Borgerlige definitioner - Hvad er en republik - Historie

Borgerlige definitioner - Hvad er en republik - Historie


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Alt, hvad vi ved om den civile republiks militær, The Walking Dead's Helicopter Group

AMC'er The Walking Dead franchise udvides med nye shows, nye film og nye forbindelser mellem de tre shows i Walking Dead Universe, The Walking Dead, Frygt de gående døde, og The Walking Dead: World Beyond. Bortset fra zombierne er bindevævet mellem alle shows en skyggefuld gruppe kendt som Civic Republic Military, eller CRM.

CRM blev først skimtet ind The Walking Dead Sæson 8, og gruppen tog i sidste ende Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) væk fra Alexandria i en helikopter og mod hans fremtidige filmeventyr. De er siden dukket op Frygt de gående døde, og vil spille en stor rolle i World Beyond, som har introduceret en karakter, der fungerer som gruppens ansigt, oberstløjtnant Elizabeth Kublek (Julia Ormond).

Gruppen er stadig indhyllet i mystik, men vi har faktisk lært en del om dem, da oplysninger er blevet uddelt stykke for stykke. Her er hvad vi ved om Civic Republic Military indtil videre.

Hvem er de?

CRM er den civile republiks militære arm, et medlem af Alliance of the Three, et netværk af tre samfund, der samler deres ressourcer for bedre at overleve zombie -apokalypsen. Alliancen er symboliseret ved tre sammenkoblede cirkler, et insignier, der vises på uniformer og udstyr i medlemsfællesskaberne. De tre samfund er borgerrepublikken, hvis placering er en nøje bevogtet hemmelighed, selv for de andre medlemmer af Alliancen, men kan være et sted i staten New York byen Omaha, Nebraska og & quotOmaha Campus Colony & quot hvor World Beyond begyndte, en satellitpost for samfundet og Portland, Oregon, et samfund, som intet er blevet afsløret andet end det eksisterer.

Borgerrepublikken forsøger at genopbygge samfundet til noget som det, der fandtes før. De har bedre teknologi end nogen anden på nogen af ​​showene indtil nu, hvilket fremgår af deres helikoptere, futuristiske bidesikre dragter og videnskabelig dygtighed. De arbejder aktivt på at forsøge at finde en kur mod zombie -virussen. Lederen af ​​den civile republiks militær er en, der hedder generalmajor Bill, men gruppens ansigt er for nu en kvinde ved navn oberstløjtnant Elizabeth Kublek.

I seriepremieren på World Beyond, Besøgte Kublek Omaha Campus Colony på vegne af den civile republik, tilsyneladende for at deltage i en fest, men virkelig for at give noget intelligens til Hope (Alexa Mansour) og Iris (Aliyah Royale) Bennett og i sidste ende likvidere kolonien (mere om det senere). Hope og Iris 'far Leo (Joe Holt) er en videnskabsmand, der i starten af ​​serien var væk for at hjælpe borgerrepublikken med at studere virussen. Pigerne stoler ikke på Kublek eller den større borgerlige republik, fordi de er hemmelighedsfulde og skyggefulde, og fortalte Kublek det til hendes ansigt. Så i et forsøg på at opbygge tillid fortalte Kublek dem, at deres far underviste på Civic Republic -forskningsfaciliteten i staten New York og gav dem et kodet kort, der kunne hjælpe dem med at finde ham - et kort, hun sagde, kunne få hende ind en masse problemer, hvis nogen fandt ud af, at hun gav det til dem.

Den næste dag fik pigerne en fax fra deres far, der sagde & quotIT'S GONE BAD. HOLDER MIT Hoved NED. JEG FINDER HJÆLP. FORTAL IKKE RÅDET. & Quot Så tog de ud på en mission for at redde ham sammen med et par andre medlemmer af kolonien. Efter at de havde forladt, massakrerede Kublek og hendes soldater hele kolonien.

Sydney Lemmon, Frygt de gående døde

Hvad vil de?

CRMs sande motiver er stadig ukendte. Deres mål ser ikke ud til at være udelukkende ondsindede, selvom de er villige til at gøre frygtelige ting i jagten på deres mål, uanset hvad det er. I & quot; The End of Everything & quot; Frygt de gående døde afsnit, der introducerede Isabelle (Sydney Lemmon), det første CRM -medlem, vi lærte lidt at kende, ville Isabelle ikke fortælle Althea (Maggie Grace) noget specifikt om, hvad CRM lavede, men hun sagde, at de byggede for en fremtid, og hun følte idealistisk om deres mission. "Vi er en kraft, der ikke lever for os selv eller for nu," sagde Isabelle til Al. & quotDu har dine historier, der allerede gør hver dag til fortiden. Vi har fremtiden. & Quot Plus, Al og Isabelle delte en oprigtig romantisk forbindelse, og det føltes ikke som om Isabelle var ond.

World Beyond, Kublek, tilsyneladende oprigtigt, fortalte Iris, at hun en dag ville forstå, hvad Borgerrepublikken gjorde og komme til at stole på dem, men så havde hun hele Iris 'samfund dræbt. Men ikke før hun gav Iris og hendes søster et kort for at hjælpe med at redde deres far. Men vi ved ikke, hvorfor hun gjorde det. Det er mange men, der fører til mange spørgsmål!

Vi kender heller ikke rigtig det sande formål med nogen af ​​deres missioner. Første gang seerne nogensinde mødte CRM var gennem Jadis (Pollyanna McIntosh), som handlede med dem i sin egenskab af leder af Heapsters. I bytte for forsyninger gav hun dem folk. Hun gav dem Heath (Corey Hawkins), der forsvandt i sæson 7, og hun forsøgte at give dem Negan (Jeffrey Dean Morgan)-dog daværende Frelser-leder forpurrede denne indsats. Senere gav hun dem næsten far Gabriel (Seth Gilliam), men ændrede mening i sidste øjeblik. Endelig opdagede hun den alvorligt sårede Rick, der lå på en flodbred, efter at han havde sprængt en bro, og hun kaldte på at kalde dem til at komme og redde ham. CRM og Jadis kategoriserede de mennesker, hun gav dem, som enten & quotA & quot eller & quotB. & Quot

World Beyond, vi ved ikke, hvad Kublek egentlig havde gang i. Hope så fire andre fly, der fulgte med Kubleks helikopter, men vi ved ikke, hvor de skulle hen, eller hvorfor Kublek løj og sagde, at helikopteret rejste alene. Vi ved ikke, hvorfor hun dræbte hele kolonien.

Frygt de gående døde, Isabelle ledte efter forsyninger - især benzin - og lavede rekonstruktion i et af mange områder, der tilhører gruppen. Men detaljerne i hendes mission blev klassificeret.

I løbet af Frygt de gående døde's [email protected] i juli 2020 sagde Scott Gimple, at vi vil finde ud af mere om Isabelle i fremtiden, og efter at have set premieren på World Beyond, virker det sandsynligt, at oberstløjtnant Kublek er Isabelles mor. Kublek fortalte Iris og Hope, at hun har en datter, der er lidt ældre end dem, og en soldat, der er væk og forsøger at hjælpe med at bringe verden tilbage, hvilket ligner meget, hvad Isabelle fortalte Al.

The Walking Dead: World Beyond

Hvor er de fra?

