As the debates rage on and on about who is the best candidate to represent "The People", when trying to make a point, it is often argued that Liberals/Democrats are unrealistic in our expectations of our system working as a Democracy because, "...we're a Republic, not a Democracy!" It appears Clint Didier might believe this.
It has always been a bit of an enigma for me trying to understand the rationale behind a common argument that what progressives (i.e. Democrats in the US political universe) want is a Democratic system, but "...we are not a Democracy, we're a Republic!". Truth be told, I think that is technically right.
To be honest, I've been quite lazy about differentiating between the definitions of "Democracy" verses "Republic" due to the fact (admittedly) that I attribute such defenses of political philosophy (which I mostly disagree with) to Republicans (again, admittedly, that I usually ignore because of my long history of being repulsed by the extreme actions of Modern Republicans and their extreme philosophies on...well just about everything). I know, that is very narrow of me, but I'm trying to grow.
Well, today I've finally been pushed out of my comfort zone and am trying to broaden my horizons. This was precipitated by the news that former-NFL-Tight-End-turned-alfalfa-farmer, Clint Didier, who just picked up the endorsement of the infamous Sarah Palin to run against the long-time incumbent Washington Democratic Senator, Patty Murray, for her seat this Fall. This was an affront to the perennial Republican Trophy Candidate, Dino Rossi. The quote from Didier's Wikipedia page that drove me towards the light was this:
"I subscribe to Jefferson’s view, and favor a non-interventionist philosophy. We need to stop trying to police the world and telling other nations how to manage their affairs. It is depleting our wealth and draining our national spirit. America is a republic; therefore let’s stop trying to spread "democracy".
Now, I do agree with some of that quote, namely that we need to get our own house in order before we fix the rest of the world. I think that is reasonable, but that's another issue altogether and for another day. Today, I'm narrowly focused on the definitions of "Republic" and "Democracy" and how it pertains to our current political environment...and there is that pesky "we're a Republic!" argument again!
Since I was hurtled into the abyss of incomprehensible rhetoric, I decided to educate myself. So, from Miriam Webster's Online Dictionary(emphasis mine):
Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈpə-blik\
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia
Okay, so there's that! Not too bad, right? I think there is something to that!
Now, Democracy as defined by Miriam Webster's Online Dictionary (again, emphasis mine):
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + kratia cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : 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
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
What strikes me about these two definitions is that the definition of "Republic" includes this:
"a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote"
And the definition of "Democracy" includes this:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people"
I'm trying to dissect and differentiate between the two definitions and how it colors the different political philosophies starting at this basic point, but it really looks the same to me (I am a simpleton, after all). The only point of difference is "Republics" represent "citizens entitled to vote", whereas "Democracies" represent "the people", with no qualifications of voting entitlement in that definition. I find that little tidbit fascinating. It is either the Rosetta Stone to understanding the philosophy of Republicans, or just an archaic, academic point made about a dictionary definition.
Back to the point. Why did Didier say this and why has this been used by Republican candidates and operatives over the years when it appears that the basic premise of representation is the same? If you want to focus on the issue of representing only voting citizens, then there is a very sinister history in regards to voting rights and how the vote has been suppressed or withheld from citizens of color, in the South, in particular, before, during and after the civil rights movement. Now, some are going to say that the Dixiecrats were Democrats, so my automatic retort is they were the fore bearers of the modern Republic party. They seceded from the Democratic party to the Republican part shortly after the Civil Rights Act became law.
Now, I'm not even going to pretend to be a political guru, but I am somewhat of a keen observer and understand history pretty well beyond the context of political campaigns. I am also not going to pretend I know the first thing about Clint Didier, but the oft repeated "we're a Republic, not a Democracy!" (or variations on it, in this case) make me wonder, "What is he/she really trying to say?" It seems that ultimately, it is about representation of the people (with the caveat of voting privileges). Now, I realize the statement, "stop trying to spread "democracy"" may not imply that a "Republic" and a "Democracy" are mutually exclusive and may very well be a concession to my point that Democracies and Republics are fundamentally the same (in definition) in the context of his quote, plus, it was made in reference to international policy, not domestic. But, judging from the way the Republican party acts and governs domestically, I am not so inclined to give Didier the benefit of the doubt here, simply because of his affiliation.
My observations of the usage of this argument have been in defense of the Free Market System and Republican domestic policy ideas, its merits and the idea that the "common voters" don't know or understand these complex things, therefore, they should not question what we (The Republicans) are doing. All too often, the context of debate is that of human rights and social welfare. Disturbingly, the Republican debaters are all to ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to anything "social" related, often tagged with the "ism" suffix, therefore making it un-American. I have seen what these ideas have done to this country and our economy from the time is was a child when Reagan and Reagan Republicans came into power. The hypocrisy borne out by the dissonance between their conservative mantra of "Freedom for all, don't take my land, money or guns. And stay out of my bedroom!" and actions were not lost on me, even as a pre-teen in the early 1980s.
I read daily about the "conventional wisdom" of it being an anti-incumbent year, but Murray has great popularity in this state, despite the current national sentiment that is threatening so many other incumbents. Washington is a Liberal state (as the voting goes), particularly in the West, where the majority of the population is.
Even so, is he an acceptable alternative to even a generic Democrat? Probably not. With a lot of attention being paid to his acceptance of agricultural subsidies while claiming to be a "small government, everyone must stand on their own two feet, keep your government out of my business and out of my bedroom" Republican, he will (well, at least, should) likely get lambasted by those on the fringe in his own party. Even a moderately strong Dem can likely win if there is Republican Party in-fighting.
In my humble, non-professional opinion, his chances are very dim, at best. It would be quite an upset and Murray would have to have a scandal of epic proportions to terribly jeopardize her chances of maintaining her seat.
30 years of history does not give me confidence that a Super-Maverick will emerge like the Phoenix from the ashes of the Republican Morality to unseat a very solid and popular Democratic incumbent this year. And, with the Republican party seeming to historically eschew the charge of representing "The People" (voting eligible or otherwise), at every turn, for the large corporate and self interests, it would be a terribly hard sell, especially to the folks in Washington State who are Independents in their political affiliation.
Do I think he has a chance to win? In a word, "No."