- Here is some additional material coming from the US government itself: www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Intermediate_RightsandResponsibilities_handouts.pdf & www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf - Encyclopedia Britannica: www.britannica.com/topic/representative-democracy - Link to the American Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor which is responsible for promoting democracy all over the world: www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for-civilian-security-democracy-and-human-rights/bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/ - Wikipedia article about different types of government: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government (This gives a pretty good overview of all the different ways this can be categorized. You'll find the US being mentioned as an example in a lot of the categories, including the democracy categories.)

as a brazilian this weird ideia also bothers me so much. and people insist on it. it's basic and it's taught in school. there's monarchy x republic, in parallel there's federations x unitary states, in parallel there's democracy x autocracy, in parallel there's presidencial x parliamentary. brazil is presidential democratic federal republic. germany is a parliamentary democratic federal republic, italy is a parliamentary democratic unitary republic, the netherlands is a parliamentary democratic unitary monarchy. venezuela is a presidential autocratic unitary republic. it's not hard to grasp

We are a Consitutional Republic which is a form of Democracy. What is the confusion?

As a retired high school social studies teacher, I found your presentation very informative and educational. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

The funny thing is that they are kind of the same word. Democracy is Greek; Republic is Latin. Demos + kratia = People + rule. Res publica = A thing of the people. So from a 10,000-foot view, I don't see the point of the debate. Your comment at 3:16 is perfect==the terms are not mutually exclusive. Vielen Dank!

As a Brit, I get just as annoyed when people claim the UK isn't a democracy just because it's a monarchy. The UK is a constitutional monarchy which is a form of democratic government. But people from countries under a republican system just can't seem to wrap their head around this for some reason

I think this comes from the etymological links between "democracy" and "Democrats" as well as "republic" and "Republicans", and from the fact that this country is deeply divided and partisans of each party hate everything that reminds them of the other party. If the parties were called "Freedom Party" and "Liberty Party", people would argue that US-Americans enjoy liberty, not freedom - or vice versa, depending on their political affiliation.

Those terms are in different categories. Feli is correct, a country can be a democratic republic (US, Germany, France), non-democratic republic (China, GDR, old Venice), democratic non-republic (UK, Denmark, Belgium) and neither (Saudi Arabia or any other absolute monarchy).

I, as a german, didn't know the exact meaning of republic. That's for explaining it.

It’s crazy this has to even be explained.

My 2 cents: Yes, you are correct in that the US is a constitutional republic, which is a democratic-type government (not a pure democracy). The reason I believe people are hyper-sensitive on this topic is there are people who want their views immediately adopted (irrespective of what those views are) and demand we vote on them NOW because we are a democracy. These people miss the point we live in a constitutional republic. If you want to change things, fine - but there are procedures put in place as to how and when changes can be made. Those wanting CHANGE NOW! want to override everyone else's views, so everyone else tends to have a knee-jerk reaction whenever they hear someone claiming we are a democracy. On this point people need to take a few breaths before they explode, and listen to what has actually been said versus what they may have thought was being said. And, maybe some people need to have a civics class or something.

0:25 Those comments are so strange! I have never ever heard anyone proudly declare that their country is not a democracy, and say that's a good thing! That is so odd, especially considering how many countries that aren't democracies love to claim they are. I thought it was a universally recognised good thing to be.

The United States is a federal constitutional republic. One US embassy website states: "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic", even Wiki for "Federal government of the United States" states: "The federal government of the United States (U.S. federal government or U.S. government) is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America". A federal republic is :a federation of states with a republican form of government."

I think the reason this comes up is because just about every person in the US gets told this as a "fun fact" or bit of trivia at some point. It's essentially the same thing as folk wisdom, it's just something everybody hears, and so it's something that just gets repeated over and over. As you point out, it's only true if the only thing you consider to be a "democracy" is a direct democracy.

