voters (citizens over 18, for example) meet in assembly every four years (let's call it elections) and then they choose amongst them a governing committee.

See, that's not a democracy, that's a republic, because you're electing people to represent you. You're not representing yourself.

In a democracy, the people make all the laws. That means that pretty much every night all the citizens would have to plug in and vote on the day's legislation.

That's exactly the difference between a republic and a democracy.

---dr.M.

 

[Weird Harold]

This is indeed said in another para from the site you visited:

Each state determines how its electors are chosen by state law and the process varies from state to state. ....

Part of how "each state determines" is whether or not they're legally bound to vote a certain way.

I haven't tracked the exact numbers down, but IIRC the question of "Faithless Electors" was brought up in 2000 by the media and something like 20 States were listed has requiring electors to vote the will of the people with failure ranging from misdemeanor to First Degree Felony.


That leave something like 60% of Electors who are legally permitted to "vote their conscience."

 

[Lauren Hynde]

See, that's not a democracy, that's a republic, because you're electing people to represent you. You're not representing yourself.

In a democracy, the people make all the laws. That means that pretty much every night all the citizens would have to plug in and vote on the day's legislation.

That's exactly the difference between a republic and a democracy.

---dr.M.

For the third time:

A Democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Your personal definition of democracy is different from anything I have heard of before. Yes, it was the Classical Greek way, but the definition of democracy isn't that limited.