At Gettysburg, remembering that words matter.
I spent the day in Gettysburg, walking the battlefields, touring the National Park museum, looking out over the landscapes of Cemetery Ridge and Little Round Top.
One of the most compelling parts of the experience was listening to and reading the words of lawmakers and activists who led the Union in the years before the Civil War.
The downward spiral of violent language and the dismissal of opposing views were recognizable to anyone watching our current political discourse.
Distinctly similar were claims by the South that the election of Abraham Lincoln — even in a legitimate democratic election — would shatter the Republic.
When American voters chose him, a Republican, to lead the country, states began to secede.
Rather than wait for the next election — rather than rely on the rule of law and the power of the franchise — weak hearts chose war and bloodshed.
I don’t think we are anywhere close to that crisis now.
But it is troubling to hear so many critics dismiss and deligitimize our first African American president, Democrat Barack Obama.
When critics of a duly and fairly elected government complain of “treason” and insist that the “real” America is being ignored, it raises real questions.
What exactly does Sarah Palin mean when she urges tea party activists with this phrase: “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”
If democracy is only legitimate when your side wins, is that democracy?
Abraham Lincoln asked a fascinating question here at Gettsyburg. He wondered aloud, at a time of ultimate peril, whether a republic dedicated to human freedom “can long endure.”
But he noted, too, that horrific amounts of blood had been shed so that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
We live in a time when the people of our nation are changing. We are more diverse, more multi-ethnic, more complex in our moral and political views.
But two things remain true.
First, our nation is the greatest experiment in the history of human civilization, more fair and open and free for a longer period of time than any other.
This government was elected by the will of the people, in a tradition that stretches back through the heroism of Gettysburg to the Revolution.
Second, we should always remember our experiment is a fragile thing. Words matter and our better angels can sometimes be shouted down by our angry demons.
What an excellant post, Brian. Seems to be a lot of government mentioned in President Lincoln's words. This democracy is a government of, by and for the people. It is not the enemy of the people, as so many would like us to believe. We have come so far and yet…
What an interesting coincidence. Having just finished Seth Grahame-Smith's "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" I now consider myself an expert on all things Lincoln and vampire. So it is clear to me that Sarah Palin is a vampire.
"First, our nation is the greatest experiment in the history of human civilization, more fair and open and free for a longer period of time than any other."Yes I agree. However, I think part of the concern is that the Left including President Obama does not believe the above statement, that in fact they believe America is an evil place that up in until now has been a genocidal empire, and now it is in need of radical change.I thought I would just put that out there, I don't personally believe that about Obama, I do believe it about most on the far Left though.But what do other Leftist leaning people believe I would be curious, are we the greatest experiment in the history of human civilization more fair and free than any other over the longest time?
Mervel, I do. And I am as liberal as they come. To criticize does not mean one is not patriotic. Often it indicates a passionate belief in the ideals that are the foundation of our nation, and disappointment when our government – or rather when we, because our government is us – do not seem to be acting in accordance with those ideals.
Dear Mervel -I am astounded surprised by your statements. My own take is not that the left considers America an evil place but asks that it lives up to it highest ideals. The belief that freedom was intended for all and that the country's history is the story of expanded freedom. When our country was founded not all men could vote, blacks were slaves, and women could not vote.As for Obama, he is not particularly radical or liberal, but different. I believe he loves our country as much as any of us, or more. He has a much broader vision. I would urge you to go back and read his speech from the night of the NH primary, the "Yes, we can" speech. It is not the vision of a man who thinks our country is an evil place. Over the past view decades some real imbalances, and government may have a role in correcting them.Certainly, there may be people who hate America, or think it is evil.Fact is, America is changing on its own and would be whoever was President. It is becoming more diverse with more equality for women and minorities. Judging from the strong reaction in some places, some folks are having a very difficult time accepting that.norlight
Mervel -The irony of your comment is that it's often conservatives these days who are saying really extraordinarily negative things about our country — including frequent suggestions that states secede.–Brian, NCPR
Brian, it might be worth re-reading The Fourth Turning at this point. I do feel we are on the verge of another crisis. The failures of our national leadership reminds me of the lessons of the 1850's, that a great nation can drift into a period of real conflict. There are two very different visions of America out there and our political system is having real trouble addressing them.Some relatively minor event that in a different context that would not amount to anything could crystallize things and send them out of control.a
Brian – Good point. I think the distrust of government can be traced back to the George Wallace campaigns of 1968 and 1972. He railed against Washington and it has become a staple of our politics. Also, Timothy McVeigh and his attack in Oklahoma City, killing all those innocent people. If you remember in the early 1990's there were a lot of people flirting with the militia movements. After the McVeigh attack, a lot that disappeared, people recoiled from that and came to their senses. Hopefully it won't take something like that for us moderate the current vitriol.norlight
I just wanted to put that out there as that is a common theme I hear from some conservatives and from some on the far Left.But why not secede? Civil war and succession is also part of Democracy is it not? The right of self determination may mean that we don't have to be one country. I think we are for the most part fine. But I just hear so much about how bad we are, how evil we are from the far Left.But no one has answered do you all agree with Brian as I do that:"First, our nation is the greatest experiment in the history of human civilization, more fair and open and free for a longer period of time than any other."We have lived up to our ideals should we have to be ashamed of our country?