Okay, as a swiss, I have to do the same the americans did in the earlier mentioned videos: Switzerland is NOT a direct democracy 😀 Switzerland is a semi-direct democracy. In theory, it is set up as a representative democracy. Meaning people vote their representatives into their Government. But, it also has this back door that citizen can directly create laws and also make a referendum for laws the government issues. Those two trigger a public vote. And every change to the federal constitution also has to be voted on by the public. It only seems like a direct democracy because of the nature of politics. Political parties never see eye to eye so almost every mayor issue get a referendum (which is very easy to do in Switzerland, all you need is 50'000 signatures from citizen) and they end up with a public vote. Edit: It should be mentioned though in all fairness that even most swiss don't understand that little detail. And if people who understand it try to talk to foreigners, we often get the feeling that foreigners, like germans, americans and brits, usually only hear the part they like. Kinda like a selective hearing. The swiss way of government is very unique and very complicated. On the surface it looks very easy, but if you dive deeper you see how weird and complicated it is. The biggest downside, which, I think, is also its biggest advantage, is that it takes a long time for things to change. But when they do, it is very thought out and has sustenance. And is made in a way it has a huge majority of the population backing the new law

I have had this battle with Americans for decades. You even have university professors arguing that the US isn’t a democracy!

And my old home DDR was neither a democracy nor a republic

I think that we could use a symbolic/ceremonial head of state (not a monarch) separate from the president. BTW, the "head of government" in Canada is the Prime Minister (Justin Trudeau) and the "head of state" is King Charles III and his representative, the Governor General. The Governor General is effectively the head of state, as the King does not live in Canada.

On the subject of forms of government in Europe, I think Andorra’s is among the more unique or unusual. Its co-princes are the Bishop of Urgell (Catalonia, Spain) and the President of France.

You wrapped it up so well that I understood things unconsciously easier, thanks Feli!

OMG - Thank you!!! I hope everyone watches this!

Switzerland exactly is a semi-direct democracy. People can vote about laws and can change decisions (this is the direct part). But the "Bundesrat" (Exekutive) is selected by the parlament (indirect part). But you are not false, usually it is called as direct democracy.

What I find incredible is that I’ve seen this subject debated a couple hundred times but Fell explained it far better than any explanation I’ve seen yet. Good work.

You always do such a great job on these kind of videos.

Wait, what? This is a misconception? (From Australia) I thought any country were you vote for a parliament/representative (mp) that is conducted in a mostly free and fair manner is a democracy. (Turns out I was right, a republic is just a form of government, not how the government is appointed, democracy is the method in which how government is appointed) (I was taught in school btw on how our voting works in my country too and the definitions)

The terms republic and democracy aren't even mutually exclusive. They don't even describe the same thing. Republic is a form of state, democracy is a form of government.

You witness Germany, and America well. You're a classic example of what America even is. Glad to have ya!

Yes good explanation , nice to see your channel coming on .I have been looking since almost the beginning, take care...

I think the word “constitutional” in “constitutional republic” means that government powers are limited and not just that the country in question has a supreme legal document that supersedes all the other laws. It’s the opposite of the word “absolute” as in “absolute monarchy”. While it’s true that most, if not all, other democratic countries have constitutions that limit government powers to different extents, the limitation of government powers is not the indispensable part of democracy. You can have a perfectly democratic state with unlimited powers as long as it derives its powers from the majority. This is why the word “constitutional” in “constitutional republic” is so important; it sets a clear distinction between absolute and constitutional (limited) governments. You may replace the phrase with “constitutional representative democracy with non-royal head of state” and the meaning is still the same. This may sound a bit confusing to some since when they use the word “democracy” what they’re actually referring to is Western democracy, not any kind of democracy. Some of them might even go so far as to believe that Western democracy is the only kind of democracy, which is not true. Democracy in its naked form is only concerned with the origin of powers, not the amount of powers. It’s nothing more than majority rule in practice. What some people believe are the indispensable parts of democracy such as human rights, equality before the law, and separation of powers are in fact the elements of liberalism that have been carried over to Western democracy that might not be completely liberal; they are not the elements of democracy that have always been there. These liberal elements only came to be associated with democracy during the Age of Enlightenment which is separated from the time at which the first democratic government was established in Athens by thousands of years. Some Americans know this fact very well and tend to think that the word “democracy” without an adjective means pure democracy. As a result, they insist that the United States is a constitutional republic and not a democracy to emphasize that their country is not a pure democracy. By the way, direct democracy is not synonymous with pure democracy either. Representative democracy is as democratic as direct democracy. What sets them apart is the indirectness of the former, not the secondary characteristics one of them derives from any other ideology by doing which it makes itself impure.

