The Meaning of “Republican”

[perezoso]

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)

[mnaz]

Great post, perezozo.

The problem now with U.S. politics, Republican or even Democrat, is that government is controlled, or at least far too heavily influenced by corporate interests and money. Lincoln's fears about corporate corruption of government do seem prophetic in many ways.

Today's "Republican Party" is nearly completely purchased by a powerful corporate lobby. The Republicans are supposedly the party of more unfettered capitalism, but it's in the form of massive supply-side corporate giveaways, and it's been this way for awhile now. The Bush Administration is even going so far as to start wars and clean out the U.S. treasury to escalate this ever-more-brazen corporate welfare (though it's amazing how many people still can't see this). How any sensible "conservative" who believes in fiscal responsibility can vote for the reckless gang of thieves currently occupying the White House is beyond me.

How does Bushco get away with this? Essentially by duping the right-leaning electorate with symbolic rhetoric and fear-based policy, and by pandering to all the religious zealots, without whom the GOP would be put out of business. I still wonder if Bushco truly opposes even the possibility of civil unions for gays and more advanced stem cell research, or if it is mostly "stringing along" the Bible Belt voters to keep them on board.

[perezoso]

Thank you Mr. Mnaz.

Current Republican economics seems modeled on British or French monarchies circa 1500. The Bush tax swindle, which was tamed down from the original plan, pretty much eliminated the inheritance and estate taxes that had been in place for decades-- since I think FDR, if not Lincoln. That may not seem like such a big deal to many of us middle or lower working class types, but what it does is allow the creation of family dynasties--such as the Bush's for example-- which the original "founding fathers" had fought against.

Bush and his neo-con economist hatchetmen are implementing Hamilton's dream of an American aristocracy. Not that anyone cares, but Jefferson and Madison strongly opposed Hamiltons finance schemes, which he modeled on the British banking system--designed to benefit the wealthy and the landed gentry; it should also be remembered Hamilton detested the middle classes and the poor. Schwarzenegger also is implementing this GOP aristocratic plan in CA, where he slashed all the social and education programs and cut taxes for business and wealthy ( his removal of the car tax was done for the "car guys" who rule CA politics in many ways)

BUsh also cut the capital gains tax, so the barons get a much larger share of the loot from the stock and bond markets--speculation being a rich boy's casino, with better odds than vegss, where you rake it in whether the market goes up or down--

UNfortunately the public does not want to hear about econ. or politics. Kerry did not really push the econ issue much, since he is also a member of the landed gentry.

[hester_prynne]

I agree with Mnaz, great post Perezee.....although it's very sad.
It seems that crimes of bushco are allowed, even though they are exposed!
Why is that? Sure money is power, I know this, but why, are these crimes allowed. It seems so many are against him, yet there he is, partnering up with the Saudis.
I've had the question asked to me.."do you know what would happen to us if the saudis pulled their money out of this country?"
as if that were a threat in itself.
I'm curious to know what folks think would happen to us.
enlighten me, please
H