Both a Democracy and a Republic:

Exposing Another Ineffective and Erroneous Sophistry of Mainstream Conservatism

County Election, by George Caleb Bingham (1852).

Few things are more obnoxious or off-putting than garden variety pedantry that at least is correct about some inconsequential detail. (Pedantry in its absolute sense concerns the fixation of minor or unimportant details). Far more vexing is the insufferable variety that blathers on about a particular claim, but, despite the smug insistence on that claim, is in error about the very thing that person asserts with such particular zeal and adamance. There is arguably no more greater example of such false pedantry than one peculiar tendency by some, perhaps many, mainstream conservatives that wrongly insists the United States is not a democracy. This tendency is particularly acute in the wake of leftist elements that drone on about “saving our democracy”—rest assured they mean their democracy, not ours. Instead of responding to whatever important matter of policy or ideology is actually at play at any given moment, the fuddy-duddies will respond by claiming “Actually, this is not a democracy at all, but a republic!” Precisely because such a claim does not address whatever issue is at hand, whether it is lax voting standards that beget voter fraud or unrestricted, mass third world immigration, this retort serves no real purpose, other than an attempt to sidetrack the discourse, to jam the frequency.

Moreover, this tendency is especially insufferable because it is simply wrong. The 1993 edition of The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary of Historical Principles defines democracy thusly:

A government by the people; a form of government in which the power resides in the people and is exercised by them either directly or by means of elected representatives; a form of society which favors equal rights, the ignoring of hereditary class distinctions, and tolerance of minority views. L16. 2 A state or community in which the power of government resides in or is exercised by the people. L16 (629) (Emphasis added, third definition omitted for relevance and brevity).

Somewhat rare for The Oxford English Dictionary, particularly in reference to this edition when the once venerable lexicon was not quite so infiltrated by overtly descriptivist influences, parts of this definition are not without reproach, particularly the language discussing a form of society that “ignores…hereditary class distinctions.” Is Great Britain, which is still very much enthralled and even defined by hereditary class distinctions not a democracy? Quite obviously it is not a democratic republic, but a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. This common sense understanding and definition of the word “democracy” is demonstrated in both descriptivist and prescriptivist approaches. And as much as this author loathes both American Presidents, quotes by both Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (may they both burn in hell) further demonstrate this common (and correct) understanding of the term:

The world must be made safe for democracy.

-Woodrow Wilson

We must be the great arsenal of democracy.

-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

This quote by the Old Gipper himself, a somewhat ambiguous but far more benign figure in American world history, should quell any doubt on the matter:

“The democracies of the world must stand together in the defense of freedom, for it is the only way to ensure peace and security for all.”

Returning to the focus of this essay more squarely, it is unclear what, precisely, this botched attempt at semantics seeks to achieve. The manner in which the Constitution founded a democratic republic—that is an indirect democracy whereby eligible citizens elect representatives to vote on their behalf—is a most elementary subject that is duly covered from about the fifth through eighth grades, with more in-depth study in the 11^th and 12^th grades in U.S. history, civics, and current events classes. Anyone with a ninth-grade education knows, or should know, that absolute direct democracy has not been attempted since Ancient Athens, with Switzerland and its ballot initiative system arguably being an exceptional outlier. The most rudimentary education also informs that all modern democracies are limited democracies of some sort, but still democracies in the absolute sense of the word, whether constitutional republics, constitutional monarchies with parliamentary democracy as exhibited in the United Kingdom, or pure parliamentary democracies as seen in Canada, France, and Germany.

Despite however wrong and pointless these semantic games are, they nonetheless resonate with a surprising number of persons beholden to such weak tea that is mainstream conservatism, particularly with its fetishistic rhetoric about the Constitution. The people uttering such inane blather, without variation, come from mainstream conservative persuasions. There is even a book entitled A Republic, Not a Democracy.

The point of course is taken that this is not an absolute democracy, that there are checks and balances, what are (naively) regarded as inalienable rights that the will of the majority cannot infringe on, that is unless that same majority has infiltrated the judiciary and other important cultural and political institutions of power to a sufficient degree to just ignore such “inalienable” rights. But again, this is at best eighth grade fare. Aside from being wrong, such foolish tirades are not the least bit interesting or novel to anyone with even the semblance of a classical education (or access to the Oxford Dictionary and a willingness and tendency to use it).