The core text of this goes back to Number 39 of the Federalist Papers, which is often associated with James Madison (later the 4th President of the United States, under the current constitution). Conservatives have a particular reading of what is in Number 39 (originally issued as a pamphlet or an article to be included in printed newspapers). Conservatives want to stress that our US form of government is not merely "majority rule" but has limitations on how far the majority can "push" a minority. In that mindset, "democracy" was associated with the "majority rule", by "dictators" or "mob rule", while "republic" was to invoke limited (and small) government that responded to the needs and will of "real Americans" or "real Patriots". The current Constitution of the United States is exactly as you describe, a representative democracy to elect the officers of a federal republic as the form of government. This is the type of material that used to be taught in High School "Civics" classes, until those were eliminated in the 1980s under the Reagan Administration. You can also find it in "Great Books" or "Great Courses" types of materials. The commenters on your site who comment with this right-wing (America is a republic) phrase are just trying to issue a "put down" type of insult to silence you. The same as "YOU'RE so STUPID" or the ancient elementary school taunt of "your mother wears combat boots". The bully-style tactics of these commenters are trying to squeeze the discussion into their desired language and mind-set. Just use the truth, which you are doing. Good luck with the other slings and arrows of current post-modern, pro-strongman commenters. Don't let them get under your skin, because that's what they want.

Kudos, Feli, you bravely poked the beehive. Now watch your subscriber numbers.

Thank you for such a literate, knowledgeable and precise presentation of important concepts!

This nonsense about the US not being a democracy comes from right wing media. Being a democracy and a constitutional republic are NOT mutually exclusive. Yes we're a democracy. Thank you for pointing this out.

The main reason that whole "it's not a democracy" line became popular is, it's a way for unserious people to rattle serious critics of public policy. It works because serious people care about accuracy.

It seems that a lot of people out in the world, have a difficult time understanding that more than one thing can be true at once.

Also, as a side note, the terms democracy and monarchy are also not mutually exclusive. The UK or Norway, for example, are both parliamentary Monarchies, meaning their head of state is not an elected president but a hereditary monarch, but they are also democracies because the people elect representatives into parliament which makes all the laws, while the monarch only has representative functions (like the German president). If we think about a non-democratic monarchy, what we mean is an absolute monarchy where the monarch holds all the power. This was the case in pre-revolutionary France, for example, or today in Saudi Arabia. The only absolute Monarchy to exist in Europe today is the Vatican State, although its monarch, the Pope is not a hereditary monarch but is elected by the Cardinals for life. On the other hand, there are republics who are not democracies because they may not have a monarch but a president but are ruled dictatorial. China, for example, wouldn't be counted as a democratic state by most people butnit is a republic. The same applies to historic states like the Third Reich, for example.

About teaching it in schools; maybe indirectly, but they do when teaching the Pledge of Allegiance. "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, " Edit: including this link - kzfaq.infocGdGWzbbgCQ?feature=share

Thank you doing a civics 101 for the confused in this country. It is appreciated. 😊

You clearly stated how things should work and have worked so far, which I appreciate. I can only admire your apparent confidence that they will remain so in the decades to come.

Excellent explanation. This should be packaged and sold to every American school where this is either not taught at all or taught badly.

You did a very good job of explaining the different government systems.

An excellent explanation. Thank you Feli.

What is it called when corporations own the "elected representatives" AND the judiciary, and control the governmental process so that they profit, exclusive of all other considerations? I don't think it's either of those choices.