Yes I think to be critical is fine.I just had to put that out there as from what I can tell many on the far left do not believe our history is honorable at all, in fact they claim to be totally ashamed of this country and our past, illegal wars genocide and on and on.I think this country is honorable and has much to be proud of.
Mervel -You can't argue for American 'exceptionalism' — claiming that our Republic is unique and extroardinary — while also winking and nodding at the idea of dissolution and secession.You also can't argue that you believe in our democratic values, while also repeatedly hinting that there might be justification for taking up arms — the 'second revolution' rhetoric that flourishes on the right.In both cases, these are mutually exclusive arguments.–Brian, NCPR
Great post Brian, and this is an outstanding statement/question:"If democracy is only legitimate when your side wins, is that democracy? "
Speaking of secession, whatever happened to the vermont sessionist movement? Or did it die down once Obama was elected?
Brian-While we will never be perfect, I think we can value who we are and what we have accomplished while at the same time working toward becoming better and fulfilling our ideals.norlight
Fear mongering hypocrisy again I see. Tell me my liberal friends, when open minded, America loving liberals were calling for George Bush to be impeached, were saying his election was invalid, when people were writing books and making movies advocating his assassination- where were you? Where did you stand on those subjects Brian? While Bush was a disaster overall I find the current fearful hissy fits thrown here every couple of weeks over the EVIL Tea Party activists or those people who feel the Federal Gov't has over stepped it bounds to be both hypocritical and childish. When Rush Limbaugh makes a remark about leaving the country if health care is passed it's major news and the subject of much talk here and elsewhere. Funny, when liberal icon Alec Baldwin said the same thing if Bush was reelected I don't recall any great outcry. In fact I recall hearing much agreement among the intelligentsia. IMO some of you need to take your blinders off and realize both sides are entitled to their opinions. The lefts language is just as inflammatory and passionate as the rights, you just don't see it because they're saying what you want to hear. Open your eyes people.And Brian, you most certainly can speak of Americas uniqueness and of democratic values while speaking of revolt against socialism, illegal acts and an oppressive gov't. Your argument against that idea shows me you haven't grasped the concepts behind this Republic. You spend far, far more time arguing against the rights of those who desire to stop the current trend towards unconstitutional law and anti-American ideals to have their say than you do taking the current administration and it's left side fringe to task. I've mentioned Bill Ayers here several times and I have yet to see anyone explain why Obamas friendship with him or with any of a number of his staff who are avowed socialists, if not outright Marxists, is perfectly fine, admirable in fact. Those who want change on the right and who speak of secession or of "revolt" are just as frustrated today as many of you were during the Bush years. Many of us feel America has left us, so why should we stay? I understand in the west this is a much stronger movement. Of course people speak if the idea, but frankly talk is cheap and I don't think for a moment that any states are actually going to move to secede. What I do think will happen is you will see more and more states moving to block the Federal Gov't from overstepping it's authority, and I don;t see a thing wrong with that.
Yes succession is just rhetoric I don't think it is healthy at all to go on about it in that there are people who, lets face it may take this sort of thing seriously. However they exist on the far left and the far right. I would simply say that when I hear the far left I don't hear them saying anything about American historical exceptionalism. But what we might see is a concerted effort at non-violent civil disobedience. You may have states and or large numbers of individuals just refusing to play ball if the Federal Government oversteps too much.
What I take from the Gettysburg address is that Lincoln did not exclude the dead from the South when he said, "But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate…we can not consecrate…we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."Those few words always put a little mist on my eyes whenever I hear or read them.We need to remember we are all Americans and need to stop excluding those who disagree with us about this or that.These litmus test and oaths of loyalty we are asked to take to prove we are "REAL Americans" are, dare I say it, misguided at best and evil at worst.
