No, democracy is unlimited power by the majority.
A constitutional republic is a system that allows the majority to exercise power within a restricted scope.
EDIT: I completely agree with your point, though. It probably _is_ too late, but for it to not be too late, people have to learn what's what. And for that to happen, people need to understand what a democracy is and why it's not the right solution.
The only difference is that the constitutional republic has an old piece of paper sitting in a museum somewhere.
No, the specific contents of that piece of paper also matter. Not every constitution establishs a constitutional republic, or a good one.
As we all know, paper has no physical power, so the supposed restrictions on government power still must be enforced (either by a willing government, while that lasts, or an armed populace).
I agree here, and this is the tricky part.
Hopefully more people will come to realize that while they may be in the majority on some issue for some window of time, overall, they need protection from arbitrary governmental power.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link...
It's not really a matter of intelligence.
Most people, including most intelligent people, do not believe that a person's life completely belongs to himself or herself.
Instead, they think it belongs to the family, or the community, or God, or the nation, or the government, or those with less money.
It's actually a major intellectual achievement to be able to affirm the principle that an individual's life belongs to himself.
“Democracy” never meant only majority rule. “Democracy” is more commonly used as an umbrella term, that can refer to majority rule, but also constitutional republics.
It’s all semantic pointlessness anyway, obscuring meaning by fighting meaningless bullshitting battles.
Why obscure meaning by insisting on making a difference between democracy and constitutional republic when it would be much easier to just directly contrast and compare “majority rule” and “constitutional republics” with each other? You don’t even have to use the word “democracy”.
It is all perfectly clear and using “democracy” to describe a constitutional republic is not some grand conspiracy.
It’s pseudo-intellectual semantic stupidity.
But if you want to embrace this semantic wankery then one thing is clear: democracy never only referred to majority rule. That’s completely absurd, it was always broader than that. (Looking only at Athens suffices here. That was never a constitutional republic, but it also was never a majority rule. For example, some offices were assigned randomly.)
But I completely disagree with you. People use the term "democracy" constantly, so figuring out what it means (and what they mean by it) matters. So just ignoring it, as you suggest, is not a viable option at all.
From reading [1], you will pick up that I think we should define these terms by their essence, not (say) how closely some specific historical cases did or did not approach the ideal.
Moreover, it's been intellectually important for progressives to insist that the US is a democracy since the progressive movement began (1900s or thereabout), because democracy is necessary to implement their ideas. I'm not saying it was a grand conspiracy. Democracy is a core part of progressivism.
We can use your weird definition of democracy, of course. That is perfectly acceptable. But you should also be aware that next to no one else is actually using that definition when they say democracy.
What is not possible is to define words in a certain (weird) way and then to infer from that what people are really thinking when they say democracy.
“Progressives” do not mean mob rule or majority rule when they say democracy. That is just absurd. Just because you define that word that way doesn’t mean everyone else is or wants to express what you defined they want to express.
You are just completely and utterly wrong, with a worldview clouded by ideological delusions.
(It really is an aside, but all progressives I know are strongly in favor of strong constitutional protections of rights that cannot be overridden by any majority, they are strongly in favor of a separation of powers and due process. When they say they want more democracy they most certainly don’t mean that they want to make it easier to abolish constitutional rights. You are attacking the most complete strawman ever.)
Agreed. People don't automatically follow your definitions. I'm not arguing that.
“Progressives” do not mean mob rule or majority rule when they say democracy.
They definitely do mean majority rule. Absolutely. What is democracy, if not majority rule?
You are just completely and utterly wrong, with a worldview clouded by ideological delusions.
You can't logically criticize my entire "worldview" based on how I think we ought to define the words "democracy" and "constitutional republic," and whether or not the definitions of words actually matter.
(It really is an aside, but all progressives I know are strongly in favor of strong constitutional protections of rights that cannot be overridden by any majority, they are strongly in favor of a separation of powers and due process. When they say they want more democracy they most certainly don’t mean that they want to make it easier to abolish constitutional rights. You are attacking the most complete strawman ever.)
Given that you use British Empire-style perjoratives (which are, by the way, rather harsh to my American ears), I don't think we're talking about the same thing by "progressives," because you're describing them incorrectly. According to Wikipedia, some parties in Europe have been using it to mean something different.
When they say they want more democracy they most certainly don’t mean that they want to make it easier to abolish constitutional rights.
The #1 hot progressive cause in America right now is gun control, which (in totality) requires abolishing the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Progressives also had to change the Constitution to permit income tax, which previously was a constitutional protection. So, you see, you're just wrong. These are seen as "democratic" reforms, by the way.
No they don’t. How did that crazy idea ever cross your mind?!
To me, what you're saying isn't different from saying "no, it's not feudalism, because there's a monarch".
Republic: A system of government by the citizens, as opposed to a monarch, emperor, or dictator.
Constitutional republic: A republic in which the powers and functionining of government are restricted by the constitution.
I don't necessarily think "democracy" and "republic" are mutually exclusive.
I do think "democracy" and "constitutional republic" are exclusive.
For example:
In a democracy, someone else's wish to confiscate my property counts equally with my wish to keep my property.
In a constitutional republic, the government's powers are limited by the constitution, providing protection for citizens against arbitrary governmental powers.
Of course, you could have a constitutional republic with a poorly-functioning constitution, which in effect functions more and more as a democracy. So there are certainly mixed cases.
Some people would resist the definitions I have given, because I define concepts so clearly. But that is the very point of concepts: to capture the essence, not to capture the mixed cases. And objective concepts are a necessary part of rational thought.
I tend to think of a republic as opposed to a principality (it's right there in the name, even!). That is, the machine of government is thought to be held publicly rather than privately, in a republic. Suffrage has nothing to do with it, although democracy is a common implementation of a republic. (Other examples might be a military government, a religious oligarchy, or a corporate oligarchy). It is a rather broad term.
Constraining what the citizens are allowed to do, or how they are allowed to do it, via fair voting representation in their government (that is to say, limiting the powers of their duly-elected government by a constitution) does not to my mind diminish the fact that it is a democracy. Nor does it diminish if they elect representatives rather than participating in endless referendums.
My thinking on this seems clear and objective enough to me.