I guess some don’t pay attention in school. At least you tried to teach, tell and communicate the truth. Thanks! Keep up with interesting videos.

Very simple: Republic = not a monarchy Democracy = people vote on laws, either directly or through representatives Therefore the UK is a democracy but not a Republic, North Korea is a Republic but not a democracy, with the US being both

Feli, the online magazine Slate had a really good article on this issue back in 2020 with the headline "The Real Reason Why Republicans Keep Saying 'We’re a Republic, Not a Democracy'". It's worth checking because it effectively contextualizes the deliberately created confusion with regard to this issue.

Feli, I went to college at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas -- the oldest town in Texas. One of the things I loved about Nacogdoches was its beauty. I remember the downtown area and the beautiful architecture. Little did I know that much of the town was designed by German immigrant, Diedrich A W. Rulfs. Check out this article and video. I think you'll like it: "Diedrich A.W. Rulfs: the German immigrant who became Nacogdoches’ master architect."

These are the people who failed social studies at high school.

excellent video! political education is so important!

A republic is a type of democracy. Some people are too dumb to realize the total definitions of words. 😒

Thank you Feli for the quality of your videos, and the courage to dare tackle such a subject and bravely respond to this tidal wave of political, populist and extremist comments. Some people thank you for having been educated and intellectually stimulated, fortunately!👏💪

Feli, the problem arises mostly as a result of very little of what Europeans, Canadians, Australians, etc would call civics or government or public affairs being taught at all in the US public education system. When my then 10-yr old son began school in the US, he knew more about the US system of government (from his classes in England) than did his American classmates.

This is Meta AI.Germany is both a republic and a democracy. It is a federal parliamentary republic with a democratic system of government, where the citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Germany's political system is based on the principles of democracy, which include: - Free and fair elections - Separation of powers (legislative, executive, and judicial) - Protection of individual rights and freedoms - Rule of law As a republic, Germany has a president as head of state, but the majority of executive power lies with the chancellor, who is the head of government. The government is accountable to the parliament (Bundestag), which is elected by the people. So, in short, Germany is a democratic republic, which means it combines elements of democracy and republicanism to ensure a fair, representative, and accountable system of government.

You likely are better educated in American political philosophy than a vast majority of the "bros" that leave the comments you mentioned.

I agree with you, Feli, but I think one other part that may be a confusing factor for some is that we technically do not vote for the US President directly (for the final election) ...with our Electoral College system. We cast votes for the president, but they are for the electors. In theory, they should cast their votes based on the direct votes for their area, but each state uses a separate process for if some or all the electoral votes will go to the candidate. This is how the popular vote can say one thing, but the actual presidential race can produce a different result. This would be more like the parliament voting for the chancellor. However, virtually everything else that I can think of is more direct, including the Democrat or Republican primaries ...where we are voting directly for a presidential candidate (or the potential ones for the respective parties to decide who they want to back), senators, representatives, local government offices, judges (except for the US Supreme Court justices), sheriffs, mayors, and even some actual bills before they become a law. So we are both a democracy and a republic (or federal system). 😁

You tell ‘em!!!! People just want to be right or feel like what they know can’t be explained further. 💁🏻‍♀️

I'm an American and a retired History professor. Congratulations! You know more about our country's political system than many Americans do. Yes, I think most Americans who insist we're not a democracy are thinking of a direct democracy. But as you correctly stated, we are a democratic republic. As a republic, representatives represent groups of citizens. And as a democracy, those representatives are elected by voting citizens. All this means that Americans (and Germans, et. al.) are democratic-republicans--which was actually the name of one of our 2 earliest political parties. How's that for confusing?! In my experience, Americans who say we're not a democracy hate the Democratic Party, so as a dig to that party, they insist the U.S. is not democratic.

Thank you Feli! I actually immediately thought you were wrong when I saw the title of the video, but I definitely learned something from you! I feel silly now that I didn’t realize/understand this before!

