PsyOps campaign : Definition of Democracy or Democracy Propaganda


PDA






Sylvan-Forge
October 16, 2006, 09:56 AM
If I hear the word democracy used to define America one more time, I'm going to implode!

And of spreading it around, as if it is some kind of cure that only we are capable of dispensing, is like saying we will best serve the world by giving them a rotting disease!

The word “democracy” was never used by the founders in writing the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Bill of Rights.


America is a Constitutional Republic. Not a democracy.

Democracy = Mob Rule

Democracy is only a means to divide and conquer.




“A republic, if you can keep it.”
"...and to the Republic, for which it stands..."


Rant off.

If you enjoyed reading about "PsyOps campaign : Definition of Democracy or Democracy Propaganda" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GunnySkox
October 16, 2006, 10:27 AM
It is not a pure democracy, but it is a representative republic, which is a form of rule by the people, as opposed to rule by an individual or small group. The people in the US call the shots, just indirectly by electing representatives. Thus, democracy, as opposed to monarchy, oligarchy, or anarchy.

Surely, whining about words will win us the next election.

~GnSx

Sylvan-Forge
October 16, 2006, 11:11 AM
Gunny,
Don't you feel it is important to be clear in definition?

Look, I think alot of folks use the word, and mean well enough by it.
I am personally guilty of saying it in the past.
But, I am trying to point out that this usage is wrong and muddies waters.

I am also saying it is being used for advantage by enemies within and without. PsyOps.
You know, communist manifesto and of repeating a lie enough times..

So I take your jab at my "whining" to mean you use the word incorrectly ;)
You are forgiven if you use the word correctly forwith :p

Power to the people and all that.

JohnBT
October 16, 2006, 11:19 AM
"In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people 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.""

- U.S. Department of State site

Sylvan-Forge
October 16, 2006, 11:42 AM
Indeed JohnBT.
A bit frightening IMO.


A little contrast to history ...

TRAINING MANUAL
WAR DEPARTMENT,
No. 2000-25
WASHINGTON, November 30, 1928.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tm/tm_2000-25/tm_2000-25.htm



Democracy: A government of the masses.


Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.


Results, in mobocracy.


Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.


Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.


Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republic:


Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.


Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.


Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.


A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.


Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.


Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

...special emphasis being given to the fact that the United States is a Republic, not a democracy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

TX1911fan
October 16, 2006, 11:51 AM
It's all in the definition, and I think 007 is getting a litte carried away. A democracy is a system of government where the power is vested in the people. There are numerous forms of democratic governments including republics, constitutional monarchies and others. Pure democracies, where EVERY decision is made by the people, COULD devolve into mob rule, but it would still depend on the governing documents. I don't think it is our republican form of government that prevents mob rule, but rather our Constitution. Pure democracy exists in the United States in the form of Propositions and other referenda that can be placed on ballots where the people vote directly for legislation, rather than their represetatives. What prevents mob rule (for example a state voting back in slavery because they have a majority who want it) is the Constitution and the Supreme Court that will invalidate the results of such a vote. I think your focus in in the wrong place. We do live in a democracy, and it takes the form of a republic.

longeyes
October 16, 2006, 12:04 PM
We don't have mob rule, we have lob rule.

Lob, as in lobbyist.

JohnBT
October 16, 2006, 12:13 PM
I'm not frightened by the dictionary definition.

I ran across this interesting quote and thought you could use it. John

""Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive."

Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, January 25th and 26th, 1951, under the titles- Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless"

DRMMR02
October 16, 2006, 12:25 PM
America is an oligarchy. The Supreme Court has the ability to make the final decisions, and frequently does.

TX1911fan
October 16, 2006, 12:29 PM
DRM, I've thought about this a bunch. The way the check and balance was supposed to work is that if the SC did something no one else liked, the Executive could refuse to enforce their rulings, and the Legislative could write a law specifically overruling the SC. In fact, a past President, I can't remember who (sorry) said, and I'm paraphrasing badly, of the SC "they have their ruling, now let them enforce it."

It seems these days, however, that the other 2 branches have become afraid of the SC. Perhaps the balance will be restored soon, but I agree that the SC seems to have too much power in our present system.

Sylvan-Forge
October 16, 2006, 12:50 PM
We do live in a democracy, and it takes the form of a republic.

I think this should read :
Unfortunately we now live in a democracy, and it takes it's form within the tattered shell of our former constitutional republic.

But I digress.


The New American fleshes out the argument better than I can :
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/11-06-2000/vo16no23_republic.htm

I believe we must be especially weary of manifold and arbitrary use of language in America, especially as it pertains to the corruption of important meanings and concepts within the topics of freedom, government, law, morality, history, metrology, etc.
Beware doublespeak.
Comedic references, plays on word, etc. need not be tethered so.

I rest my case here.

Zrex
October 16, 2006, 01:41 PM
If it walks like a duck.......

Sylvan-Forge
October 16, 2006, 01:48 PM
Zrex,
Care to elaborate?

WayneConrad
October 16, 2006, 02:12 PM
oo7, The New America article is good reading. Thanks for linking to it.

Sylvan-Forge
October 16, 2006, 02:38 PM
JohnBT,
Thanks for passing the ammo :)

WayneConrad,
Sure thing. Glad you liked it. :)

Hoppy590
October 16, 2006, 03:01 PM
007 that was an awesome article. it shoulda been submitted to a wider sources than religated to the internet. ( as ironic as that sounds) i think less people who dont know the democracy vs republic issue will see it here than in printed source

JohnBT
October 16, 2006, 04:15 PM
If you liked that Westbrook Pegler quote you'll likely get a kick out of what he said about Eleanor Roosevelt: She is a menace, unscrupulous as the truth, vain, cynical, all with a pretense of exaggerated kindness and human feeling which deceives millions of gullible persons.

Hint: I quoted Pegler as a joke.

John

Vern Humphrey
October 16, 2006, 04:17 PM
re·ify
Pronunciation: 'rA-&-"fI, 'rE-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·ified; re·ify·ing
Etymology: Latin res thing -- more at REAL
: to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing

The United States is what it is, regardless what you call it. For those who choose to be pendantic, it's a republic with a representitave democratic government.

We choose that form of governemnt because no one has ever been able to answer Juvenal's question:"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Who watches the watchmen?" - Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347
Or as James Madison put it,

"If Man is not Fit to Govern Himself, How can He be Fit to Govern Someone Else?"

WayneConrad
October 16, 2006, 04:47 PM
Vern, Is the form of government we have now, whatever you call it, the same as the form of the government that the constitution inaugurated, whatever you call it?

scurtis_34471
October 16, 2006, 05:12 PM
Language does matter and people are stupid. I remember getting in an argument with a hippy-dippy art teacher in high school. She said we need to vote for Democrats, because they want Democracy for America and Republicans are trying to turn the country into a republic. She got very upset when I calmly explained that the United States was a Constitutional Republic. That was 18 years ago, but I don't think much has changed since then.

Vern Humphrey
October 16, 2006, 05:13 PM
Vern, Is the form of government we have now, whatever you call it, the same as the form of the government that the constitution inaugurated, whatever you call it?

Yup, same-old, same-old. A representative democracy.

Molon Labe
October 16, 2006, 05:19 PM
Here's the way I look at it:

In a pure democracy, everything is voted on. Should you have a right to keep and bear arms? Let's vote on it! Everything is voted on. This is a horrible system.

In our system, very very few things are directly decided on by the people. One example is school levies. But for 99% of things, we elect people to vote for us. We call these people representatives. And this system of electing people to vote for us is called a republic.

But are we just a republic? In a regular 'ol republic, our representatives could decide that the people no longer have a right to keep and bear arms. So I think you'll agree a regular 'ol republic sucks.

An even better system is a constitutional republic. This is where we elect representatives to vote for us (i.e. a republic), but the representatives are limited by a constitution.

Hence we are a constitutional republic.

WayneConrad
October 16, 2006, 05:21 PM
Has it become more democratic and less representitive over time?

I'm thinking of: Widespread state laws binding the votes of presidential electors (originally, the electors were supposed to deliberate and decide amongst themselves).

And also: The amendment that caused senators to be elected by the people rather than the state assemblies.

Vern Humphrey
October 16, 2006, 05:25 PM
Language does matter and people are stupid. I remember getting in an argument with a hippy-dippy art teacher in high school. She said we need to vote for Democrats, because they want Democracy for America and Republicans are trying to turn the country into a republic. She got very upset when I calmly explained that the United States was a Constitutional Republic. That was 18 years ago, but I don't think much has changed since then.

Did you convert her?

Suppose you had said, "We are a constitutional republic, with a representative democratic form of government." You could have gone on to explain that the Republican Party was formed in opposition to slavery, and the "Democratic" Party defended slavery.

In other words, explain to her that words are only words, and the parties are what they are.

scurtis_34471
October 16, 2006, 05:46 PM
Did you convert her?

Suppose you had said, "We are a constitutional republic, with a representative democratic form of government." You could have gone on to explain that the Republican Party was formed in opposition to slavery, and the "Democratic" Party defended slavery.

In other words, explain to her that words are only words, and the parties are what they are.

That would have been a great discussion if she had not gotten violently angry and sent me off to "learn history." That just proves that having a degree does not mean that you aren't stupid.

Vern Humphrey
October 16, 2006, 05:52 PM
That would have been a great discussion if she had not gotten violently angry and sent me off to "learn history." That just proves that having a degree does not mean that you aren't stupid.

You stepped into her trap and validated her mistaken impression that in the United States "republic" and "democratic" represent two different forms of government.

That's why I say the United States is what it is -- regardless of what we call it. To argue over hair-splitting definitions, as if that will make a difference, is a pointeless exercise.

TX1911fan
October 16, 2006, 06:33 PM
Molon Labe, I like your analysis. I would just add that a constitutional republic is a form of democracy, given that the people are entitled to elect their leaders. It is not pure democracy because the people are not entitled to make EVERY decision.

Sylvan-Forge
October 16, 2006, 06:41 PM
I'm too tired to engage too succinctly, so for now I'm going to throw this out.
I may redact some later. Alas.

John, if you were being disingenuous from the get, why not say you were joking the first time? :scrutiny: I had hope you were giving my iron some sharpening. :( But at least you came back and told me so, so thanks.
Explains why you are not concerned with the current dictionary definition.
Perhaps the following will change your mind.

Redacted -----
Vern, how can representitive and democracy even be used together? By context and definition they are opposing as set forth in the time of the framers and discussed in the federalist papers and essays.
(I will find specific references, should my memory serve true)

There existed representitive democracies, via agents of the people in some democracies. Note #63 Federalist.
-----


Yes, today, the term democracy has taken on a right complex definition, esp. considering all the various kinds of democracy so defined.
To include Direct, Representitive and Liberal.

Direct being closest in definition to what the framers discussed.
I submit, direct voting on legislation referenda is a thing that has moved along in time as the definitions have moved along in time.

What was and what is.

The point I am trying to drive home is that there was and is a concerted effort to redefine "Democracy" from its original meaning in order that it be believed by virtue of having been shoved sideways down our collective throats.

And so, we have referenda and other signs that shows we have some "democracy", which begs the question,
Innocent unprovoked change through time or something more sinister?

Dare I say conspiracy?



More to follow tommorrow. Unless someone else succeeds in making the case first.

Edited for Redact

Sylvan-Forge
October 17, 2006, 01:03 PM
Federalist papers series of 85 essays
Federalist Papers
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm

Findings of the words : Democracy, Democratic, etc. using windows find feature : democra

#10 : http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.
...
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
...
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
...
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
...
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
...
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.


#14 : http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa14.htm
The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, 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.
...
To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory.
...
Such a fallacy may have been the less perceived, as most of the popular governments of antiquity were of the democratic species; and even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great principle of representation, no example is seen of a government wholly popular, and founded, at the same time, wholly on that principle.
...
As the natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central point which will just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions demand, and will include no greater number than can join in those functions; so the natural limit of a republic is that distance from the centre which will barely allow the representatives to meet as often as may be necessary for the administration of public affairs.


#43 : http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm
Protection against domestic violence is added with equal propriety. It has been remarked, that even among the Swiss cantons, which, properly speaking, are not under one government, provision is made for this object; and the history of that league informs us that mutual aid is frequently claimed and afforded; and as well by the most democratic, as the other cantons. A recent and well-known event among ourselves has warned us to be prepared for emergencies of a like nature.

#48 : http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa48.htm
In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.

#58 : http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa58.htm
The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few. Experience will forever admonish them that, on the contrary, after securing a sufficient number for the purposes of safety, of local information, and of diffusive sympathy with the whole society, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives. The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed.

#63 : http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa63.htm
In the most pure democracies of Greece, many of the executive functions were performed, not by the people themselves, but by officers elected by the people, and representing the people in their executive capacity.
...
From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former. The distinction, however, thus qualified, must be admitted to leave a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States. But to insure to this advantage its full effect, we must be careful not to separate it from the other advantage, of an extensive territory. For it cannot be believed, that any form of representative government could have succeeded within the narrow limits occupied by the democracies of Greece.


Only 6 of the 85 papers find root : democra


Edited for streamlining/clean-up

Sylvan-Forge
October 17, 2006, 01:16 PM
Conclusion :
As you can see in the long post above, within all of the Federalist Papers, there are no indications of representitive democracy or any other kind for that matter, being foisted onto America.

In all instances of the word democracy, you will find no case where it is considered for American government.

Again I state, there is no mention of democracy within the Declaration of Independence, the Contitution, or the Bill of Rights.

America was never intended for democracy of any type.






From The Federalist #10

Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

Edited for spelling

TX1911fan
October 17, 2006, 03:23 PM
007, I agree with your premise, but I disagree on the importance of worrying about it. Let me give you an example. The word "liberal" has a current definition that is far different than what it used to be. Sam Adams, George Washington and their brothers and sisters in the 1700s were all liberals. So was Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party at its inception. However, as time has gone on, the definition has changed. To argue now that calling Harry Reid a liberal is incorrect is useless. According to today's definition, he is a liberal. Likewise, to object to calling Sam Adams a liberal is just as useless. They are what they are, and as long as we know what the current definition is, and what the past definition was, who cares? We know what their ideals were, what they stood for, and the LABEL is just not that important, other than to give a broad description.

The current definition, at least in the popular culture, of democracy is a system of government where the people have a say in what goes on in their country. Granted, it is not nearly as specific as it once was, but who cares? The term "democracy" has become an umbrella, under which fit all sorts of governmental systems, a republic being one of them. Democracy means the opposite of tyranny and dictatorship.

Sylvan-Forge
October 17, 2006, 03:56 PM
The word "liberal" has a current definition that is far different than what it used to be.

Indeed. I had thought to broach that one next. :D


We know what their ideals were, what they stood for, and the LABEL is just not that important, other than to give a broad description.

When in the days the leftist gave themselves the name liberal and promoted it in order to deceive voters in thinking that they were something that they were not. The same holds true for trying to promote America as a democracy.

We, you and I, and some others know. But what about the kids in school and the folks that don't have the time or inclination to find and understand the differences. These changes of definition.

These will be the people that are continually brain-washed and deceived
into God knows what sort of future.

Sylvan-Forge
October 18, 2006, 11:38 AM
I'd like to extend a thanks to all those who participated, and to those who may yet do so.

I'd also like to thank THR staff for letting this one run and putting up with my tinfoil nuttery.

And last but not least, a thanks to Oleg, and anyone else responsible for making THR happen in the first place.

Oh, and Hoppy590, sure thing. Sorry I missed ya post.

This may have come across a bit cheesy, like someone thinks they are hot-stuff putting a thank-you section in, like some big-shot author. Not my intent. Just feel like I should give thanks. I'm just a regular guy trying to get out some stuff I feel is important.
Whether it is or not is left to you.

Best regards,
oo7

lysander
October 18, 2006, 04:34 PM
It is hardly tinfoil nuttery to worry about the way in which words and messages are used to influence and control.

There is great power in words....and the meaning of word is controlled by the way in which it is used...giving great power to those who control usage of a word.

I write in redundant babbly-dee-gook...but you get my drift. :p

Sylvan-Forge
October 19, 2006, 11:29 AM
lysander,

Thanks.
Redundant babbly-dee-gook .. I do that alot, though I like to think of it as 'supporting your point with a different tack' or 'an appeal through variety'
:p

longeyes
October 19, 2006, 11:47 AM
Those of us who want a Constitutional Republic should go and start one and leave the rest of America that's content to live in a democracy or under oligarchs to their fate. We'd better do it while we still have arms.

thrasher64
January 13, 2007, 05:30 AM
Find us some free land and i'l be there..

In the mean time I am heavily considering moving to New Hampshire to take part in the free state project :D

If you enjoyed reading about "PsyOps campaign : Definition of Democracy or Democracy Propaganda" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!