Last week when an Arizona Republican state legislator was expelled by her own party for upsetting the “decorum” and “respect” for the institution by inviting some far-right “researcher” to make outlandish claims without evidence (such as the Democratic governor taking payoffs from drug cartels), it was justified in protecting the sanctity of "our republic.” That got me to thinking about how today Republicans are more insistent on referring to this country as a “republic,” and Democrats insist on the term “democracy.” So which is it?
Republicans point out that the word “democracy” is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution; yet “democracy” was a cherished notion of Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson. Although Jeffersonian and Jacksonian “democracy” had different roles on the part that voters played, they still insisted that ultimate power rested with the will of people, not with a few "elites."
Republicans, however, claim that a “republic” is one that protects the will of the “minority,” in fact the will of the "minority"--generally speaking the "elites"--can overrule that of the majority. We see some of that in action today, not just in the blindness of a fanatical "base," but by the actions of the current U.S. Supreme Court, which Republicans have managed to pack with narrow-minded cultural bigots who can do something much worse: deny anyone (whether those in the center-left majority or a demographic minority) rights that another “minority”—meaning white culture war bigots—don’t want them to have.
James Madison wrote that “In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.” Yet as George Thomas wrote in the Atlantic, Madison still defended the rule by the “people” rather than the “few,” although his fear that “democracy was also susceptible to demagogues—men of ‘factious tempers’ and ‘sinister designs,’ who relied on ‘vicious arts’ to betray the interests of the people” gives one pause to speculate that his fear of “mob rule” reminds of too much of those "republic" politicians responsible for events of January 6.
The U.S. may be a “republic” in the sense that it is governed by elected officials, but the notion of an elected form of government would be impossible without its very basis—democracy, meaning election by the “people,” and not chosen by a group of "elites." In fact, the term “republic” harkens back to Roman times, and Roman senators were not in fact elected by “the people,” but either nominated by a consul (who was the de facto head of state) and later the censors. They had no real governing role save as an advisory board and make themselves rich.
Thus the correct term to define the government of this country is as a “democratic republic.” Autocratic, corporatist and fascist tendencies under the guise of "republic" is only kept under control by “democratic” principles of elected government; i.e. the "will" of the majority--and it is increasingly clear that many Republicans do not like that theory of government, and do all they can to deny as many in the majority as they can the right to be heard at the ballot box.
Furthermore, over the course of U.S. history debates over whether this is a “republic” or a “democracy” are essentially meaningless, especially when it comes to the Republican Party. We can examine party platforms to see how the parties have “evolved” over time. For example the first Republican Party platform in 1856 focused almost exclusively on banning slavery from the territories. It held up the territory of Kansas as an example of where anti-slavery residents’ rights were violated by those who wished to forcibly introduce slavery against the majority "will." Of course the reality was that many white residents who did not want slavery introduced into the territory were not necessarily anti-slavery; they just didn't want blacks as "neighbors."
The 1860 Republican
platform also focused on preventing slavery from being introduced into the
territories, opposing the notion that the Constitution supported a “new dogma”
that deprived anyone (including blacks without specifically saying so) of their
rights under the Constitution. The “slavocracy” was of course keen on expanding
slavery into the territories because it saw its power in Congress diminishing,
and the only way to maintain influence and stave-off threats to the continued
existence of slavery was creating new slave states from the territories.
However, there was this interesting tidbit in the 1860 platform:
That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.
This was in response to the accusation that big city machines like Tammany Hall in New York were showing too much favor to (mostly Irish) immigrants to expand their power base, and speeding up the naturalization process to allow them to vote for their “friends.” This had already been seen in the anti-immigrant “Know-Nothing” or American Party movement, and this nativist sentiment would lead to the restrictive 1924 immigration law, and eventually to white nationalism today. Of course, the “fear” for Republicans was that most voters of recent immigrant background would vote for the Democrats in northern states.
The 1920 Republican platform, after complaining the Woodrow Wilson administration was as “unprepared for peace” as it was for war, made this statement: "We undertake to end executive autocracy and restore to the people their constitutional government.” What did that mean? Well, that is not exactly clear at the time, but it would become "clearer" later with all the free-for-all graft and corruption in the Harding and Coolidge administrations, and the financial anarchy that led to the Great Depression.
Then we see this forerunner of "American First" nationalism: “Subject to a due regard for our international obligations, we should leave our country free to develop its civilization along lines most conducive to the happiness and welfare of its people, and to cast its influence on the side of justice and right should occasion require."