As stated, very often these platitudes are set forth in the context of many of the most important issues facing Europe and the West in the modern world. One infamous video of leftie women drones on about fighting “für die Demokratie” as an expression of opposition to the Alternative für Deutschland. These mainstream conservative sorts would, at least in America, respond and doubtlessly have responded by stating “actually, the Bundesrepublik is a republic, not a democracy—it is even in the name. It is called the Bundesrepublik, not the Bundesdemokratie.”

This response substitutes far more effective and important rebuttals, such as those that directly address the migrant crisis, the great replacement, the fact that European nations and civilizations are defined by race, that sacred Germany would cease to be Germany if not populated, in overwhelming numbers, by actual ethnic and racial Germans. There are also hard discussions to be had about female nature and how its propensity for nurturing calls into question women’s suffrage.

The same principle applies in other contexts where this ineffective rhetorical strategy is employed. Consider how leftist rhetoric about “our democracy” advances the suggestion that democracy, as they understand the term, excludes any real opposition to left-wing orthodoxies. Blathering on—in error—how modern democracies are somehow not democracies sidesteps this important issue, an issue indicating that the left seeks authoritarian measures to vanquish its political opposition. This in turns suggests that such opposition best embrace authoritarianism before the left consolidates power beyond the point of no return.¹

These and other considerations suggest in turn that resorting to such rhetoric belies a growing but unstated hesitancy about democracy, as the term is properly understood. Mainstream conservatives behold what are arguably the inevitable result of this experiment. Lifelong indoctrination in dogma surrounding American exceptionalism and “constitutional principles” prevents them from uttering what at least some of them are thinking, at least at some vague, dim level that cannot yet be articulated into thought. They instinctively cower from a more revolutionary spirit. Deterred from saying anything of actual import, they trot out this ineffectual bunkum.

As explained in “A Close Examination of "That's Racist" and Other Invectives,” rhetoric and persuasion share one important principle with chess, and for that matter any game of strategy. That principle is tempo. Tempo simply refers to an economy of moves. A player that arrives at the same position in six moves that could just as well be arrived at in three effectively cedes three “free” moves to his opposition. But in the instance of this bit of sophistry, the pieces are moved aimlessly, without strengthening the player’s position at all. Droning on—erroneously—with such ridiculous pablum avoids the real issues and wastes important time and space, with no real benefit. After all, a concise rebuttal only needs to refer to any reputable dictionary, although that proposition is fraught with peril given how most all lexicons have succumbed to the descriptivist scourge. To quote the late Robert Fiske, “dictionaries can no longer be trusted,” at least not blindly and without question.

This matter may seem trite to some, but queries on the Internet reveal how pervasive and common such inane blather is, found exclusively in mainstream conservative circles. This matter demonstrates yet again how ineffectual mainstream conservatism is as opposition to left-wing ideology and leftist political movements. Such talking points are not only unpersuasive to most, they are simply wrong. This in turn further implores the necessity of overtaking and supplanting mainstream conservatism with something far more radical and something that better exhibits those auspices of a classical education.

PLEASE NOTE: Readers who appreciate the insight and perspective set forth in this essay are urged to consider offering a paid subscription or even a founding member subscription, provided such expenditures are not unduly burdensome. Readers who enjoyed this article and found it informative and insightful are also encouraged to signify their favor for this and other writings by clicking on the “like emoji,” as well as sharing this and other articles to those who would find this and other essays and articles interesting, insightful, or provocative. The like emoji or lack thereof is a greater factor than it should be that readers unfamiliar with an author or publication use to decide whether to read any particular piece or not.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

---

1. Readers are directed to “Neither Inalienable nor Self-Evident: Reflections on the Chimera of Human Rights,” which argues that what are regarded as “inalinable rights” rights “are only inalienable until political will and the exertion of power and violence (dormant or otherwise) has coalesced beyond that tipping point where those rights are proven not to be so inalienable after all.”