Vi kan ikke sige det sikkert, men tegn peger mod metroområdet New York City. Leo Bennett er et sted i New York, og på Michonnes (Danai Gurira) sidste Levende døde episode fandt hun bevis for, at Rick stadig levede, mange år efter at han var blevet taget, og relativt for nylig havde været ombord på et skib, der havde oprindelse i en New Jersey havn.

Men det er muligt, at borgerrepublikkens område dækker meget jord. Isabelle var i Texas, som er meget langt fra regionen Northern Virginia, hvor Rick blev taget, som selv er ret langt fra New York. På [email protected] blev Julia Ormond spurgt, om Kublek ved, hvor Rick Grimes er. "Hvis Elizabeth ved, hvor Rick er, er jeg ikke sikker på, at hun ville fortælle dig det," svarede hun. Og hvis Elizabeth fortæller dig det, er jeg ikke sikker på, at du skal tro på hende, og jeg, Julia, vil ikke sige noget, fordi jeg gerne vil beholde mit job. & quot

En ting, vi ved med sikkerhed, er, at Civic Republic ikke er Commonwealth, et meget avanceret samfund, der i tegneserierne var baseret i Toledo, Ohio. The Walking Dead Universes hovedindholdsansvarlige Scott Gimple sagde eftertrykkeligt, at Rick ikke blev taget derhen. Commonwealth blev introduceret på showet i afsnittet & quotA Certain Doom, & quot, og vi lærer mere om dem, når The Walking Dead vender tilbage. Men deres soldaters rød-hvide dragter var meget anderledes end CRM's helt sorte dragter og manglede iøjnefaldende Alliance of the Three's tre-rings symbol.

Hvornår lærer vi mere?

På dette tidspunkt er vores bedste bud at se sæson 1 af World Beyond og sæson 6 af Frygt de gående døde, der har premiere den 11. oktober, da de formodentlig er ved at bygge op til en slags crossover -begivenhed, der kulminerer i den første Rick Grimes -film. Vi gætter! Vi må bare vente og se, hvad Scott Gimple laver.

The Walking Dead vender tilbage til yderligere seks afsnit 10 i begyndelsen af ​​2021. Frygt de gående døde har premiere søndag den 11. oktober kl. 9/8c på AMC og The Walking Dead: World Beyond sendes søndage kl. 10/9c på AMC. Rick Grimes -filmen er stadig under udvikling.


Borgerlige definitioner - Hvad er en republik - Historie

demokrati, republik, Commonwealth (substantiv)

et politisk system, hvor den øverste magt ligger i et organ af borgere, der kan vælge mennesker til at repræsentere dem

en regeringsform, hvis statsoverhoved ikke er monark

"statsoverhovedet i en republik er normalt en præsident"

Wiktionary (3.00 / 3 stemmer) Vurder denne definition:

En stat, hvor suverænitet ligger hos folket eller deres repræsentanter, snarere end hos en monark eller kejser et land uden monarki.

USA er en republik Storbritannien er teknisk set et monarki.

Etymologi: Fra république, afledt af res publica, fra res + publicus derfor bogstaveligt talt "det offentlige".

En stat, der måske eller måske ikke er et monarki, hvor de udøvende og lovgivende myndigheder er adskilte. (gammeldags)

Republikanisme er det politiske princip om adskillelse af den udøvende magt (administrationen) fra den lovgivende despotisme er den for den autonome fuldbyrdelse af staten af ​​love, som den selv har bestemt. . Derfor kan vi sige: jo mindre regeringens personale (jo mindre antal herskere) er, desto større er deres repræsentation og jo mere nær forfatningen nærmer sig muligheden for republikanisme, hvorfor forfatningen kan forventes ved gradvis reform til sidst at rejse sig til republikanisme. Ingen af ​​de gamle såkaldte "republikker" kendte dette system, og de degenererede alle til sidst og uundgåeligt til despotisme under suverænitet af én, som er den mest tålelige af alle former for despotisme. uE00018089uE001 Immanuel Kant, Evig fred

Etymologi: Fra république, afledt af res publica, fra res + publicus derfor bogstaveligt talt "det offentlige".

En af de underinddelinger, der udgør Rusland. Se oblast.

Republikken Udmurtia ligger vest for den permiske oblast.

Etymologi: Fra république, afledt af res publica, fra res + publicus derfor bogstaveligt talt "det offentlige".

Webster Dictionary (0.00 / 0 stemmer) Vurder denne definition:

Etymologi: [F. rpublique, L. respublica Commonwealth res a thing, an affair + publicus, publica, public. Se Real, a. Og Public.]

en stat, hvor den suveræne magt er bosat i hele befolkningen og udøves af repræsentanter valgt af dem som et rigsfællesskab. Jf. Demokrati, 2

Etymologi: [F. rpublique, L. respublica Commonwealth res a thing, an affair + publicus, publica, public. Se Real, a. Og Public.]

Freebase (1.00 / 1 stemme) Vurder denne definition:

En republik er en regeringsform, hvor statsforhold er et "offentligt anliggende", ikke herskernes private bekymring. I en republik udpeges eller vælges offentlige embeder frem for arvet og er ikke privatejendom for de mennesker, der besidder dem. I moderne tid er en fælles forenklet definition af en republik en regering, hvor statsoverhovedet ikke er en monark. I øjeblikket bruger 135 af verdens 206 suveræne stater ordet "republik" som en del af deres officielle navne. Både moderne og gamle republikker varierer meget i deres ideologi og sammensætning. I klassisk og middelalder var arketypen for alle republikker den romerske republik, der henviste til Rom imellem den periode, hvor den havde konger, og de perioder, hvor den havde kejsere. Den italienske middelalderlige og renæssancepolitiske tradition i dag omtalt som "borgerlig humanisme" anses undertiden for at stamme direkte fra romerske republikanere som Sallust og Tacitus. Imidlertid brugte græsk-påvirkede romerske forfattere, såsom Polybius og Cicero, undertiden også udtrykket som en oversættelse for det græske politeia, som generelt kunne betyde regime, men også kunne anvendes på visse bestemte typer af styre, som ikke ligefrem svarede til det af den romerske republik. Republikker blev ikke sidestillet med klassiske demokratier som Athen, men havde et demokratisk aspekt.

Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (0.00 / 0 stemmer) Vurder denne definition:

r ē-pub & primelik, n. en rigsfællesskab: en styreform uden en monark, hvor den øverste magt tillægges repræsentanter valgt af folket. & mdashadj. Repub & primelican , tilhørende en republik: accepterer principperne for en republik. & mdashn. en, der går ind for en republikansk styreform: en demokrat: et af de to store politiske partier i USA, imod Demokrater, favoriserer en høj beskyttelsestarif, en liberal udgift og en udvidelse af den nationale regerings beføjelser. & mdashv.t. Repub & primelicaniser . & mdashn. Repub & primelicanisme , principperne for republikansk regering: tilknytning til republikansk regering. & mdashn. Republic ā & primerian . & mdashBreverepublikken, et navn for den generelle gruppe af litterære og lærde mænd. & mdashRepublikansk æra, den æra, der blev vedtaget af franskmændene efter monarkiets undergang, begyndende den 22. september 1792. & mdashRød republikaner, en voldelig republikaner, fra den røde kasket, der er ramt af sådan. [Fr. république& mdashL. respublica, rigsfællesskab.]

