ShareThis Page

A republic -- if we can remember that

| Saturday, Oct. 24, 2015, 9:00 p.m.
American statesmen (top row: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Roger Sherman; Bottom row: John Adams, John Hancock and Robert R. Livingston) who played a key role in events leading up to Independence Day on July 4, 1776.

Will Butts is the author of “This Republic: Illuminating Republican Government,” a book drawing upon the writings of the American Founders, in general, and John Adams, in particular, to explain the nature of republican governments. He spoke to the Trib on that topic:

Q: Your book contends that the United States really isn't a democracy, which probably comes as a surprise to a lot of people. Can you explain what you mean by that?

A: Well basically, a democracy is where all the people gather in one location and basically make laws for themselves. A republic is a government of law whereby the people delegate their legislative authority to a smaller group of people called a legislature. Any government with a legislature is a republic, it's not a democracy.

Q: How did people come to confuse the two?

A: I think what happened is democracy, for most people, came to mean a government without a king or a government without a dictator. It's been that way especially since World War I, when President (Woodrow) Wilson said the world must be made safe for democracy, and it became a very popular term after that. Up until that point, the words “republican” and “republican government” were well known to people.

Unfortunately that's not the case today, which is the reason I wrote the book. It's a little bit of a semantics issue but the word “democracy” does not describe our government and the word “republic” does.

Q: Do you believe we're losing a certain historical component as to how the country originated in not recognizing that it's a republic?

A: Yes, I think so. If you read the works of the revolutionary period or the works of historians, you'll run across the word “republican” because, in general, historians understand what the meaning of the word is — whereas an ordinary person reading those books, they're not familiar with the word. They know “democracy” but they don't know “republican,” so they'll automatically think of a political party when there were no political parties at that point.

So when people read those books, they don't understand what exactly they're reading. They see that this person or that person was a republican, but that had nothing to do with political party at the time; (republicans) were (proponents) for a certain form of government.

Q: Is that a situation that should or can be rectified, or do you think “democracy” is so culturally ingrained a description of American government that it's here to stay?

A: If people use that word just to signify a government without a king or a dictator, I really don't have a problem with that. But if they really want to understand what type of government the United States actually has, the only thing that can resolve that is to educate them. And that's one of the reasons I wrote my book. Republican government goes back to ancient times, where democracies really have never succeeded. They're doomed to fail, because there are no checks and balances, and they're rife with corruption.

Q: Do you think it's incumbent upon history teachers, even at the elementary level, to begin accurately describing our government as a republic?

A: I think they should, yes. But a lot of the teachers might not be aware of it.

Eric Heyl is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7857 or eheyl@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.