"I would simply say that when I hear the far left…"Mervel, You stirred the pot here without quoting one actual person on "the far left." So it's just a boogey man. Name names.And Bret, how many tickets did that assassination of George Bush movie sell? It almost beat Avatar, right? How many Democratic pols defended it (and can you give the title without looking it up?)?
Well Anon9;59 do you think the US is exceptional and more fair and free for the longest time more than any other?
"better angels can sometimes be shouted down by our angry demons" Suggesting that people opposed to how the government is working right now are the "angry demons" and that everyone who is okay with the way Washington works is a "better angel" seems like some pretty inflammatory speech from the left. Brian you are as bad as the “tea party” crowd. Why are some people so uncomfortable with strong opinions? What is going on in America is not about civil war, but about trying to save the republic now so that it can endure like Lincoln had hoped it would. People on the right are not as insane as you suggest. Look at this from the Post. “The president touts health reform in part because it will reduce the deficit — according to the CBO, by $143 billion in the next 10 years. That sounds pretty good, until you consider that Obama would need the equivalent of 70 additional health bills to undo the $9.8 trillion that his budgets will add to the deficit during the next 10 years, according to the CBO.”These are the kinds of things that have people upset. And rightly so. If just slightly over half the country’s representatives want to flush the republic away just to save their political skins than I am not surprised we see such angry rhetoric out there.So how does the administration try to calm the waters? Make 15 recess appointments, classic!
Surely you guys recognize the difference between expressing "strong opinions" and disagreeing with how the government works… and the language, rhetoric, and actions of the far right that we are all witnessing.On some level, I see this as something that separates the two sides. They both have their over the top crazies, for sure. But radical elements of the left who suggest violence is acceptable, and act like those yahoos who were screaming spit at congressmen, are marginalized – not politically embraced into the mainstream like the teabaggers are.And again, to Brian's point… if the teabaggers and the right are trying to "save" america from Obama and the dems, then what they are doing in essence is trying to "save" the republic from people who were overwhelmingly elected via a fair, democratic process. So, in essence, when you say stuff like this, you are saying you are going to save america from its own democracy.These are people who campaigned on the agenda they are implementing, and won large majorities in a fair election.So it all comes across as very threatening, and quite frankly, anti-american and anti-democracy. Because the rhetoric isn't "hey, let's come up with better ideas and beat these guys in the next election" – it is "hey, lets take up arms, secede from the union, try them for treason… blah, blah and blah". I mean, really, you don't see the difference there?
"Well Anon9;59 do you think the US is exceptional and more fair and free for the longest time more than any other?"Yes. And so do a lot of people I know on "the far left," at least as Fox News defines that term. And I'm guessing I actually know and have more conversations with "far left" people than you do. And in any case, you still haven't quoted a single "far lefty," or even Phar-Lap.So, with sincere respect, it's kind of a crummy argument you're making. You're better than this; you usually bring statements grounded in facts rather than name-calling or convenient but unclear labeling.
No Dave, I don't see the difference. I don't see one bit of difference between right and left when the rhetoric starts flowing. When Kerry was running on about American troops terrorizing women and children in the night or Murtha was accusing our troops of war crimes, was that really any different than the Truthers going on and on about Obamas birthplace? Was the "illegitimacy" of the Bush Presidency any different than the "illegitimacy" of the Obama Presidency? To this day people are spouting the "Bush lied, people died" line. Am I any worse if I say "Obama lied , the economy died"? Both sides have their pet peeves, both sides say seemingly stupid things. Why is it any worse to speak of Obamas unconstitutional actions in renewing the Patriot Act than it was when it was Bush? Rhetoric is just that- rhetoric, words. If the words make you angry and uncomfortable then welcome to the club- I've been angry and uncomfortable over things like taxes, immigration, gay marriage, gun control, conservation vs preservation and a heck of a lot of other things for years. Why is what makes the left angry and uncomfortable more "correct" than what makes the right feel the same way? So by your values the right shouldn't be able to speak freely, their words are dangerous (Brians favorite phrase) and need restriction. So just what other parts of the 1st Amendment would you like to do away with today? I have a feeling if I proposed silencing Code Pink or Moveon.org because I thought their speech was harmful and anti-American I wouldn't get very far.Anon 9:59- "Death of a President". No clue how many it sold, don't care. You tell me how many Democrat pols said it was wrong to do and tell me what would happen if a right wing producer did the same thing with Obama as the target.
