If you read my previous post "Are We a Democracy?" You should find this post a useful addendum.
I am much disappointed with the devolution of our language. While taking a sign language class as part of my humanities requirements at college, the instructor was answering a question about difficulties in translating. One sentence in her lengthy answer has always stuck with me. All language tends toward laziness. How profound. How true. I'm going to address that in more detail in another post, but it really does apply to this post as well.
If you go read history as written by its contemporaries, you often discover that their definition of a word does not fit the modern one. And sometimes, terms get used incompletely or new things or situations or inventions arise that require new words. You can't read a play by Shakespear and find the word radio or light bulb. The word Dinosaur can't be found in the Bible because the word wasn't coined until the 19th century. But words change their meaning over time as well. I won't go into all the examples, unless you ask me to.
Definitions for words in a recent dictionary can be very different from a dictionary published before 1960 or even 1970. Recently, read a piece at Townhall.com in which the word "ochlocracy" was used because the author wanted no vagueness. Here it is:
och·loc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkr-s)
n. pl. och·loc·ra·cies
Government by the masses; mob rule.
Now here is the definition of:
de·moc·ra·cy P Pronunciation Key (d -m k r -s )
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
This is what you call a distinction without a difference. And that last line? (emphasis mine) Is just so much garbage. In a pure democracy, the majority doesn't care a whit about your individuality.
The definition given for a republic isn't all that much better. Dictionary.com basically defines it as only representative rule. But, you see, that does not accurately describe the original form of government created for the United States. We are a Constitutional Republic. That modifier is essentially important. The founders wrote much (Federalist Papers) to convince a well educated populace that the purpose of the constitution was to put heavy chains on the power of the Federal government. To ensure to the people and their state governments that freedom would be guaranteed by iron fetters on the federal system.
When you look at how many end runs have been made around the First Amendment (McCain-Fiengold), 2nd Amendment (20,000+ laws! What the hell part of "right of the people . . . shall not be infringed", don't you understand? BTW, go look up the word "infringed."), The Fourth Amendment (confiscate cash or property via drug laws), Fifth Amendment (outrageous abuse of emminent domain; e.g. seizing peoples homes to build a Walmart in Alabaster, AL) and The Tenth Amendment (abusing the commerce clause to override practically any state laws due to "compelling interest"), it seems pretty clear that we've come a long way, baby.
Comments