Is the U.S. a Republic or Democracy?

Is the United States a Republic or a Democracy? Commenters have been trying to trip me up with this question since my very first post.

The distinction is a favorite right-wing bugaboo. It is always presented as a gotcha - like: Don't you know anything? Didn't you realize that the US is a republic? Don't you know what you're talking about?

And this is frustrating because definitionally there is not a whole lot of daylight between a republic and a democracy. Constitutional republics are considered democracies by pretty much everyone outside of American conservatives. When people talk about democracy today almost no one is referring to the direct democracy of ancient civilizations.

Webster's dictionary even wrote an article about the confusion. They write, "Because democracy is an abstract name for a system and republic is the more concrete result of that system, democracy is frequently used when the emphasis is on the system itself. We could say that democracy is to republic as monarchy is to kingdom." Making this distinction is a little like one commenter said, "that's not a dog, it's a Labrador."

During the Revolutionary period the terms republic and democracy were used pretty interchangeably. Both were used to describe a system where the power to govern resided with the people instead of a king. The framers were emphatic that a government was only legitimate if its authority came from the public - or as they said in the Declaration of Independence, governments should derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

I have heard it said that one reason Republicans no longer like democracy is because it sounds too much like Democrat. Republicans like republics, Democrats like democracy. It's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You are an unsophisticated boob if that's the reason you like to point out that America is a republic, not a democracy, in the comment section.

One imagines a retelling of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, 1787, sponsored by rival beer companies. You know how giant mega corporations will sometimes battle for brand loyalty in multimillion dollar ad campaigns that run during the Superbowl? Imagine the Founding Fathers toasting their hard work with ice cold buckets of refreshing product on prominent display.

On one side Thomas Jefferson hoists a Miller High Life and drinks to the new Millerocracy they have just established. But Benjamin Franklin won't have any of that. He proposes they drink to the long life of the Budweiser Republic. Suddenly men in powdered wigs are yelling back and forth "Millerocracy!" and "Budweiser Republic!" as the camera cuts to an exterior on an American flag waving outside Independence Hall with a message to drink responsibly.

This is the level of understanding that some people have about modern politics.

But the more I think about this question, the more I think that our conservative brothers may have zeroed in on a real distinction. And I may even be willing to concede the point.

Last year I read a book The Middle Ages: A Graphic History. There are only like one or two panels from the entire book that talked about republics, but they jumped out at me. The book was referring to the maritime republics - small city states like Venice, Genoa, and Amalfi - little pockets of self-rule amidst competing medieval kingdoms. Because their money came from trade, the merchant class ran these republics rather than monarchs. Merchants called all the shots in the merchant republics.

This finally helped me understand what conservatives are trying to say. Because if you engage in a dialogue about republics versus democracy they will eventually point to protection of minority rights. Democracy, especially direct democracy, is majority rule. Republics take special precautions to protect the rights of certain privileged minorities. Most of the people who lived in the maritime republics were not rich merchants. But the small minority of rich merchants had all the control.

A republic is a system that protects minority rule. What a person is really saying when they point out that the US is a republic is that the US has enshrined minority rule in our constitution. When someone like me talks about democracy, critics say uh-uh-uhh, we don't have majority rule in this country. We are a republic, which means we have minority rule. Which is true.

Republics protect minority rights in a way that democracies don't. This, I believe, is the distinction that conservatives are trying to make.

And I say, if they want to make that distinction so badly, perhaps we should let them.

Now, when conservatives talk about protecting minority rights they think you're talking about them (aside, no one thinks for a moment they are talking about racial minorities). Conservatives. Republicans. Anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-markets, possibly MAGA, predominantly white, male, and Christian... all the things that a modern conservative identifies with. And they feel persecuted. Conservatives are told just about every day on Fox News that they face persecution. If a person hears that enough times they'll start to believe it, even if it's not really true.

Conservatives believe that they are the persecuted minority whose interests republics are built to protect. Principled people. People who say "slow down, change shouldn't happen too fast." Salt of the earth types. They warn darkly against "mob rule," led by wild lunatics who only feel base emotions like rage.

I think conservatives are right to make this distinction but for the wrong reasons.

I am sorry to inform, but the minority interests that this republic serves to protect are not those of true blue, red-blooded, anticommunist Americans who live in Indiana and drive pickup trucks.

The minority interests our republic seeks to protect are those of property and wealth. It was Founding Father James Madison who said in plain English that government should "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." Look it up. The minority of the opulent. That's the only minority that our republic cares about. It is their minority rights that our system exists to protect. The Electoral College, the Senate, gerrymandering, and more are designed to protect the rich minority from us, the majority. It's not large states versus small. Don't fall for that.

When you reflexively jump to defend the minority rights of property you are defending the rich against people like yourself. Remember the 99 percent against the 1 percent? The rich don't like it when people get ideas about changing the shape or function of the capitalist pyramid scheme. Especially when those people make up vast majorities of the population. Wealth must be protected.

The rich have always known that the numbers are not on their side. They are rich because we are poor. They have more because we have less. That's how it works. Suppressing wages, longer hours, scientific management are all designed to direct more wealth to the rich - their wealth comes at our expense. Workers create wealth with hard work, the rich hoard that wealth for themselves. The rich will always be fewer in number because of this dynamic.

When you defend minority rights what you're saying to our leaders is "Hey! Don't listen to me or care about my interests. I'm part of the majority. Instead, do whatever that rich guy wants." And that, my friends, is music to the ears of the American political class. They're like, "What? You want me to ignore you and do whatever the rich guy says? The one who is paying lots of money to support my campaign? Well, okay! I mean, that's what I was going to do anyway... so, thanks!"

And so the principled conservative becomes the unknowing stooge, a useful idiot if you will, for the rich classes who use and abuse us all.

Republics are built to protect minority rights. But which minority? Buddy, it ain't you.

Let’s make them pay.