My bad, wrote "Truthers', meant "Birthers". I get the nuts confused, ya know?
Dave, yes I do see a difference. And I agree with some of these other posts that much of this is the "new flavor of the month" when it comes to political rhetoric. And I do think that Brian's post is fanning the flames. Just look at some of the comments.The concept of Brian’s sort of “look back to Lincoln” is interesting. There could be some correlations to now. When you look at the mid eighteen hundreds you had a time where American’s were questioning much of what they saw going on around them. The highly industrialized north was economically crushing the south. The entire economic output of all the southern states combined was less than the economic output of New York State alone. Now the northern states wanted to take away the one thing the south had based much of their economy on, slavery. They did it with an EXECUTIVE ORDER, the Emancipation Proclamation. Succession was the only option to avoid the new federal law they did not agree with. Flash forward. We see a large group of disgruntled folks that see this country becoming more like many European countries. I don’t think you can really argue this point. Nationalization of banks and car companies and a step toward nationalized health care are all on the books already. The federal government owns 50% of the homes in America through two large mortgage firms alone. Some of the folks here see this is as a positive step forward. The president has said that this is only a first small step. Many folks see this as a step in the wrong direction, and perhaps a step back across the pond to the English way of doing things. Their only option (I don’t think succession is the ticket, that is just squeaky wheel talk!) is to turn the tide at the ballot box. How do they do that? Well let’s look at how the democrats did it. They did it with a huge grass-roots effort that culminated with the results of the last presidential election. Like commenter’s here have said many of those far left loons took it a bit far with their Bush bashing like we see now with Obama bashers. Trust me I live with a liberal she hated Bush far more than many Tea Bagger’s hate our current president. Some of these right wing movements are just the start of that effort. They may be too far right to be successful. Independents that make the call in elections don’t make for very exciting rallies so you have to start somewhere. Brian and others would like you to focus on the “fringe elements” in hopes to generate some misplaced outrage. I don’t really understand why he is trying to do this? The democrats should be pleased. This “movement” is most likely to steal votes from Republicans and possibly save the democratic majority in the fall. Even Harry Reid might keep his job if a Tea Party candidate turns the Nevada election into a three-way race.
Bret,I can't tell if you were intentionally trying to strawman there, or if you just got lost in my post and missed my question. Paul seemed to catch what I was asking, so I know I wasn't being too cryptic.Here it is again for you. Do you see a difference between this:"hey, let's come up with better ideas and beat these guys in the next election"And this:"hey, lets take up arms, secede from the union, try them for treason…"
Dave, please tell me who was saying, "hey, let's come up with better ideas and beat these guys in the next election" on the left in the last few elections. All I heard was basically "STUPID, STUPID, STUPID REPUBLICANS!!!!" and how everyone on the right deserved to die for every reason from homophobia to tax evasion to ear hair and how the right was nothing but hateful mongering moron neanderthals. My point to you was that rhetoric is just words, whether it's a few hot heads talking about secession or people saying 9/11 was completely engineered by Bush/Cheney so Bush could avenge his father. And please don't even try and tell me that was a bunch of fringe kooks. Kooks- yes, but hardly the Democrat fringe. I suppose I could say I would provide reams of quotes from Democrat main streamers, but I am not spending hours of my time trying look up vaguely remembered statements from 2-10 years ago. Instead I'll just use google and give you the first few hits and you tell me the Tea Party is worse than the other side.http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/09/most-democrats-wanted-bush-fail-2006-poll-will-media-carehttp://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/28/hate_speech_of_the_left/http://www.redcounty.com/letterman-and-left-wing-mantra-hate-speechhttp://www.breitbart.tv/left-hate-speech-radios-mike-malloy-attacks-bachmann-tea-partiers-minnesota/http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/17847_BDS_At_Salonhttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/24726_Smileys_Left-Wing_Hate_Speechhttp://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/10/28/left-wing-hate-speech-a-defining-feature-of-the-bush-era/http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m10d6-Obama-seeks-to-restrict-free-speech-and-hate-speech-yet-he-is-blind-to-the-racism-of-his-allieshttp://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m8d9-Hate-Crime-Obama-backers-beat-black-critic-of-healthcare-reform-use-racial-slursOkay, I'm tired of it now. What I saw in these few minutes on google is a pattern if hate speech, intimidation and pure hatred displayed by the Democrat mainstream. How anyone can say only the fringe right (allegedly embraced by the mainstream right according to Dave) is full of hateful, violence prone wingnuts is beyond me.