I'll admit i havent read all 2k comments so this may have already been said. The confusion is that constitutionally we do not actually elect the president of the USA. In the USA we refer to our form of democracy as a "democratic republic" because the president is elected through the electoral college. While it is customary for each state to submit their electoral college votes in accordance with the votes of their people, it is not technically required. Each state is alloted a number of electoral college votes, and it is up to the states how their votes are decided. This varies by state. The important distinction here is that while yes, we pull the lever to "vote" for who we want to be the president, it is only used to inform our states how we would like them to cast the electoral college votes. We do not actually vote for the president. In fact, we dont even vote for the electoral college. Each state determines on their own how those electoral college votes are decided. Please note, I am NOT correcting you, and definitely not arguing. I'm only responding from an American perspective as to what we mean when we say this and why we are taught this in school. This was a great video, with great information. I always enjoy watching your videos and hearing your perspectives. Keep up the great work!

Only two parties, the number of MPs does not correspond to the size of the individual federal states, and on top of that the Electoral College: a democracy with limitations.

Hi Feli, thank you for your detailed breakdown of the differences between these two systems. Informative video! Cheers!

Hi Feli, this was great. As a former social studies teacher in K-12 and now a university professor focusing on moral and political literacy for school leaders, this was refreshing. I feel a lot of the insistence comes from the nuance you mentioned. The understanding that democracy is a much broader term than simply "pure democracy," and that republics function democratically, is key. Historically and etymologically, "republic" was a Roman term and "democracy" was a Greek term, referring to distinct styles of involving the common people in politics. However, if a speaker of Latin were to ask someone who spoke Koine Greek, "Hey, what’s the word you guys over there use for our word ‘republic’?" the Hellenistic friend would have likely said, "Hmm, yeah, we have something like that. We use the word ‘democracy’." (Lol) I also think this insistence on the US being either/or instead of both/and comes from the current political divide. It’s a rhetorical device that can often, though not always, give insights into the personal partisan leanings or regional political cultures in which people grew up. Republicans or others who are conservative may have a tendency to say the US is not a democracy but a republic. Democrats or other liberally oriented people might see a rhetorical benefit in saying the US isn’t a republic but a democracy. This aligns the words to the terms that most closely match their partisan affiliation. A short look back into the founding of the US shows that no such distinction was made. Yes, the Federalist Papers state a hard no when it comes to direct or pure democracy, and therefore they leaned into the word republic (but as a form of representative democracy). For example, one only has to look at one of the earliest political parties we had here. When members of the Jeffersonian Republican Party were discussed by Federalists of the time, they were almost always referred to as the Democratic Party. Most modern historians and scholars have for years referred to this party as the Democratic-Republican Party, which indicates at least some sort of shared ideology between the two concepts. Anyway, just to say, you did a very good job discussing this in a well-informed way. Thank you.

Very cool video! Creates a lot of value! Maybe that's the next one used in schools :D

"My Allegiance is to the Republic, Anakin. ....And I got the High-Ground." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

"I don't own a dog, I own a Border Collie!"

A republuc if you can keep it. Ben Franklin

Sehr geehrte Frau Feli von Deutchland! Your excellent question is a curious one to have to ask in this country. You correctly explain and define what democracies and republics are and aren't, as well as their various forms. As you are certainly aware, the US is generally considered to have a two-party electoral system, comprised of the Democratic and the Republican Parties. The problem is that for many Americans--including many elected representatives--"democracy" and "republic" have unfortunately and incorrectly taken on a partisan association due to phonetic similarities to the names of the aforementioned two parties. Absolutely ridiculous! I am now in my 70th year and I learned the identification and description of democracies and republics essentially as you related them, dear Feli, in grade school. People of different party affiliations saw that as completely unrelated. As far as America went, whether one said we were a "Democratic Republic" or a "Representative Democracy", practically everyone seemed to know what was being said and I don't recall ever hearing an argument about it. In more recent years, regrettably, that has changed. Mit besten Grüßen! Ken Wiese

Sad indeed that this clarification is even necessary, but here we are. Thanks, Feli, for your straight-forward message The people who most need to hear it will, sadly, call it "Fake news from a foreigner!" 🙄 The fact is that in the U.S., the two major political parties being named directly after the words" democracy" and,"republic" has led to a cynical and politically driven attempt to tarnish the name of one's opposing party by claiming what they are named for is not "true" America. The tactic is pathetic and intentionally sews confusion. Frankly, it is being deployed to confuse a group of voters who are not well educated on civics. Now who was it who (in)famously said that he loves the poorly educated? Of course, it was Donald Trump, the man who praises dictators and acts oddly ingratiatingly toward Vladimir Putin.