It then goes off into a tangent about being a “sincere friend of the Mexican people” before setting-up rationalizations to invade the country to “protect the American people.” This is in contrast to opposition to supporting Wilson’s plan to aid Christian Armenia, whose people were threatened by genocide by the Muslim Turks:
The acceptance of such a mandate would throw the United States into the very maelstrom of European quarrels. According to the estimate of the Harbord Commission, organized by authority of President Wilson, we would be called upon to send 59,000 American boys to police Armenia and to expend $276,000,000 in the first year and $756,000,000 in five years. This estimate is made upon the basis that we would have only roving bands to fight; but in case of serious trouble with the Turks or with Russia, a force exceeding 200,000 would be necessary.
While the Turkish government still bristles over accusations of genocide, out of a population that once numbered up to 1.5 million, only 50-70,000 Christian Armenians still "officially" live in Turkey.
“America First” philosophy was part of the "program" in regard to support of the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations:
We believe that all this can be done without the compromise of national independence, without depriving the people of the United States in advance of the right to determine for themselves what is just and fair when the occasion arises, and without involving them as participants and not as peacemakers in a multitude of quarrels, the merits of which they are unable to judge.
On the other hand, the platform's stand on taxes was “pragmatic” compared to today:
The burden of taxation imposed upon the American people is staggering; but in presenting a true statement of the situation we must face the fact that, while the character of the taxes can and should be changed, an early reduction of the amount of revenue to be raised is not to be expected.
On free speech, while “We demand that every American citizen shall enjoy the ancient and constitutional right of free speech, free press and free assembly and the no less sacred right of the qualified voter to be represented by his duly chosen representatives,” “free speech” was also no defense against advocating “resistance to the law, and no man may advocate violent overthrow of the government.” This was likely in regard to "anarchists," but note that Republicans were out of power when the January 6 version of anarchists were being prosecuted, and we have heard from many Republicans (Marjorie Taylor Greene) say that they didn’t necessarily have a problem with the violent overthrow of a newly elected head of state.
On immigration, the Republican platform asserted that “aliens” were “not entitled” to the right of free speech if it was “agitation directed against the government of American institutions.” However, it was somewhat more “pragmatic” on how to deal with a “nation of immigrants” than it is today:
Every government has the power to exclude and deport those aliens who constitute a real menace to its peaceful existence. But in view of the large numbers of people affected by the immigration acts and in view of the vigorous malpractice of the Departments of Justice and Labor, an adequate public hearing before a competent administrative tribunal should be assured to all.
But on social policy, the Republican Party still wanted to at least imply that it was the “friend” of the black man, unlike the South still dominated by the Democratic Party:
The supreme duty of the nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice. Although the federal jurisdiction over social problems is limited, they affect the welfare and interest of the nation as a whole. We pledge the Republican party to the solution of these problems through national and state legislation in accordance with the best progressive thought of the country.
So let’s jump to the 1980 Republican platform. Things had changed dramatically in the ensuing decades, starting with the influence of the John Birch Society in the 1950s and Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in the 1960s. After a rundown of all the disasters of the Carter administration, we learn that Democrats
…are without program or ideas to reverse it. Divided, leaderless, unseeing, uncomprehending, they plod on with listless offerings of pale imitations of the same policies they have pursued so long, knowing full well their futility. The Carter Administration is the unhappy and inevitable consequence of decades of increasingly outmoded Democratic domination of our national life. Over the past four years it has repeatedly demonstrated that it has no basic goals other than the perpetuation of its own rule and no guiding principle other than the fleeting insights provided by the latest opinion poll. Policies announced one day are disavowed or ignored the next, sowing confusion among Americans at home and havoc among our friends abroad.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds very much like the Republican Party today.
The platform goes on about tax cuts, “improving” the welfare system by degrading those on it, weakening environmental regulations that “harm” economic growth. While the platform put in a lot of nice words about being the “Party of Lincoln,” it was mostly for show, since instead of seeking ways to increase the benefits of “Reaganomics” for all classes of people, Ronald Reagan reduced staff and placed anti-affirmative action fanatics like Clarence Thomas in the EEOC and the Civil Rights Commission.