The Nuttall Encyclopedia (2,00 / 2 stemmer) Vurder denne definition:

navnet givet til en stat, hvor den suveræne magt tillægges et eller flere valgt af samfundet, og holdes ansvarlig over for det, selvom det i virkeligheden både i Rom og Republikken Venedig var samfundet ikke frit for at vælge en uden for en privilegeret orden.

Redaktørbidrag (0,00 / 0 stemmer) Bedøm denne definition:

Er et regeringssystem, hvor den demokratiske magt er hos borgerne i den officielle stemmealder, der er bemyndiget til at vælge mennesker til en enhedsregering gennem en gennemsigtig og retfærdig form for proportionalt repræsentationsstemmesystem.

Mange lande rundt om i verden er en republik. f.eks. Republikken Irland, Republikken Congo.

British National Corpus

Rang popularitet for ordet 'Republik' i Talt Corpus -frekvens: #2301


Borgerlige definitioner - Hvad er en republik - Historie

Ofte omtaler politikere og mange almindelige amerikanere USA som et demokrati. Andre synes, at dette er skærpende, fordi i modsætning til i et demokrati, hvor borgerne stemmer direkte om love, i USA gør folkevalgte det - og derfor er USA en republik.

Heldigvis har begge ret! Her er hvorfor:

“Republicens ” -fortalere definerer “demokrati ”, som det oprindeligt blev brugt. Kaldes skiftevis “direkte demokrati ” eller “ rent demokrati, ” i denne regeringsform, frem for at have repræsentanter til at stemme om love og andre handlinger, får hver borger til at stemme – og flertallet bestemmer det.

Selv om det på statligt og lokalt plan bruges folkeafstemninger (f.eks. Legalisering af marihuana) og afstemningsinitiativer (f.eks. Obligationsudstedelser), hvor borgerne stemmer direkte om lovgivning, lejlighedsvis, i det hele taget er det få ting, der afgøres på denne måde i Amerika &# 8211 selv præsidenten vælges ikke af flertallet af borgernes stemmer, men derimod af stemmerne fra vores valgrepræsentanter.

Denne foragt for rent demokrati i Amerika spores tilbage til grundlæggerne. Alexander Hamilton kunne ikke lide det: “Virkelig frihed findes aldrig i despotisme eller i demokratiets yderpunkter. ” Heller ikke Samuel Adams: “ Husk, demokrati varer aldrig længe. Det spilder, udtømmer og myrder snart sig selv! ”

Så hvad arbejdede de med? Udover historiske eksempler havde de set rent demokrati i aktion på tværs af den unge nation i de statslige regeringer, der blev oprettet efter uafhængighedserklæringen, men før den amerikanske forfatning:

Lovgiverne handlede som om de var praktisk talt almægtige. Der var ingen effektive statsforfatninger til at begrænse lovgiverne, fordi de fleste statsregeringer opererede under blot deres respektive lovgivningsmæssige love, der var fejlmærket “ forfatninger. ” Hverken guvernørerne eller domstolene i de krænkende stater var i stand til at udøve nogen væsentlig og effektiv indskrænkende indflydelse på lovgiverne til forsvar for den enkeltes udelukkelige rettigheder, når de krænkes af lovovertrædelser.

Thomas Jefferson oplevede disse overtrædelser første hånd i Virginia:

Alle regeringsbeføjelser, lovgivende, udøvende, retsvæsen, resulterer i lovgivende organ. At koncentrere disse i de samme hænder er netop definitionen af ​​despotisk regering. Det vil ikke være nogen lettelse, at disse beføjelser vil blive udøvet af en flerhed af hænder og ikke af en enkelt. 173 despoter ville helt sikkert være lige så undertrykkende som én.

Massachusetts ’ Elbridge Gerry var enig: “ Det onde, vi oplever, stammer fra det overdrevne demokrati, og det samme gjorde den tidligere guvernør i Virginia Edmund Randolph, der beskrev sit ønske om en republik ved forfatningskonventionen i 1787:

For at give en kur mod det onde, hvorunder USA arbejdede, at hver mand ved at spore disse onder til deres oprindelse havde fundet det i turbulens og prøvelser af demokrati.

Mange så det rene demokrati som en styreform, der uundgåeligt “ afledte [s] til enten anarki eller tyranni af “mob -reglen. ” Dette var bestemt observation af James Madison, som skrev til Jefferson: “I Virginia Jeg har set lovforslaget krænket i alle tilfælde, hvor det har været imod en populær strøm. ”

I frygt for dette tyranni for flertallet etablerede grundlæggerne klart og eksplicit en forfatningsrepublik, hvor love laves og administreres via repræsentanter og beføjelser begrænset af den skrevne forfatning. Grundlæggerne og andre oplysningstænkere mente, at det ville:

Hjælp med at beskytte mod majoritetstyranni ved at filtrere folks ønsker efter rationel diskretion fra andre repræsentanter. . . . [og] hjælpe med at forhindre regeringens handlinger i at fratage enkeltpersoner deres rettigheder, selv når disse handlinger understøttes af et flertal - nogle gange et overvældende flertal - af befolkningen. . .

Så klart er USA en republik.

“Demokrati ” stammer fra de græske udtryk demoer betyder “ almindelige mennesker ” og kratos hvilket betyder “regel, styrke, ”, der sammen forvandlede sig til demokratia betyder “populær regering. ”

Få vil hævde, at regeringen i USA ikke udleder sin magt fra sit folk. Faktisk beskrev en af ​​de største amerikanske præsidenter, Abraham Lincoln, vores nation for at have en regering af folket, af folket [og] for folket. ”

Tilhængere af Amerika som demokrati identificerer et par grundlæggende principper, der er fælles for demokratier, herunder “ demokratisk repræsentation, retsstatsprincippet og forfatningsbeskyttelse, ”, og dette er i overensstemmelse med Aristoteles 'primære kriterium for et demokrati, som er, at hver person delt i “numerisk ligestilling. ”

Den amerikanske regering i den moderne æra har ligeledes kasseret de begrænsede definitioner af rent demokrati og direkte demokrati til fordel for en udvidet version:

Demokrati er institutionalisering af frihed. . . . [Ældre og borgerligt ansvar udøves af alle voksne borgere, direkte eller gennem deres frit valgte repræsentanter. . . . [hvor] alle regeringsniveauer skal være så tilgængelige og lydhøre over for folket som muligt. . . . [og] beskytte sådanne grundlæggende menneskerettigheder som ytrings- og religionsfrihed. . . lige beskyttelse i henhold til lovgivningen. . . [og] muligheden for at organisere og deltage fuldt ud i det politiske, økonomiske og kulturelle liv i samfundet.

Dette er bestemt tilfældet i Amerika og hver af dets halvtreds stater. Så klart er USA under den moderne definition af udtrykket et demokrati.

Fra begyndelsen havde grundlæggerne til hensigt at danne en:

Blandet regering, der kombinerede de bedste egenskaber ved de tre rene former [monarki, aristokrati og demokrati], og som gav ‘check ’ mod deres korruption til absolutisme.

