Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes
From: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Republics vs. Democracies - (nf)
Message-ID: <7@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Sep-83 17:53:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.7
Posted: Sun Sep  4 17:53:07 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Sep-83 02:18:23 EDT
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 66

#R:drux3:-72700:ucbesvax:7500035:000:3129
ucbesvax!turner    Sep  4 05:39:00 1983

The bumper-sticker

    THIS IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY - LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY.

is sold at American Opinion bookstores, which I think are run by the
John Birch Society.

I think it makes sense that conservatives would stress a dichotomy
between representative government and direct democracy.  In a way, the
Republic is inherently conservative.  Representatives tend to be elected
by those who want things the way they are--even when this contingent is
not in the majority.  This is because those who want things to stay the
same KNOW what they want, as a group--they have it right in front of them.
(Sometimes, they have a little *more* of it than most other people.) 

Those who want things different, on the other hand, will have a harder time
agreeing on exactly what, and how to get there.  (In its extreme form, this
is called "left factionalism".)

Government by elected representatives thus TENDS to be conservative.
And is therefore favored by conservatives.

The so-called Democratic party in this country tends toward conservatism
out of an interest in unity.  Divided, they are far more likely to fall.
Being democratic, they are far more likely to be divided.  So they
have to watch it.  I.e., they get conservative.  And less democratic.

Of course this has its problems.  Macchiavelli, Republican par excellence,
was well aware of them, in spite of his desire for an Italian Republic.
He specifically cited the problem of "gentry"--owners of large estates,
who did not need to work for a living.  (This was before capitalism;
the concepts do not necessarily translate.)  He saw gentry as having a
disproportionate influence on the affairs of a Republic.

In this line of reasoning, Central America (for example) looks like a
bad place for Republics, which are the devout goal of the better-
intended foreign policy people in the U.S.  Hence the half-hearted
U.S.-designed land reform in El Salvador.  It is not working, needless
to say.  Most of the successful land reforms in this century have
been carried out only with strong military support.  Taiwan, and Japan
under MacArthur, are fair examples.  In El Salvador, though, the
military current runs in a decidedly opposite direction: the Army
is virtually a mercenary force for the landed families, as it was
in Nicaragua under Somoza.

And, of course, Macchiavelli has a few choice words with regard to the
strength of a republic that relies on mercenaries.  He says: forget it.
Mercenaries under feudalism (Macchiavelli's main experience) are a total
disaster with respect to ever reaching the goal of a republic.  Central
America is politically a collection of feudal families, where it isn't
just outright military rule.

And that, in his book, leaves the "Masses".  Not a mere bit of Marxist
cant, you conservatives.  Read your original Republicans.  This story
goes a long way back.

    Sometimes a Raving Mobocrat,
	Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)

P.S.  Sources on M. are "The Prince" (of course), but more importantly
      "The Discourses".  Read with care!  The servants of power are
      slippery talkers, by nature and necessity.