But was most interesting was the California man’s acceptance of the place of Hispanics in American society, before East and South Asians became the more “accepted” face of “foreignness”—who like whites and blacks are not “native” to this part of the world, unlike most Hispanics who have “blood” that is "native" to this hemisphere:
Hispanics are rapidly becoming the largest minority in the country and are one of the major pillars in our cultural, social, and economic life. Diverse in character, proud in heritage, they are greatly enriching the American melting pot.
Hispanics seek only the full rights of citizenship—in education, in law enforcement, in housing—and an equal opportunity to achieve economic security. Unfortunately, those desires have not always been fulfilled; as in so many other areas, the Carter Administration has been long on rhetoric and short on action in its approach to the Hispanic community.
We pledge to pursue policies that will help to make the opportunities of American life a reality for Hispanics. The economic policies enunciated in this platform will, we believe, create new jobs for Hispanic teenagers and adults and will also open up new business opportunities for them. We also believe there should be local educational programs which enable those who grew up learning another language such as Spanish to become proficient in English while also maintaining their own language and cultural heritage. Neither Hispanics nor any other American citizens should be barred from education or employment opportunities because English is not their first language.
Damn, what party is that again? Hell, even "socialist" Democrats wouldn't go that far, being too consumed with gender and black advocacy; Hispanics are not even allowed a "voice" in the mainstream media or entertainment. For the Republican Party as we know it today, they are all “drug dealers,” “rapists” “criminals” and just plain mostly “bad dudes.”
But despite those kind words, in 1986, Reagan signed an immigration law that provided amnesty for all illegal aliens who did not have criminal records—but would also make it much more difficult for U.S. employers (especially farmers) to legally hire cross-border temporary workers, and in the final analysis this caused illegal immigration to become much worse.
What about the Democrats? In the book A People and a Nation: A History of the United States, the founding of the Democratic Party in 1828
…represented a wide range of views but shared a fundamental commitment to the Jeffersonian concept of an agrarian society. They viewed the central government as the enemy of individual liberty... Jacksonians feared the concentration of economic and political power. They believed that government intervention in the economy benefited special-interest groups and created corporate monopolies that favored the rich. They sought to restore the independence of the individual—the artisan and the ordinary farmer—by ending federal support of banks and corporations and restricting the use of paper currency, which they distrusted.
But in a “twist” of how times have changed, how the Democratic Party defined “the proper role of government tended to be negative, and Andrew Jackson's political power was largely expressed in negative acts. He exercised the veto more than all previous presidents combined... Nor did Jackson share reformers' humanitarian concerns. He had no sympathy for American Indians, initiating the removal of the Cherokees along the Trail of Tears.”
But times change, and this philosophy would eventually be more closely aligned with the Republicans and their media supporters today.
In the 1928 Democratic platform, the party still clung to “Jeffersonian ideals” like “states’ rights”—meaning that of Southern states—and the "popular will," but still not mentioning at all social or minority concerns they have become identified with today:
We hold that government must function not to centralize our wealth but to preserve equal opportunity so that all may share in our priceless resources; and not confine prosperity to a favored few. We, therefore, pledge the Democratic Party to encourage business, small and great alike; to conserve human happiness and liberty; to break the shackles of monopoly and free business of the nation; to respond to the popular will.
The Republican Party, of course, was accused of corruption and that certainly was true. The impact of its laissez-faire attitude toward financial regulation would only be known in another year, so this did not hinder Herbert Hoover's election. The Democrats' stance on immigration was in keeping with the times, yet maintained at least a modicum of humanity, in stark contrast to what we saw during the Trump administration and its family separation policy:
Laws which limit immigration must be preserved in full force and effect, but the provisions contained in these laws that separate husbands from wives and parents from infant children are inhuman and not essential to the purpose or the efficacy of such laws.
The 1932 Democratic platform not surprisingly took advantage of public frustration with the failure of Republican Party to take ownership of the Great Depression:
In this time of unprecedented economic and social distress the Democratic Party declares its conviction that the chief causes of this condition were the disastrous policies pursued by our government since the World War, of economic isolation, fostering the merger of competitive businesses into monopolies and encouraging the indefensible expansion and contraction of credit for private profit at the expense of the public.
Far from a party “without a plan,” the rest of the platform was a laundry list of what an FDR administrations planned to do—and not do what Republicans did. What is interesting is that although “social” issues are not mentioned, neither does the platform search for scapegoats like immigrants, who are not mentioned at all. However, during the Depression, people of Mexican heritage were gathered-up in border states and deported regardless of their legal status; it is estimated that 60 percent of all those illegally deported were U.S. citizens, and FDR did almost nothing to stop this.