Og det ser ud til, at det lykkedes. Kommentator Gary Gutting har karakteriseret vores hybridrepublik som: “et multarki . . . en kompleks sammenvævning af mange styreformer - ja, af alle Platons fem typer [aristokrati, timarki, oligarki, demokrati og tyranni]. ”

Progressiv forfatter og talkshow -vært Thom Hartman kalder det:

En forfatningsmæssigt begrænset repræsentativ demokratisk republik [hvor]. . . forfatningen, begrænser regeringsmagten. Vi vælger repræsentanter, så det er ikke et rent demokrati. Men vi vælger dem ved flertalsstyre, så det er demokratisk. Og formen for, infrastrukturen, den samlede styreform, er republikansk, det er en republik.

Professor Peter Levine er enig og konkluderer: “I sidste ende kan USA kaldes republikansk og demokratisk. ”

Hvis du kunne lide denne artikel, kan du også nyde vores nye populære podcast, The BrainFood Show (iTunes, Spotify, Google Play Musik, Feed) samt:

43 kommentarer

Typisk amerikansk tankegang. Storbritannien er monarki, men er også et demokrati. Demokrati er en politisk struktur, ikke en styreform. Du kan have en republik og et oligarki som den venetianske republik, og det vil ikke være et demokrati.

Jeg er også overrasket over, at en artikel om amerikansk regering afspejler “typisk amerikansk tænkning ”. Jeg mener, hvad fanden

Problemet er, at dette er typisk amerikansk højrefløjsopfattelse. Du kan fortælle det, når som helst du googler emnet. Prøv det.

Så … Indstil spørgsmålet – Definer vilkårene – Næv historiske eksempler, og kom endelig med en erklærende erklæring baseret på de foregående handlinger. Det er en typisk amerikansk højrefløjsopfattelse?

@Mike, den britiske exceptionist. undskyld du mistede og sidder fast i det gamle verdenssystem.

Amerika er en repræsentativ republik … Det dækker demokratidelen af ​​det som et tæppe for fuldstændigt at undgå at være et demokrati. Demokratier er i sagens natur onde.

En republik er blot en form for demokrati, hvis et demokrati er ondt, så er en republik det også.

At være en republik betyder ikke, at du ikke også kan være et demokrati. Jeg hører ofte folk argumentere (ofte ganske militant) om, at USA er en republik, ikke et demokrati. Men det er en falsk dikotomi. En almindelig definition af "republik" er, for at citere American Heritage Dictionary, "En politisk orden, hvor den øverste magt ligger i et antal borgere, der er berettiget til at stemme på officerer og repræsentanter, der er ansvarlige over for dem" - det er vi. En almindelig definition af "demokrati" er, "Folkeregering, udøvet enten direkte eller gennem folkevalgte" - det er vi også.

USA er ikke et direkte demokrati i betydningen et land, hvor love (og andre regeringsbeslutninger) overvejende træffes ved stemmeflerhed. Noget lovgivning udføres på denne måde på statsligt og lokalt plan, men det er kun en lille brøkdel af al lovgivning. Men vi er et repræsentativt demokrati, som er en form for demokrati.

Og de samme to betydninger af "demokrati" (undertiden direkte demokrati, nogle gange populært selvstyre mere generelt) eksisterede også ved grundlæggelsen af ​​republikken. Nogle kommentatorer fra fremstillingstiden fremførte argumenter, der adskilte "demokrati" og "republik", se f.eks. Federalisten (nr. 10), såvel som andre numre af de federalistiske papirer. Men selv i den æra blev "repræsentativt demokrati" forstået som en form for demokrati sammen med "rent demokrati": John Adams brugte udtrykket "repræsentativt demokrati" i 1794, det samme gjorde Noah Webster i 1785, det samme gjorde St. George Tucker i hans 1803 udgave af Blackstone, det samme gjorde Thomas Jefferson i 1815. Tucker's Blackstone bruger ligeledes "demokrati" til at beskrive et repræsentativt demokrati, selv når kvalifikatoren "repræsentant" udelades. På samme måde forsvarede James Wilson, en af ​​forfatningens hovedforfattere og en af ​​de første højesteretsdommere, forfatningen i 1787 ved at tale om, at de tre regeringsformer var "monarkiske, aristokratiske og demokratiske" og sagde, at i et demokrati er den suveræne magt "iboende i folket og udøves enten af ​​dem selv eller af deres repræsentanter." Chief Justice John Marshall - der hjalp med at føre kampen i Virginia -konventionen fra 1788 for at ratificere den amerikanske forfatning - forsvarede ligeledes forfatningen i denne konvention ved at beskrive den som implementering af "demokrati" (i modsætning til "despotisme") og uden behov for tilføj endda kvalifikatoren "repræsentant".

Sir William Blackstone, der var meget læst og beundret af rammeholderne, brugte ligeledes "demokrati" til at omfatte republikker: "Baron Montesquieu fastsætter, at luksus er nødvendig i monarkier, som i Frankrig, men ødelæggende for demokratier, som i Holland. Med hensyn til England, hvis regering er sammensat af begge arter, kan det dog stadig være et tvivlsomt spørgsmål, hvor langt privat luksus er et offentligt onde…. ” Holland var naturligvis en republik, og England blev sammensat af monarki og regering af folkevalgte - Blackstone betegnede således en sådan regering af folkevalgte som en form for "demokrati [y]."

Og sådan er "demokrati" som "kontanter" (og som mange andre ord). Hvad betyder det, hvis du betaler kontant i en butik? Det betyder, at du betaler med regninger og mønter, frem for med en check eller et kreditkort. Men hvis du køber dit hus for kontanter, betyder det så, at du dukker op med en mappe fuld af regninger eller mønter? Medmindre du er i nogle særegne arbejdslinjer, sandsynligvis ikke. På samme måde, da folk i indramningstiden diskuterede folkestyre i modsætning til regering, hvor størstedelen af ​​folket ikke havde nogen stemme, brugte de ofte "demokrati" (eller "demokratisk" eller "demokratisk") til at betyde "ikke monarki eller despotisme eller aristokrati ”, hvor” demoen ”refererer til folkelig kontrol (hvad der ville blive Lincolns” folkestyre, for folket og af folket. ”Men da de diskuterede repræsentativ regering i modsætning til direkte regering, brugte de ofte "Demokrati" eller "rent demokrati" betyder "ikke repræsentativ regering", hvor "demoen" henviser til populær beslutningstagning.

Det samme er tilfældet i dag. Amerika er et demokrati, idet det ikke er et monarki eller et diktatur. (Nogle mennesker hævder, at det er for oligarkisk, i så fald vil de sige, at Amerika ikke er demokratisk nok - men igen ville de adskille demokrati fra oligarki.) Amerika er ikke et demokrati i betydningen at være et direkte demokrati. Hvis du spørger, om du skal gøre noget ved direkte afstemning eller ved repræsentative processer, kan du spørge, om vi skal være mere demokratiske eller mere republikanske. Hvis du spørger, om Kina ville have det bedre med at give mere magt til kinesiske vælgere, kan du spørge, om det skal være mere demokratisk eller mindre demokratisk, helt bortset fra om du mener, at demokratiet skal være direkte eller repræsentativt.

For at være sikker er USA udover at være et repræsentativt demokrati også et forfatningsmæssigt demokrati, hvor domstole i nogen grad begrænser den demokratiske vilje. Og USA er derfor også en forfatningsrepublik. Faktisk kan USA blive stemplet som et forfatningsmæssigt føderalt repræsentativt demokrati.

Og du er en brudt blyant Men hvor et ord bruges, med al den forenkling, som dette nødvendig medfører, fungerer "demokrati" og "republik" begge. Da direkte demokrati - igen en regering, hvor alle eller de fleste love er vedtaget ved direkte folkeafstemning - ville være upraktisk i betragtning af antallet og kompleksiteten af ​​love, som stort set enhver stat eller national regering forventes at vedtage, er det ikke overraskende, at kvalifikator "repræsentant" ville ofte blive udeladt. Praktisk set er repræsentativt demokrati det eneste demokrati, der findes på ethvert statsligt eller nationalt niveau. (Stat og endda nationale folkeafstemninger bruges undertiden, men kun for en meget lille del af statens eller nationens lovgivning.) Demokrati har altså flere betydninger - som så mange ord - og har længe haft flere betydninger. Du tror måske, at det engelske sprog eller den politiske diskurs ville være bedre, hvis demokrati kun havde en betydning. Men du kan ikke vilkårligt vælge den betydning og betegne modsatte betydninger som sprogligt forkerte, selvom det ville være mere bekvemt at have en sådan betydning.

Du skal heller ikke investere så meget betydning, tror jeg, i det særlige ord. Begreber er vigtige, der er en vigtig skelnen mellem direkte-demokratiske processer og repræsentative-demokratiske processer og mellem forskellige grader af direkte eller repræsentativitet. Men forvent ikke, at det engelske sprog, som det faktisk bruges af en lang række engelsktalende-fra Adams, Jefferson og Wilson og ned-perfekt eller endda næsten perfekt vil fange sådanne sondringer.


Udforsk Dictionary.com

En styreform, hvor magten udtrykkeligt tillægges folket, som igen udøver deres magt gennem folkevalgte. I dag er udtrykkene republik og demokrati praktisk talt udskiftelige, men historisk var de to forskellige. Demokrati indebar direkte styre af folket, som alle var lige, mens republikken indebar et regeringssystem, hvor folkets vilje blev formidlet af repræsentanter, som måske var klogere og bedre uddannede end en almindelig person. I den tidlige amerikanske republik, for eksempel, var kravet om, at vælgere ejer ejendom og etablering af institutioner som Electoral College beregnet til at dæmpe regeringen fra det direkte udtryk for den folkelige vilje.


Borgerlig uddannelse i USA

Fremme af en republik og dens værdier har været en vigtig bekymring for beslutningstagere-at påvirke folks politiske opfattelser, tilskynde til politisk deltagelse og fremme de principper, der er nedfældet i forfatningen (f.eks. Frihed, ytringsfrihed, borgerrettigheder ). Emnet "Civics" er blevet integreret i pensum og indholdsstandarder for at forbedre forståelsen af ​​demokratiske værdier i uddannelsessystemet. Borgerlig litteratur har fundet ud af, at "at engagere små børn i borgerlige aktiviteter fra en tidlig alder er en positiv forudsigelse for deres deltagelse i senere borgerliv". [1]

Som akademisk fag har Civics det undervisningsmæssige formål at fremme viden, der er i overensstemmelse med selvstyring og deltagelse i spørgsmål af offentlig interesse. [2] Disse målsætninger taler for en instruktion, der tilskynder til aktiv elevdeltagelse i demokratiske beslutningstagningsmiljøer, f.eks. At stemme om at vælge en kursusrepræsentant for en skolestyrelse eller at træffe beslutning om handlinger, der vil påvirke skolemiljøet eller fællesskabet. Skæringspunktet mellem individuelle og kollektive beslutningsaktiviteter er således afgørende for at forme ”individets moralske udvikling”. [1] To reach those goals, civic instructors must promote the adoption of certain skills and attitudes such as “respectful argumentation, debate, information literacy”, to support “the development of morally responsible individuals who will shape a morally responsible and civically minded society". [1] In the 21st century, young people are less interested in direct political participation (i.e. being in a political party or even voting), but are motivated to use digital media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). Digital media enable young people to share and exchange ideas rapidly, enabling the coordination of local communities that promote volunteerism and political activism, in topics principally related to human rights and environmental subjects. [3]

Young people are constructing and supporting their political identities in the 21st century by using social media, and digital tools (e.g. text messaging, hashtags, videos) to share, post, reply an opinion or attitude about a political/social topic and to promote social mobilization and support through online mechanism to a wide and diverse audience. Therefore, civics' end-goal in the 21st century must be oriented to “empower the learners to find issues in their immediate communities that seem important to the people with whom they live and associate”, once “learners have identified with a personal issue and participated in constructing a collective framing for common issues”. [3]

According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, one of the purposes of Civic Education is to “foster civic competence and responsibility” which is promoted through the Center for Civic Education’s We the People and Project Citizen initiatives. [4] However, there is a lack of consensus for how this mission should be pursued. The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) reviewed state civic education requirements in the United States for 2012. [5] The findings include: [6]

  • All 50 states have social studies standards which include civics and government.
  • 39 states require at least one course in government/civics. [note 1]
  • 21 states require a state-mandated social studies test which is a decrease from 2001 (34 states).
  • 8 states require students to take a state-mandated government/civics test.
  • 9 states require a social studies test as a requirement for high school graduation.

The lack of state-mandated student accountability relating to civics may be a result of a shift in emphasis towards reading and mathematics in response to the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. [7] There is a movement to require that states utilize the citizenship test as a graduation requirement, but this is seen as a controversial solution to some educators. [8]

Students are also demonstrating that their civic knowledge leaves much to be desired. A National Center for Education Statistics NAEP report card for civics (2010) stated that “levels of civic knowledge in U.S. have remained unchanged or even declined over the past century”. Specifically, only 24 percent of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders were at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in civics. [9] Traditionally, civic education has emphasized the facts of government processes detached from participatory experience. [10] In an effort to combat the existing approach, the National Council for the Social Studies developed the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. The C3 Framework emphasizes “new and active approaches” including the “discussion of controversial issues and current events, deliberation of public issues, service-learning, action civics, participation in simulation and role play, and the use of digital technologies”. [11]

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, among teens 12–17 years old, 95% have access to the Internet, 70% go online daily, 80% use social networking sites, and 77% have cell phones. [12] As a result, participatory culture has become a staple for today’s youth, affecting their conceptualization of civic participation. They use Web 2.0 tools (i.e. blogs, podcasts, wikis, social media) to: circulate information (blogs and podcasts) collaborate with peers (wikis) produce and exchange media and connect with people around the world via social media and online communities. [13] The pervasiveness of participatory digital tools has led to a shift in the way adolescents today perceive civic action and participation. Whereas 20th century civic education embraced the belief of “dutiful citizenship” and civic engagement as a “matter of duty or obligation” 21st century civic education has shifted to reflect youths' “personally expressive politics” and “peer-to-peer relationships” that promote civic engagement. [12]

This shift in students' perceptions has led to classroom civic education experiences that reflect the digital world in which 21st century youth now live, in order to make the content both relevant and meaningful. Civics education classrooms in the 21st century now seek to provide genuine opportunities to actively engage in the consumption, circulation, discussion, and production of civic and political content via Web 2.0 technologies such as blogging, wikis, and social media. [14] Although these tools offer new ways for engagement, interaction, and dialogue, educators have also recognized the need to teach youth how to interact both respectfully and productively with their peers and members of online communities. As a result, many school districts have also begun adopting Media Literacy Frameworks for Engaged Citizenship as a pedagogical approach to prepare students for active participatory citizenship in today’s digital age. This model includes critical analysis of digital media as well as a deep understanding of media literacy as a “collaborative and participatory movement that aims to empower individuals to have a voice and to use it.” [15] [16]


The Walking Dead: World Beyond Civic Republic and Three Rings Explained

The Walking Dead: World Beyond explains the franchise’s Three Rings symbol with the introduction of three new colonies.

Photo: AMC

The following contains spoilers for The Walking Dead: World Beyond episode 1.

Way back in the tenth episode of The Walking Dead’s sixth season, Paul Rovia a.k.a. Jesus (Tom Payne) made a promise to Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln).

“You’re world’s about to get a whole lot bigger,” the Messianic-appearing figure said. And it did not take long for Jesus’s promise to bear fruit. Rick Grimes’s world did get bigger with the introduction of the Hilltop Colony, The Kingdom, Oceanside, and even The Sanctuary.

Since that moment, the world of The Walking Dead has only continued to grow. That growth reaches its apex (thus far at least) in the premiere of the third TWD spinoff, The Walking Dead: World Beyond. This latest installment of the franchise introduces viewers to not just one new location but three…and maybe more than that. And unlike Hilltop, Alexandria, The Kingdom, The Sanctuary, or even Stephanie’s supposed community in West Virginia, these communities aren’t confined to merely the mid-Atlantic. These communities, the Civic Republic, Pacific Republic, and Campus Colony, span the entire country.

Ad – content continues below

Here is what we know about The Walking Dead’s latest expansion based on World Beyond’s first episode, “Brave.”

Mens World Beyond introduces three new communities, viewers spend time in only one. The series begins on the outskirts of Omaha, Nebraska in the Campus Colony of Omaha. This is where all main characters Hope (Alexa Mansour), Iris (Aliyah Royale), Elton (Nicolas Cantu), and Silas (Hal Cumpston) reside. There appear to be at least two components of the Omaha settlement. Many children and their respective caretakers and educators reside in the Campus Colony portion. There is also clearly an urban portion of the community in Omaha proper. It’s mentioned that the Campus Colony is “100 miles” from the city. The Campus Colony contains 9,671 people according to Iris’s therapist.

This suggests that things have settled down enough in The Walking Dead universe that individuals are able to band together to create quasi-super cities or at least a series of small communities over a relatively large area that are united enough to consider themselves one city. It would kind of be like if Alexandria, Hilltop, Kingdom, Sanctuary, and Oceanside all existed under one “Washington’ banner.

But the world gets even bigger than that on World Beyond. The first episode’s plot deals with some very special guests coming to town. The Campus Colony of Omaha is one of three political entities bound in what is known as “The Alliance of the Three.” The other two are the Pacific Republic based out of Portland, Oregon and the Civic Republic based out of…well nobody knows where, as they won’t tell anyone. The Alliance of the Three is represented by a logo featuring three interlocking rings, which viewers have seen previously on The Walking Deadog Frygt de gående døde.

Of the three, the Civic Republic (sometimes abbreviated as CRM for “Civic Republic Military”) are clearly the dominant faction. Despite not knowing where the Civic Republic is located, we still learn quite a bit about them in this first hour. The Civic Republic is a highly technologically sophisticated society. They have access to helicopters, proper body armor, and efficient zombie-killing automatic weapons. Though they’re careful not to reveal where they’re from, they do mention that it was a long trip out to Omaha. They also have at least one facility in New York state if Lt. Colonel Elizabeth Kublek (Julia Ormond) is to be believed. A lot of further information about the Civic Republic that can be gleaned from the previous two Walking Deadserie.


Indhold

Republicanism in the United States grew out of some very old ideas. It includes ideas from ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Renaissance, and England. [4]

Some of the most important ideas of republicanism are that: [5]

    and "unalienable" rights (natural rights) are some of the most important things in a society
  • Government should exist to protect these rights
  • The people who live in a country, as a whole, should be sovereign (they should be able to choose who leads them and have a say in how their government is run)
  • Power must always be given by the people, never inherited (like in a monarchy)
  • People must all play a role in their government by doing things like voting
  • Political corruption is terrible and has no place in a republic

Republicanism is different than other forms of democracy. In a "pure" democracy, the majority rules. If a majority of the people voted to take rights away from a certain group, that is what would happen. [6] [7] Alexis de Tocqueville, a famous French political thinker, called this the "tyranny of the majority." [8] He meant that a pure democracy could still turn into an unfair, unequal, corrupt society if the majority of the people decided to take away others' rights. [8]

However, republicanism says that people have "unalienable" rights that cannot be voted away. Republican governments are different than "pure" democracies, because they include protections to make sure people's rights are not taken away. In a true republican government, one group - even if it is a majority - cannot take another group's unalienable rights away. [9]

American republicanism was created and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. For them, "republicanism represented more than a particular form of government. It was a way of life, a core ideology, an uncompromising commitment to liberty, and a total rejection of aristocracy." [10] Republicanism shaped what the Founders thought and did during the American Revolution, and after.

Creating American republicanism Edit

The leaders of colonial America in the 1760s and 1770s read history carefully. Their goal was to compare governments and how well different types of governments worked. [11] They were especially interested in the history of liberty in England. They modeled American republicanism partly after the English "Country Party." This was a political party which opposed the Court Party, which held power in England. [11]

The Country Party was based on ancient Greek and Roman republicanism. [12] The Party criticized the corruption in the "Court" Party, which focused mostly on the King's court in London. It did not focus on the needs of regular people in England, or on areas outside of the capital city. [13]

By reading history, The Founders came up with a set of political ideas that they called "republicanism." By 1775, these ideas were common in colonial America. [14] One historian writes: "Republicanism was the distinctive political [way of thinking] of the entire Revolutionary generation." [15]

Another historian explains that believers of American republicanism saw government as a threat. He writes that colonists felt constantly "threatened by corruption." Government, to them, was "the [biggest] source of corruption and operat[ed] through such means as patronage, faction, standing armies ( [instead of] the ideal of the militia) [and] established churches" which people would have to belong to. [16]

Cause of Revolution Edit

By the 1770s, most Americans were dedicated to republican values and to their property rights. This helped cause the American Revolution. More and more, Americans saw Britain as corrupt hostile and a threat to republicanism, freedom, and property rights. [17] Many people thought that the greatest threat to liberty was corruption – not just in London, but at home too. They thought corruption went along with inherited aristocracy, which they hated. [17]

During the Revolution, many Christians connected republicanism with their religion. When the Revolution started, there was a major change in thinking that "convinced Americans . that God was raising up America for some special purpose," according to one historian. [18] This made the Revolutionists believe that they had a moral and religious duty to get rid of the corruption in the monarchy. [17]

Another historian, Gordon Wood, writes that republicanism led to American Exceptionalism: "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy." [19]