I know that I said that the US isn't a real democracy for a lack of pluralism because there are only two parties who have a chance. But it's still allowed to have or vote for other parties (as far as I know), so there's the pluralistic aspect. But saying it's not a democracy because it's a republic? That's kinda like comparing apples and oranges, isn't it? A republic can be democratic or autocratic or some other things. It's not in the same category as a democracy so one doesn't necessarily say anything about the other.

That you even have to explain this is mind-boggling. We learned the distinction of different political systems and statehoods in 9th grade

so refreshing to hear someone with 1. a solid education and foundation in logical/rational thinking; and 2. a view from outside the USA, not yet infected by the two warring factions inside the USA. Betreff: Deine Frage, oje. geh da nix hin, du werdest als einer dieser beiden eingestuft.

This is what my middle school social studies teacher told me. He was very particular about it.

I think the misunderstanding literally comes from saying The Pledge of Allegiance in school EVERY MORNING for 12 years. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American and to the Republic for which it stands” I imagine saying that small line every day for years stuck harder than the one week we spent covering what a democratic republic was one week in Government in high school. It’s a bummer.

I think much of the confusion in the US is due to the phrase " and to the republic for which it stands" in the pledge of allegiance. With people not understanding a country can be both.

Yes, in schools that distinction is made. Democracy is more synonymous with a direct democracy in the public mind, which is why many Americans will say we're a representative democracy, a republic, or constitutional republic. But you're right, we are both.

THE USA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY IT'S A REPUBLIC!!! Sounds for me like: -The F150 is not a car...it's a Ford!!! -The rabbit is not a mammal, it is a rodent!!! -The steak is not food, it is meat!!!

Some of America's Founding Fathers wrote disparagingly about "democracies," and some conspiracy minded modern Americans misunderstand. The Founders were talking about direct democracies where the entire citizenry votes directly on laws and policies. THIS is indeed a potential problem, as it could lead to a "tyranny of the majority." But you are correct, and your observations are definitely needed, that America IS a representative democracy.

Really good stuff subscribed! You do a great job! Very good information. I was born in 1960 so I remember a lot here after the war, plus when I worked in an out patient IV room Hitlers radio man in south Africa was a patient his wife taught German at Samford university in Birmingham, AL. There was an American Sargent that was my patient and I arranged then to sit together we had lazy boys recliner. They talked a lot. I heard laughter and serious things. But I felt I was a part of the recovery anyway, Love & light. I fear our government is trying to do some things they did in WWII like propaganda with the media. I see a lot happening in America. They are taking freedoms away. I sure don't want to see history repeat itself! Nevertheless great videos and you are beautiful!

So important and you covered so well!!!

When I was a kid I was taught in school that the U. S. is a Democratic Republic 🤷‍♀️

It’s astounding to me how many people comment without watching the video.