Dave, you have to admit Bret has a point. It looks like the president may actually agree with him see a quote from Obama below:"Today's political divisions — including death threats against Democrats who backed the health care bill — are part of a "pattern of polarization" that stretches back to the presidencies of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Obama said. He called it an environment fostered to some extent by the modern news media."Frankly, it gets spun up in part because of how the media covers politics, in the 24/7 news cycle, cable chatter and talk radio and the Internet and the blogs, all of which try to feed the most extreme sides of any issue instead of trying to narrow differences and solve problems," Obama said.
Bret,Come on. David Letterman? He said the equivalent of a Billy Carter joke, and he apologized to Our Lady of Perpetual Palin.Hate speech?I thought the right wing was a bunch of tough guys.
What is interesting is I remember when there was talk or worry among some about Bush not having the 2008 election in some sort of coup/power grab with grandpa Cheney. Anyway yesterday El Rushbo said IF there are elections in 2012. So yeah this stuff just gets recycled from one side to the other. Whatever sells.
Sorry for the length but this is from an interview with Naomi Wolf about her book "The End of America"I find it fascinating."JS: Why do you think the sides don't understand each other?NW: Frankly, liberals are out of the habit of communicating with anyone outside their own in cohort. We have a cultural problem with self-righteousness and elitism. Liberals roll their eyes about going on "Oprah" to reach a mass audience by using language that anyone can understand even if you majored in semiotics at Yale. We look down on people we don't agree with. It doesn't serve us well.There is also a deliberate building up of two camps that benefits from whipping up home team spirit and demonizing the opposition. With the Internet there is even more fractioning since we are in echo chambers. With so much propaganda it is hard to calm down enough to listen.JS: What do you think is the biggest misconception about the Tea Parties?NW: The Tea Party is not monolithic. There is a battle between people who care about liberty and the Constitution and the Republican Establishment who is trying to take ownership of it and redirect it for its own purposes.JS: In your essay, "Tea Time in America" you said that some of the Tea Party's proposals are "ahead of their time." What are some examples?NW: I used to think "End the Fed people" were crackpots. The media paints them as deranged. But it turned out we had good reason to have more oversight. Or take their platform about states' rights. Demographically, I'm a hippie from San Francisco and I'm not culturally inclined to be sympathetic to states' rights. My cultural heritage is FDR and Medicare and federal government solutions. But if you think through the analysis, strengthening state rights is a good corrective of the aggregation of an over-reaching federal power. Take California's challenge of the Patriot Act or states like Vermont leading the way with addressing the corruption of the voting system. It's a good example of the Tea Party thinking out of the box on how to address a problem."
I find it fascinating that she's asserting liberals don't go on Oprah.
Here's an interesting article, I'll try to highlight the relevant sections. Compare what you see here with the very first comment in this thread by Pat (it's a republic incidentally, not a democracy) and tell me her words ring true. Tell me this doesn't stink of Nixons enemies lists, of J.Edgar Hoovers attempts to label ML King a communist. It's all right here people, so tell me why it's okay?-[URL="http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/3605"]http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/3605[/URL]25 March 2010: A federal intelligence source reported in an interview last evening that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have been called in to “actively investigate incidents of violence and threats” made to at least ten Democrats and one Republican lawmaker since Sunday. [B]Their involvement was reportedly requested by top House leadership and one unnamed, high-level White House official. According to this source, who agreed to speak to this writer under the strict condition of anonymity, “a ‘watch list’ has already been created that specifically names and turns their focus on various pro-life and tea-party organizations and individuals who are considered a threat to domestic security, continuity of government operations, and to the lives of lawmakers and their families.”[/B]While published reports confirm that Capitol Police have been contacted and are addressing security concerns of lawmakers and the incidents of vandalism, the involvement of federal agencies has not been publicly disclosed, nor will it likely be on any official level. The reason, according to this source, is that high-level discussions between top lawmakers and agency heads are “[B]exploring the application of the Patriot Act against any right-wing individual or group that poses a danger to government operations.”[/B] He added that “threat assessments and security measures for public assemblies at the Capitol, [B]specifically focusing on conservative groups[/B] are being re-evaluated at the request of the White House and Democratic lawmakers.”Dissemination of the list is obviously limited to avoid another “MIAC” episode, referring to the release of a document leaked from the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC).According to this federal official, lawmakers and White House officials were stunned by the strong response against the health care bill, citing the protests at the Capitol. “Based on what I’ve heard, I don’t think they were expecting the type of response seen in not only the demonstrations, but in poll numbers and by conservative talk radio and television. “They have been monitoring all aspects of this situation, not just the physical assemblies,” he stated.[B] “Watch lists are being created and updated to include anyone who appears to be organizing or acting as a galvanizing force behind the actual protesters.”[/B]The media outlets have also been reporting the allegations of racial slurs and anti-gay remarks shouted at Representatives John Lewis, Andre Carson, and Barney Frank this weekend, supposedly during the protests of members of the Tea Party. [B]According to this source, there does not appear to be any direct evidence of such behavior beyond the allegations themselves.[/B]On Saturday, Capitol Police reportedly reviewed at least two videos – one from a cellular telephone and another from a video camera – that supposedly captured the event. “There was a contemporaneous review of audio and video at the site of the protest when they [Capitol Police] created a physical barrier for the lawmakers and when the comments were allegedly made. The officers were even instructed to make arrests, but could not find anything that supported the allegations rising to the level of disorderly conduct,” stated this source.
