The Meaning of “Republican”
Posted: November 20th, 2004, 3:44 pm
The current American definition of "republican" may be fairly easily established: the American republican is typically a theologically-inclined moralist, usually militaristic, opposed to taxation, and a supporter of capitalism. Anyone who possesses a negligible amount of historical awareness will perceive that this colloquial American usage of “republican” overlooks (if not contradicts) the traditional definition and meaning of the word “republican.”
The noun "republic" is, like so much of our political terminology, from Latin, lit. res publica: "public interest, the state." In a political context, a republican--one who advocates a republic--is one who opposes monarchical governments: i.e., the Irish Republican Army and its offshoots are opposed to the British monarchy, and the Spanish republicans were opposed to the monarchy led by the dictator Franco. I doubt that many American “republicans” would care to be associated with either the Irish or Spanish variety of republican, who might be a bit closer in ideology to what the American republican would term an anarchist, and indeed the Spanish republicans were allied with anarchist and left-wing groups. The European republicans--as with the "red republicans" of the French Revolution--were also secularists, if not virulently anti-religious. It is certain then that the European republicans do not resemble the American variety, and in many ways are diametrically opposed.
Additionally, the current American republican bears little similiarity to his historical predecessors, such as Abe Lincoln . Republicans often proclaim that Lincoln is the father of their party, yet Lincoln was in many ways quite opposed in mindstate and political policies to what is now taken to be American republicanism.
There are many examples of Lincoln’s liberalism: the Emancipation Proclamation being perhaps the most clear example. Lincoln also wrote poetry and was no fundamentalist Christian, being closer in mind and outlook to, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson. (I have read that Abe admired Whitman's writing as well and even met with Walt--). Additionally, Lincoln favored a national banking system and worked towards creating a more stable currency based not on gold or silver as many conservatives would like. Indeed some of Lincoln’s comments on economics sound surprisingly like current liberal if not leftist rhetoric, as in this following passage following the National Banking Act of 1863:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth of the nation is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed.”
When has a current Republican stated his fear that the wealth of the nation would be “aggregated” in the hands of a few? The current “republican” has no problem with wealth and capital being so divided and in fact argues for policies that support this disparity—such as Bush’s recent tax cut for the super rich.
Thus the current American usage of the term “Republican” is neither in keeping with the traditional usage of the word (assuming, perhaps naively, that political semantics should be consistent); moreover, the contemporary American republican bears little similarity in outlook or ideology to at least one of his putative political idols, Abe Lincoln.
(Copyright 2004)
The noun "republic" is, like so much of our political terminology, from Latin, lit. res publica: "public interest, the state." In a political context, a republican--one who advocates a republic--is one who opposes monarchical governments: i.e., the Irish Republican Army and its offshoots are opposed to the British monarchy, and the Spanish republicans were opposed to the monarchy led by the dictator Franco. I doubt that many American “republicans” would care to be associated with either the Irish or Spanish variety of republican, who might be a bit closer in ideology to what the American republican would term an anarchist, and indeed the Spanish republicans were allied with anarchist and left-wing groups. The European republicans--as with the "red republicans" of the French Revolution--were also secularists, if not virulently anti-religious. It is certain then that the European republicans do not resemble the American variety, and in many ways are diametrically opposed.
Additionally, the current American republican bears little similiarity to his historical predecessors, such as Abe Lincoln . Republicans often proclaim that Lincoln is the father of their party, yet Lincoln was in many ways quite opposed in mindstate and political policies to what is now taken to be American republicanism.
There are many examples of Lincoln’s liberalism: the Emancipation Proclamation being perhaps the most clear example. Lincoln also wrote poetry and was no fundamentalist Christian, being closer in mind and outlook to, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson. (I have read that Abe admired Whitman's writing as well and even met with Walt--). Additionally, Lincoln favored a national banking system and worked towards creating a more stable currency based not on gold or silver as many conservatives would like. Indeed some of Lincoln’s comments on economics sound surprisingly like current liberal if not leftist rhetoric, as in this following passage following the National Banking Act of 1863:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth of the nation is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed.”
When has a current Republican stated his fear that the wealth of the nation would be “aggregated” in the hands of a few? The current “republican” has no problem with wealth and capital being so divided and in fact argues for policies that support this disparity—such as Bush’s recent tax cut for the super rich.
Thus the current American usage of the term “Republican” is neither in keeping with the traditional usage of the word (assuming, perhaps naively, that political semantics should be consistent); moreover, the contemporary American republican bears little similarity in outlook or ideology to at least one of his putative political idols, Abe Lincoln.
(Copyright 2004)