But during the height of the civil rights period, the 1964 Democratic platform chose to alienate many Southern white Democratic voters by embracing a progressive social policy that encouraged all people to find a common purpose "together" without partisan hatreds:
America is One Nation, One People. The welfare, progress, security and survival of each of us reside in the common good—the sharing of responsibilities as well as benefits by all our people.
Democracy in America rests on the confidence that people can be trusted with freedom. It comes from the connection that we will find in freedom a unity of purpose stronger than all our differences. We have drawn upon that unity when the forces of ignorance, hate, and fear fired an assassin's bullet at the nation's heart, incited violence in our land, and attacked the outposts of freedom around the world. Because of this unity, those who traffic in fear, hate, falsehood, and violence have failed to undermine our people's deep love of truth and quiet faith in freedom.
Our program for the future is to make the national purpose—the human purpose of us all—fulfill our individual needs. Accordingly, we offer this platform as a covenant of unity. We invite all to join us who believe that narrow partisanship takes too small account of the size of our task, the penalties for failure and the boundless rewards to all our people for success. We offer as the goal of this covenant peace for all nations and freedom for all peoples.
The change in the Democratic Party couldn’t be more dramatic from its original inception, and so too was that of the Republican Party, which took over the "mantle" of white nationalism vacated by the Democrats. While the Republican Party today is identified with big business and cultural and racial bigots, the Democratic Party then and there proclaimed itself to be the party of all people, not just those of the “privileged” social and economic classes.
Whereas Republican policies today almost solely benefit the rich classes (whether through tax cuts or deregulation), Democratic philosophy disparages the “culture war” mentality that Republicans use to disguise their contempt for working people, and act for the benefit of all people—whether some of them “like” others to benefit or not.
The 2008 Democratic platform promised “change” from the divisiveness that had become Republican Party “policy.”
We come together at a defining moment in the history of our nation – the nation that led the 20th Century, built a thriving middle class, defeated fascism and communism, and provided bountiful opportunity to many. We Democrats have a special commitment to this promise of America. We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right. We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, through hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last.
Fine words, but voters suddenly remembering that Barack Obama was black (the Tea Party "movement") thought that was enough "change" after just two years. What is
interesting about the Republican’s 2016 platform—which they used in 2020 as
well—is that it is pages and pages of “plans” that Trump didn't have a hand in creating or had any interest or intention to follow through on, but it “looked like” they had
a “plan.” In fact the only “plans” that Trump and his stooges had the time or
inclination for had to do with their own personal prejudices and gripes, like cutting taxes for the rich, cutting regulations, gutting the EPA,
attempting to prevent all immigration from Latin America, and mindlessly overturning every Obama-era foreign and domestic initiative (save the ACA, because it was the law) simply because it was Obama's.
None of this helped the vast majority of people who voted for Trump and his Republican allies. Republicans are not about helping all people, or even most people, in fact they openly seek to inflict damage on as many voters they see as against them as they can. Of course, while "average" Republican voters react with glee to see others hurt, in the end they find that they are also "damaged" when those policy demons say "hello" to them when they need help, because Republicans didn't really care about them either.
In the end it doesn't matter what the political parties claim as their governing philosophy, whether as a "republic" or a "democracy"; it is whatever works at certain time, and most of the time it is out of boredom with the current "regime" and a desire for something "different," since, to be honest, nothing really "changes" all that much except the rhetoric. They make bold promises and often either have no intention to follow through (Republicans), or are not given the time to accomplish what they promised to do (Democrats).
Sometimes they "hear" the people and then "forget" what they "said." Remember when George Bush won the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote, and he claimed that he "heard" the majority of voters say they didn't want tax cuts for the rich? Well, he soon "forgot," and the budget surpluses of the Clinton presidency were abandoned for ballooning deficits to record levels after Bush decided that his corporate puppet masters needed their "payday" for supporting him (and of course he had to pay for that war about nonexistent WMDs).
The truth of the matter is that for Republicans today, they want it both ways: they prefer a "republic" run by "patricians" who are selected to run by corporate elites and are accountable only to them, and yet they need a small but vocal cadre of nihilists, men and women who can play the worst of a "pure" democracy who, as James Madison wrote, were with "factious tempers" and "sinister designs," who would betray the interests of the people through "vicious arts" to cloud their minds to the hypocrisy. Names like McCarthy, Jordan, Greene and Gaetz immediately come to mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment