Why does the MAGA right hate the word ‘democracy' so much?
If you hang around with MAGA people, don't say the D word.
Democracy.
They hate it when you do that.
The latest example was earlier this week, when we ran a column on our website from our sister paper, The Sacramento Bee, titled: 'Donald Trump's first 100 days back in office: 'A path toward authoritarianism.''
The author criticized a number of actions the president has taken via executive order, and others done by his administration, such as arresting a Wisconsin state judge who let an undocumented immigrant leave her courtroom through the back door while immigration agents waited out front to deport him.
The column was controversial and it got a lot of comments on our Facebook page.
My personal favorite was this one: 'The eagle beacon has become a libtard urinal. To the brain dead reporter who wrote this garbage. Hang it up. And go learn something usefull. (sic) Your brain is full of cobwebs as it is now.'
The 'brain dead reporter' who wrote the column is Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean and a professor of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law — which U.S. News and World Report ranks No. 13 among the nation's 198 accredited law schools.
The action line of the dean's column was this: 'The core of the rule of law is that no one — not even the president — is above the law. If the president can violate any law, and even ignore court orders, then we are no longer a constitutional democracy. The word for that is a dictatorship, and it is chilling to realize how close we are to that.'
An appalling lack of knowledge
The surprising thing, or maybe surprising is the wrong word, appalling might work better here, was the number of commenters objecting to the United States being called a 'constitutional democracy.'
Some samples:
▪ 'We aren't a constitutional democracy we are a constitutional republic. Big difference.'
▪ 'Leave it to the the Eagle to showcase their stupidity on the Constitution, republic not democracy.'
▪ 'We never were a constitutional democracy. You'd think professional writers could get that right.'
▪ 'STOP WITH THIS BS NARRATIVE. We live in a REPUBLIC , NOT A DEMOCRACY.'
▪ 'Constitutional republic ya moron!'
Welcome to journalism criticism in the age of Trump, Dr. Chemerinsky — where any troll with a phone or computer is empowered to lecture those who have spent their lives developing expertise in a particular field. (Don't feel bad, you should see some of the bad car-repair advice these randos dish out on the daily).
The weird part is we are both a republic and (for now at least) a democracy. Either word implies a government that draws its authority from the consent of the governed.
Here's how Merriam-Webster defines the difference: '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.'
But it's a little more complicated, because of the sheer number of countries around the globe that claim to be a 'republic' or 'democratic' and really aren't.
How democratic are we, really?
The Economist Intelligence Unit, a group that advises business and governments on the political climates in nations around the world, publishes a 'Democracy Index' each year that scores countries based on how democratic they actually are.
Somewhat ironically, the most democratic country, Norway, is technically the 'Kingdom of Norway' with a king, Harald V, and everything. But being king there is merely a ceremonial role and the real power lies with the elected government.
And the least democratic country with a functioning government, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, has both 'democratic' and 'republic' in its name, which sounds nice until you realize we're talking about North Korea, arguably the world's most brutal authoritarian dictatorship.
Even the U.S. federal government — ranked 28th in the Democracy Index before Trump retook the White House — has a hard time deciding what it is.
For example, a web publication by the State Department says 'While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic.'
Meanwhile the site for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says: 'The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens.'
For most of my revolutions around the sun (and I've had more than I care to admit), the terms were generally used interchangeably.
No one really knows where the whole 'we're not a democracy, we're a republic' chestnut began. The earliest example I could find was in an article on Medium.com, quoting a 1955 pro-segregation book called 'You and Segregation.'
The idea gained some traction in the 1960s, via the John Birch Society, a national ultra-conservative political advocacy group co-founded by Fred C. Koch, founder of Wichita's own Koch Industries. Birchers were especially fond of likening democracy to 'mob rule.'
I suppose that could happen, if we elected a president who, just to give a wild example, whipped up thousands of his supporters to, I don't know, let's say, invade the Capitol and beat up a bunch of cops because he lost an election. And then we voted that same president back into office and he pardoned everybody involved.
But really, what are the chances of something like that ever happening?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
14 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Senate to Add Public Land Sales to Help Pay for Trump's Tax Cuts
Senate Republicans plan to add the sale of public land into their version of President Donald Trump's massive package of tax cuts, according to a key lawmaker. Senator Mike Lee, the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction of energy and public land, told reporters Wednesday that a version of the plan would be included in their portion of the budget bill the panel plans to make public, likely on Monday.
Bloomberg
21 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Putin Vows to Take Revenge on Ukraine in Call With Trump
Good morning. Vladimir Putin vows to strike back at Ukraine. Japan's ispace takes another shot at landing on the moon. And a Singapore company hopes to turn its new hospital in China into a hot spot for medical tourism. Listen to the day's top stories. Prospects of a US-brokered ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine took another hit, with Donald Trump saying Vladimir Putin warned that he would retaliate for Ukraine's shocking drone strike on Russian airfields. The pair also discussed Iran and the Russian president's potential involvement in nuclear talks. The call came as Putin rebuffed an offer from Volodymyr Zelenskiy for direct discussion.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Add $2.4 Trillion to the Deficit
In March, President Donald Trump stood before a joint session of Congress and vowed to "do what has not been done in 24 years: balance the federal budget." The first major legislative package of Trump's second term, however, will throw the federal budget farther out of balance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded in an updated assessment of the bill. The CBO estimates that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cleared the House late last month and is awaiting a vote in the Senate, will increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The bill will reduce tax collections by an estimated $3.75 trillion over that period, while reducing government spending by an estimated $1.3 trillion. The budget deficit is the gap between how much the federal government spends and how much tax revenue it collects in a single year. If spending is higher than revenue—as has been the case in every single year since 2001—then the government must borrow to fill in the gap. The "Big Beautiful Bill" will, in effect, force the federal government to borrow more heavily in the future. And all that extra borrowing comes with more costs, since interest must be paid. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit that advocates for reducing the deficit, estimates that the bill will add about $3 trillion to the deficit once interest costs are included in the calculation. The bill would also double the federal government's interest payments from nearly $900 billion in 2024 to $1.8 trillion by 2034, the group estimates. The bill's actual impact on the deficit is likely to be even larger than what the CBO estimates, due to several provisions that are meant to game the number-crunching agency's scoring process. Several of the tax breaks in the bill—such as the higher standard deduction, an expanded child tax credit, and tax exemptions for tips and overtime pay—are temporary and will expire by 2029. But those policies are clearly not meant to be temporary, and if extended, they would further widen the deficit in 2030 and beyond. The extension of the 2017 income tax cuts is essential to avoid a massive tax hike that would hit nearly all American households. And many of the spending cuts included in the bill—such as new work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps—are worthwhile efforts. But the problem with the bill, as the CBO's report outlines in stark terms, is that the spending cuts and tax cuts do not offset one another. That would be an imprudent decision even if the federal government was not deep in debt and already on course to see borrowing increase in future years. Given its current fiscal situation, piling more borrowing costs on future American taxpayers seems utterly foolish. Could revenue from tariffs help to offset the budgetary impact of the tax bill? The CBO released an assessment of Trump's tariffs on Wednesday showing that those higher taxes on imports would reduce the budget deficit by about $2.8 trillion over the next decade. In a statement, the White House touted that report as proving that Trump's policies, as a whole, would reduce rather than expand the budget deficit. The first problem with that is that those tariffs might not remain in place long enough to matter. They have been in constant flux for months as Trump has raised, lowered, paused, and altered them on a nearly weekly basis. Two federal courts have also ruled that the tariffs were unlawfully imposed—and if those decisions are affirmed on appeal, then the tariff revenue could vanish entirely. (The CBO's assessment did not take into account the court rulings or any changes made to the tariffs since May 13.) The other problem is that the White House is effectively admitting that its tariff policies will offset the economic benefits of the tax cuts it is trying to pass through Congress—which the White House is also arguing will boost economic growth. In short, the Trump administration is trying to have its tax cuts and eat them too. Here's a better plan: Draft a tax bill that doesn't add to the deficit, so that the tariffs don't need to be a part of the picture at all. The post The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Add $2.4 Trillion to the Deficit appeared first on