I hans Discourse of 1759, Revolutionist Jonathan Mayhew argued that people should only obey their governments if they "actually perform the duty of rulers by exercising a reasonable and [fair] authority for the good of human society." Many American colonists were convinced that British rulers were not using their power "for the good of human society." This made them want to form a new government which would be based on republicanism. They thought a republican government would protect – not threaten – freedom and democracy. [17]

Founding Fathers Edit

For example, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that a government that had the most possible participation by "its citizens in mass" (all the people together) was the safest kind. He said a republic is:

. a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority. [T]he powers of the government, being divided, should [each] be exercised . by representatives chosen. for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. [T]he mass of the citizens is the safest [protector] of their own rights. [20]

The Founding Fathers often talked about what "republicanism" meant. In 1787, John Adams defined it as "a government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws." [21]

Other ideas Edit

Some other ideas also affected the Founding Fathers. For example, in the 1600s, John Locke, an English philosopher, had created the idea of the "social contract." [22] This idea said that people agree to obey governments, and in return, those governments agree to protect the people and their rights. This is like a contract made between the people and the government. If the government breaks this contract, and does not protect the people's rights, then the people have the right to overthrow their leaders. [22] This idea was important to the Revolutionists.

When they were writing state and national constitutions, the Americans used ideas from Montesquieu, an 18th-century French political thinker. Montesquieu wrote about how the perfect British constitution would be "balanced." [23] The idea of a balance of power (also called "checks and balances") is a very important part of the Constitution. It is one of the strategies the Founders used to make sure their government would be republican and protect the people from government corruption. [23]

The Founding Fathers wanted republicanism because its ideas guaranteed liberty, with limited powers checking and balancing each other. However, they also wanted change to happen slowly. They worried that in a democracy, the majority of voters could vote away rights and freedoms. [6] [24] They were most worried about poor Americans (who made up most of the United States) turning against the rich. [25] They worried that democracy could turn into "mob rule." [26]

To guard against this, the Founders wrote many protections into the Constitution. For example: [27]

  • They made sure the Constitution can only be changed by a "supermajority": two-thirds of the United States Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures[a]
  • They set up a court system that could help protect people's rights if the majority of Americans decided to take a group's rights away
  • They created an Electoral College, where a small number of elite people would select the President
    • Soon, political parties controlled elections more than the Electoral College did

    Most adult white males were able to vote. In 1776, most states required people to own property to be able to vote. However, at that time, America was 90% rural, and most people owned farms. As cities grew bigger and people started doing work in the cities, most states dropped the property requirement. By 1850, this requirement was gone in every state. [28]

    Republican motherhood Edit

    Under the new government after the Revolution, "republican motherhood" became an ideal. Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren were held up as the perfect "republican mothers." This idea said that a republican mother's first duty was to teach her children republican values. Her second job was to live simply and avoid luxury, which the Founders linked with corruption. [29] [30]

    Democracy Edit

    Many of the Founders did not think "democracy" was a good idea. Their idea of "democracy" was the "pure democracy" that de Tocqueville had described. [8] They worried often about the problem of 'tyranny of the majority' that de Tocqueville had warned about. They wrote many protections into the Constitution to prevent this from happening. As historians Richard Ellis and Michael Nelson write: "The principles of republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an effort by the framers to [make sure] that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be [destroyed] by majorities." [31] Thomas Jefferson warned that "an elect[ed] despotism is not the government we fought for." [32]

    James Madison, in particular, worried about this, and wrote about it in The Federalist Papers. Det Federalistiske papirer talk about democracy as being dangerous, because it allows a majority to take away the rights of a smaller group. [33] However, Madison thought that as more people came to the United States, the country would get more diverse, and it would be harder to form a majority big enough to do this. [34] In Federalist No. 10, Madison also argued that a strong federal government would help protect republicanism. [35] The United States' first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave most power to the states and had a very weak federal government that could not get anything done. In Federalist No. 10, Madison argued that a small but powerful group might be able to take control of a small area, like a state. However, it would be much harder to take over an entire country. The bigger the country, he argued, the safer republicanism would be. [35]

    As late as 1800, the word "democrat" still had a very bad meaning to most Americans. It was mostly used to attack an opponent of the Federalist party. In 1798, George Washington complained that a "Democrat . will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country." [36] This changed over the next few decades.

    Property rights Edit

    United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779–1845) made the protection of property rights by the courts a major part of American republicanism. James Madison appointed Story to the Court in 1811. Story and Chief Justice John Marshall made the Court a protector of the rights of property against runaway democracy. [37] Story believed that "the right of the citizens to the free enjoyment of their property" (if they got it legally) was "a great and fundamental principle of a republican government." [38] Historians agree that Story—as much or more than Marshall or anyone else—reshaped American law in a conservative direction that protected property rights. [39]

    Military service Edit

    Republicanism saw military service as one of a citizen's most important duties. [40] John Randolph, a Congressman from Virginia, once said: "When citizen and soldier shall be synonymous terms, then you will be safe." [41]

    However, at this time, the word "army" meant "foreign mercenaries." After the Revolutionary War, Americans did not trust mercenaries. [42] Instead, they came up with the idea of a national army, made of citizens. They changed their definition of military service from a choice of careers to a civic duty – something every good republican should do. [42] Before the Civil War, people saw military service as an important show of patriotism, and a necessary part of citizenship. To soldiers, military service was something they chose to do, something they had a say in, and it showed that they were good citizens. [43]

    Republic Edit

    Begrebet republik is not used in the Declaration of Independence. [44] However, it does appear in Article Four of the Constitution, which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." [45]

    The United States Supreme Court has created a basic definition of what a "republic" is. I USA mod Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic. [46] Later, the Court's decision from In re Duncan (1891) ruled that the "right of the people to choose their government" is also part of the definition of a republic. [47]

    Democracy Edit

    Over time, most Americans changed their opinion about the word "democracy." By the 1830s, most Americans saw democracy as a great thing, and members of the new Democratic Party proudly called themselves "Democrats." [48] ​​[49]

    After 1800, the limitations on democracy (like rules that limited who could vote) were removed one by one:


    What is an example of a Republicanism?

    EN ikke-example of republicanism is care for the elderly and the poor. I Republicanism, citizens are expected to be independent in their performance of their duties and responsibilities of being a citizen of the republic.

    what is the Republican principle? It stresses liberty and unalienable individual rights as central values, making people sovereign as a whole rejects monarchy, aristocracy and hereditary political power, rejects direct democracy, expects citizens to be virtuous and faithful in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.

    People also ask, what is Republicanism in the Constitution?

    Republicanism in the United States is a set of ideas that guides the government and politics. A republic is a type of government (one where the people can choose their leaders). Republicanism is an ideology &ndash set of beliefs that people in a republic have about what is most important to them.

    What does classical republicanism mean?

    Classical republicanism, also known as civic republikanisme or civic humanism, is a form of republikanisme developed in the Renaissance inspired by the governmental forms and writings of classical antiquity, especially such classical writers as Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero.


