First of all, let us see what THEY mean by “democracy”.
Another US neo-conservative Harry Atwood’s definition of democracy is as follows:
“A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy”.
Of course, you can’t find this unique and weird description of democracy in any well-known dictionary, because it belongs to biased and illusive vision of neo-conservatives only.
Now, what do they mean by “a republic” they cherish so dearly?
We can notice it in a matt comparison of “democracy” and “a republic” by a desperate American neo-conservative:
“In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government”.
Thus, if you believe him, democracy is a government’s Weapon of Mass Destruction and human rights are undermined by the government under democracy. While, I suppose, everybody knows what this ancient Greek word of demokratea means (just a reminder for conservatives: rule of people, people’s dominion).
And “respublica” has got a similar meaning. It is derived from two Latin words res (thing) and publica (public); it literally means 'the public thing(s)'. I think American neo-conservatives should have confronted the very idea of “a republic” for it sounds more communictic and semantically undermines “individual things”.
But in accordance with the most general definition, “a republic” is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them or a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president".
Yet in America “a republic” is made of a mixture of elements from three other forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy: the Presidency is a substitute to the monarchical office; the Senate represents the aristocracy; and the House of Representatives represents the people – an element of democracy. Certainly we know how the latter represents democracy in America and the latest elections in the degrading empire proved our serious concerns about the course of democracy in America.
Actually, democracy is and has to be an element of a republic. Otherwise that neither would be democracy, nor should it be considered a republic. Both ideas would be betrayed. The exact scene we are witnessing in America these days. Even the founders of the republic in the US would be appalled by what their conservative progeny have done.
Thus, after sorting out this deliberate American confusion between two notions of “democracy” and “a republic”, I will come back in a while with my discovery of the real State American fascism which is still passing through its initial phases of formation.