They try to play the same games with variants of the word, “fascism”, as if its definition is highly technical, and as if anything that doesn’t fit some rigid definition is somehow innocuous or even beneficent. In truth, it’s a political word, constantly redefined on the fly, by whoever among the self-serving is applying it to themselves. For those self-serving purposes, such users are often intentionally vague about what they mean by the word, in terms of what specific actions they espouse, and in terms of whether they embrace or reject the word. And yes, the word, “fascism”, has sometimes been used by others to mean little more than, “something bad”, or even, “something with which I disagree”, but there is, in fact, a great deal of political activity in the world that meets any reasonable, broad, informal definition of the word, and even more technical definitions. The word, “fascia”, means “bundle of sticks”, or “bundle”. In human terms, political terms, it refers to a small select group of individuals who are gathered as one, as the only “true members” of a nation, and therefore entitled to be the only ones to enjoy the benefits of being part of the nation, and being the only ones able to and entitled to force their will upon others. This can be the actual practice, or merely an aspiration. Right, wrong, truth, lie are defined less by the quality of the behavior or assertion and more by who the actor is. Any given behavior is right when a member or supporter of the fascia does it, and wrong when anyone else does it. Everything said by us is truth because it’s us saying it. It doesn’t even matter if what we say contradicts what we’ve said before. That’s all fairly broad, and can be applied to a small degree or to very extreme degrees, depending upon the needs of the fascia at the moment. For all the emphasis on the collective that “bundle” or “fascia” implies though, the only consistent measure of what’s “good for the nation” is what serves the interests of the strongman leader of the nation-and it usually is just one leader, with perhaps a few figureheads or henchmen also at least nominally recognized as leaders. Because the fascia and the leader are always right, physical might is allowable and even required against all others, either to achieve specific ends, or to simply assert and maintain power. Often, but not always, race and or land of ancestral origin determines who is part of the nation/bundle/fascia, but other supporters of the “nation” may be treated, in some or all ways, as members. Conversely, those who are of the chosen race or ethnicity can be effectively banished if in disagreement with the whims of the leader(s) who are the only recognized voice of what is good for the narrowly defined “nation”. The Merriam-Webster definition: fascism noun fas·​cism ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- Synonyms of fascism 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control What is espoused by the far right in the US right now clearly meets the second definition, and differs from the first only in that it may, in some ways, allow power to at least appear somewhat decentralized, spread across branches of government and among those at the federal, state, and local levels. In truth, the goal is to have all these ostensibly separate entities in line with what rulers want.

"A Republic, if you can keep it" -Benjamin Franklin. We pretty much lost the republic part once the law was changed so Senators were directly elected by the people instead of the States.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." *Winston Churchill*

Half of the responses in this comments section did not even watch the video...

yeah a lot of what people say in these debates are, to me, splitting hairs. What people are forgetting is that terminology, especially political terminology, changes over time. The word "republic" comes from "res publica" which is Latin for "A Public Thing". If a government is publicly a thing, that could just as easily describe democracy. I've heard the US described as a democratic republic, or federal democratic republic. Or a constitutional presidential federal democratic republic......yeah. Even if the federal government is (as it is described) is a "federation" instead of a unitary republic it's still a democracy. Today's definition of "democracy" is universal suffrage, basically and by law, everyone can vote at 18. Even though the federal government is not wholly or directly democratic, per se, the states and local governments still require direct participation to function, as they have a lot of referenda or plebiscites, and the officials are elected directly, like state governors; as opposed to the presidency which is elected via an electoral college (whose electors are elected by the People).

It's new to me, and I'm 69 yrs. old. My theory is that it's a very new development linked to new right-wing calls for an authoritarian leader. "Republic" just means that there are representatives (supposedly) representing groups of people, usually geographically -- but it doesn't technically require that representatives be elected by the populace; they could be appointed (as they are in North Korea) by an authoritarian or a dominant political party. The US and Germany are both democratic republics, specifying that the representatives are democratically elected. IMO, it's very important to specify how the "people's representatives" attain power, and I categorically prefer that representatives are democratically elected.

We used to elect State legislators who then elected Senators, until the 17th Amendment made Senate elections by popular vote.

As I was taught in high school in the early 1970s it is a "Democratic Republic". Our pledge of allegiance says Republic.

Well done Feli! Und danke schon! (And a good review for me).

The word 'democracy' is like the word 'vehicle.' There are many different vehicles of course. Trains, planes and automobiles come to mind. If something loud and noisy passes by my house and my wife asks me what it was and I say 'A loud vehicle went by' well, that doesn't really say much. She'd look at me as if I had a 3rd eye. Was it a plane? a train? etc. But if I say 'A large tractor-trailer went by', I have more specifically answered her question. In this regard, saying the US is a democracy is insufficient. It is a 'Constitutional, Federal Republic.'