    Joe Biden, Donald Trump and the Weimar Republic: History's dark lessons

    By Matthew Rozsa
    Published June 6, 2021 6:00AM (EDT)

    Joe Biden, Kyrsten Sinema, Mitch McConnell, the QAnon Shaman and Adolf Hitler (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

    Aktier

    If Donald Trump's movement is destined to be America's answer to Nazism, than the Joe Biden administration is currently a rough equivalent of the Weimar Republic — the unstable constitutional democracy that governed Germany before the rise of Adolf Hitler. The comparison is imperfect, but the cautionary tale is still clear. There is an obvious risk that Biden and the narrow Democratic majorities in Congress will fail, and that Trump or a successor will take over and then cement themselves into power for at least the next generation. Every American who wants to avoid this — especially Biden and the leading Democrats in Congress — needs to learn the right lessons from Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.

    It would require a medium-length academic article to lay out all the similar and dissimilar qualities of these two nations in these two periods. But for the purposes of understanding the threat posed by Trumpism, there are five key similarities:

    1. Both sagas began with an incompetent right-wing ruler. In Germany's case, they had the misfortune of being led by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who has been described as viewing "other people in instrumental terms," as a "compulsive liar" and possessing "a limited understanding of cause and effect." That sounds more than a little bit like Donald Trump, whose administration was plagued with scandal and who failed to effectively manage the COVID-19 pandemic. On both occasions, that ruler was eventually removed from power (through losing both World War I and the German Revolution in the case of the former and losing the 2020 election in the case of the latter).

    2. Both stories continued because of a Big Lie. Hitler appealed to nationalist sentiments by claiming that Germany had actually won World War I but been betrayed behind the scenes by a conspiracy of socialists and Jews. Trump, who displays narcissistic traits and has spent years telling people that any election he loses is by definition stolen from him, has without evidence or any logical argument insisted that Biden cheated in 2020. Another defeated president might have been dismissed as a pathological sore loser, but Trump's cult of personality is so strong that his Trumper tantrum has now become a defining part of Republicanism.

    3. Both used their Big Lies to break democratic norms. In Hitler's case, he became a de facto legal dictator shortly after rising to power. Because America has a much longer history of unbroken democratic government than Germany did in 1933, things will be trickier for the Trumpists. In Trump's case, he became the first president to lose an election and refuse to accept the result (there have been 10 previous defeated presidents, and all accepted the voters' verdict), as well as the first to incite an insurrection to stay in power. Trump is now reportedly fueling conspiracy theories that he could still overturn the election just as significantly, Republicans are using his Big Lie to restrict voting for Democratic-leaning groups throughout the country. Through these methods, they will make it possible for Republicans to steal future elections — presidential and local — through means created to "fix" the problem they manufactured through their Big Lie. No doubt there will be many future Big Lies.

    4. Both Hitler and Trump use fascist tactics to win over their supporters. These include appeals to nationalism, vilification of "out" groups and conditioning their followers to use self-expression as a substitute for authentic political self-agency. (It helps when they can create a cult of personality around the leader figure.)

    5. Both may wind up using their legal troubles to create resurrection narratives. Hitler famously served nine months in prison for participating in a failed coup d'état known as the Beer Hall Putsch. Trump may go to prison for anything and everything from his own coup attempt to the numerous financial crimes alleged against him. If he's convicted, he will likely be held up as a martyr if he doesn't, that fact will be cited as vindication.

    Because of these similarities, it is unfortunately conceivable that Trump will complete his takeover of the Republican Party (generously assuming he has not already done so) and the Trumpists will win every future election because of their various voter suppression laws and Orwellian propaganda. We face a future in which Trump's brand of right-wing politics is not only empowered, but virtually impossible to dislodge. My guess is the process will start gaining steam soon, win some important victories in the 2022 midterm elections and then climax when either Trump or a Trumpist is elected in 2024.

    How can Biden make sure this does not happen?

    He must recognize the gravity of the crisis and prioritize neutralizing it. That means making sure Republicans can't cover up the truth about Trumpism's anti-democratic agenda, and that voting rights are protected.

    None of that will be possible as long as Republicans in the Senate can filibuster legislation to death. Even though Democrats have a theoretical majority in a 50-50 Senate because of Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote, two Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have infamously refused to support ending the filibuster. Their rationale is that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who notoriously gave part of Czechoslovakia to Germany and thereby emboldened Hitler: Like Chamberlain, they want to appease the far right extremists in their midst. Today this means legislation that would protect voting rights, investigate the Trumpist coup effort and help America's economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic is being unnecessarily thwarted or watered down by Republicans bent on reclaiming power.

    While Biden has expressed frustration with Manchin and Sinema, that is nowhere near enough. Biden and other leading Democrats need to make it clear that if Manchin and Sinema do not support ending the filibuster, they will suffer serious political consequences. The Trumpists understood this principle when they stripped Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming of her position in the House Republican leadership because she wouldn't back the Big Lie. In their quest to Make America Forever Trumpist, they will tolerate no dissent. When it comes to what Democrats must do to stop Manchin and Sinema, however, the goal is not to suppress dissent but to make sure that those who gøre suppress dissent can't rise to power. If Manchin and Sinema refuse to do something reasonable to stop them, the Democratic Party must make them suffer politically for it. To quote John F. Kennedy's final speech (which he never got to deliver because he was assassinated: "This is a time for courage and a time of challenge. Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed."

    Consider this nightmare scenario: Sinema and Manchin switch parties and Democrats lose control of the Senate. As bad as that might be, it would also force Republicans to shoulder some of the blame for political gridlock, and might be preferable to Democrats being seen as impotent because two bad senators are blocking their entire agenda. If Biden can't get Manchin and Sinema to stop supporting the filibuster and back his agenda, then they deserve to be effectively treated as Republicans even if they remain nominal Democrats. Biden can still creatively use executive power to at least somewhat follow this next step. (I elaborate on that here.)

    That step is to make sure that he adequately addresses the people's legitimate needs. The Weimar Republic fell, in part, because of widespread economic hardships that the government simply could not fix. Biden needs to make sure that the vast majority of Americans feel economically secure, safe from threats foreign and domestic (like terrorists and pandemics), and protected from long-term existential crises like global warming, plastic pollution and income inequality. Any legislation passed anywhere in the nation that limits citizens' access to voting must be stricken from the books. Lies spread in bad faith to discourage voting, from Trump claiming he won in 2020 to myths about mail-in ballots, have to be proactively rebutted.

    It is unrealistic to expect Biden to be a revolutionary even if Manchin and Sinema do stop playing God, but he is capable of doing a lot entirely on his own. Whenever possible, he must be bold.

    Finally, Biden must make sure that we never forget Jan. 6. Just as George W. Bush's presidency was defined by his response to the 9/11 terrorist attack, so too will Joe Biden's be defined by whether he can make 1/6 into a cornerstone of our political consciousness. If he can do that, he will be able to make sure that Trumpism's anti-democratic philosophy — which poses a far more dangerous threat to America than Islamist terrorism — is known by all but its followers for what it is.

    This won't be easy, but we don't have a choice. A century ago one of the world's great powers collapsed into authoritarian evil with astonishing rapidity: While monarchists and major capitalists believed Adolf Hitler was a clown they could control, the opponents were divided, confused and ineffective. Aspects of that history are repeating themselves, and the question now is whether we have learned from the mistakes of the past to alter the outcome.

    Matthew Rozsa

    Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.


    Se videoen: UČÍ SE HISTORIE V ČESKÉ REPUBLICE ŠPATNĚ? Filozofovator s @Nsete