I will have to update my opinion of Ms. Wolf. She at least has a grasp of reality.Anon 2:19- As I said, those were the first hits I got, not the best of the group. But tell me, does Mr Letterman makes jokes about the Messiahs two girls, or about Queen Michelle? No, I didn't think so.
Give it a rest, Bret.Billy Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara and Neil Bush, Chelsea and Roger Clinton (but nobody ever made fun of Hillary), the Gore sisters, the Bush twins, Lynne Cheney's porno writings–this stuff goes with the territory.Letterman's joke didn't work, he apologized.One problem with the right wing is its critiques of Obama are rarely funny. They're too often just bullying and stupid. It's like the right is so upset at him for getting elected they can't sit back and think of anything funny to say. (The best, funny Obama critiques are in The Onion, by the way.) The Messiah? Ha! Good one! The picture of him with the bone through his nose was high-larious, too. Keep em coming. LMAO.I know the world is ending (seriously, I'm with you on this one, Bret–I'm a big doomer), but fer gawdsakes, lighten up.
Bret, "words matter". from Dictionary.com"de·moc·ra·cy –noun 1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3.a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. 4.political or social equality; democratic spirit. 5.the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power." "re·pub·lic –noun1.a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2.any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3.a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state." So it would appear we are both right. Oh and Anonymous 4:55- It's been my experience of late that those on the right do not "lighten up". However, they do snarky very well and that seems to pass for humor.
Pat, do yourself a favor and read the Founders words. They desired and designed a republic, not a democracy. In the sense we're speaking of a democracy is basically mob rule, the guy with 50.1% wins, the guy with 49.9% gets his head lopped off. The difference is in a republic the will of the people is expressed through their representatives, not by sheer votes, etc. That's part of why the Electoral College exists. In a democracy it wouldn't. Republics run under democratic ideals, that means they are democracies in one respect, but they are republics first and foremost.
By the way, still waiting for someone to tell me why Obama and company are right to compile lists of "enemies". Do Americans have the right to protest and speak freely or not?
"Do Americans have the right to protest and speak freely or not?"Did you watch the 2004 and 2008 political conventions, with their protest zones and mass arrests? The answer is no.Unless you're well-funded by oilmen, like the climate-change deniers and tea partiers:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/greenpeace-unmasks-koch-i_b_518036.html
I was clarifying the meaning I attached to the word when I used it and one which the dictionary supported. SO many other meaning seem vested in words these days. "The Founders" for instance, always sounded kind of science fiction like to me, seeming to hint that they might return in the mother ship to claim the colony they founded. Personally, and it's just my opinion, if people like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton et al did return, I think they'd be more comfortable exchanging ideas with "enlightened" thinkers like President Obama than they would with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter.
What I meant to say was that so many words now are code and take on a whole new meaning, separate from that of the dictionary definition. Gee, I wonder if Bret, kind soul that he is, will let me have the last "word"? Anonymous 10:41- point well taken.
No Pat, I won't if that's an attempt top get me to agree that your definition meets the needs of the discussion. It's important people grasp the difference between a democracy and a republic. The Founders had a choice between a number of different forms of government and made a choice after careful consideration and years of debate. If you can't grasp that then you would have a hard time grasping much of their other thoughts too.
Brian- care to comment on my post of 3/31? The White House is compiling "enemies lists". Does this sit well with you? How does that jibe with your OP?