Well explained, Feli. Sad (and indeed scary) that the level of civic education in the USA is so abysmal!

When they say “democracy,” they mean “direct democracy.” They don’t realize there are other forms of democracy.

There are types of direct democracy still being used today in the U.S. They are called Referendums or Propositions. In the United States, a total of 26 states provide for a statewide initiative and referendum process, and Washington, D.C. also has such a process.

Dear Feli, I can hardly expect to sift through the 2,229 preceding comments. However, I did search for a word that, to my surprise, did not show up. Franklin. Since others have commented on the Federalist Papers--one of the most important involvements in the battle for the Constitution, though little read today--I'll just mention what has become, again, a famous anecdote. On leaving the Constitutional Convention, a certain Mrs. Powell put to Franklin (variously quoted), "Dr. Franklin, what have we got?" (I.e., what kind of government.) Franklin replied, "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it." The history goes back to ancient Greece, as A. Hamilton and others were acutely aware in their deliberations to establish a republic on an enduring foundation. Today, once again, we are at risk of losing it, due largely to the cultural degeneration of the past six or so decades. Fortunately, an awakening is in process which, if sufficiently catalyzed in both speed and uplifted quality, has the potential to bring us to reason.

That was well said.

Most people I've encountered who say "we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic" are conservatives who (a) love the Electoral College and (b) tend towards authoritarianism and WISH the US wasn't as democratic as it is.

This is a great explanation! I think people who want to say it's one and not the other are oversimplifying it.

There's a couple of problems - first, on an electoral level, you have the first past the post system, which tends to limit what voters can vote for to just 2 main candidates. Nobody else gets a chance. The candidates aren't really selected by party membership plebiscite either, so usually you get 2 candidates in the early stages of dementia, whose promises may differ at least in some ways but whose output once elected differs little. Given that they're hugely dependent on private capital for party donations rather than grassroots mass-membership fees or small donations, they tend to represent the powerful lobby groups that donate to them, the defense industry, AIPAC and so on. This is why the US *still* has people going bankrupt over cancer treatments, why the US is still one of the biggest incarcerators of offenders (the private prison system is a huge player in US industry now), why the US spends way, WAY more than it needs to on weapons and equipment for its hugely overinflated military & why it continues to maintain 800+ military bases round the world, and why the US continues to pick fights in small defenceless developing countries - gotta justify that military somehow, right? Things are not going well for the average American: you need, for a familiy of 4, an income of $178,000/year in the cheapest state, Mississippi, up to a staggering $300,000/year in the most expensive, Massachusetts. Compare with average earnings in the UK, around £28-30k, so £60k or $78k gross for a family to live reasonably here. From which then come the taxes that fund the various state-provided services that we get. Without question, the cost of living in the US is sky high, because of unfettered & largely unregulated free market capitalism. But God forbid *any* candidate should even hint at doing anything about it because he has to serve his paymasters, not the people. That makes it an oligarchy or plutocracy - kleptocracy even - with a puppet faux democracy as a placebo control to stop people rebelling. And that's without even touching on issues like the new Jim Crow, the Electoral College that gives states that are barely populated way more power than they ought to have, the power of police unions which makes cities spend way more on policing than anything that might alleviate the causes of crime, and which makes brutal cops who abuse and murder people fairly well immune from prosecution, and so on. So much that will never get fixed that plainly would in a functioning democracy because the vast majority of Americans can see the problems quite plainly but their votes count for naught.

James Madison made a rhetorical distinction between a democracy and a republic in The Federalist Papers. What he was opposing was something like the current British system, where the legislature has no constraints on what laws they can pass as ordinary legislation, which he called a “democracy”. Actually, the terms are near synonyms, but few countries have enforceable Constitutions limiting the current government, which is what Madison meant by a republic.