Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 13, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 43

Republicanism

:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
In the US, the President is a de facto king.
Republicanism has always failed because it has no foundation in the people.
Am I right or am I wrong?

P.S. The US is a failed state.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icondragonquestwes:
DragonQuestWes Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012
I think you're expecting deviantART to have political knowledge on anything.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
The supremacy of Parliament in Australia must be maintained at all costs, at all costs, even if it means the loss of the Republic.
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Australia isn't a Republic.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Not yet.
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
You can't lose something you don't have.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Yes, you can. I have lost it once, I can lose it again.
Reply
:iconjuliabohemian:
Juliabohemian Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
Republicanism hasn't always failed. It's just failing now because he economy is bad, so now we actually need a government whose interests lie below the middle class.

The US isn't failed. But it definitely could fail.
Reply
:icondezenerate:
Dezenerate Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
You are wrong except for the P.S.
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
You're wrong.

P.S. You're wrong.
Reply
:iconkyteglory:
KyteGlory Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
You're wrong. In fact, you're so wrong that everything you said is the exact opposite of the truth.
Reply
:iconpokecat:
pokecat Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Lincon, being replublican did some good things for the good of the people. He did take away slavery. The modern replublican party should take a page from him.
Reply
:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I would say that the single most salient difference between these two parties back then was in national economic policy. The Northern industrialists were pro-Republican, who were protectionists. (Only after World War II, the US became in favor of free-trade.) The US was industrializing at that time and thus they felt that the import of European (especially the British) manufactured goods be curtailed in favor of domestic manufatured goods. Meanwhile, the Southern plantation owners were pro-Democrat, who favored free-trade. They wanted to export cheaper agricultural products which would have competed well in European agricultural market and import manufactured goods from Europe. Not surprisingly, Lincoln was a protectionist which did not go well with the Southern establishment. He was lukewarm towards the issue over slavery until the middle phase of the Civil War, so his economic stance probably pissed off the Southern establishment the most upon getting elected.
Reply
:iconpokecat:
pokecat Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I always knew the civil war was about economy rather than slavery. Still Lincoln was a step better that the modern party.

But dispite living in the south, I'm neuteral twords "North vs South".
Reply
:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The two parties ... what a facelift, when comparing today's parties with their 19th century counterparts. I suppose we can thank LBJ and Nixon for this turnaround. We are still feeling the consequence of Rural-Bible-Belt Nixonian Republican election strategy.

If Lincoln were to take a chance in political career today, it is going to get pretty tough.
Reply
:iconkyteglory:
KyteGlory Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
A "Republican" in Lincoln's time was not even remotely the same as a "Republican" today. Back then, Republicans were the liberal city slickers and Democrats were the Bible Belt bigots.
Reply
:iconhurricaneclaw:
Hurricaneclaw Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Right? Wrong?

LEFT
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
It's confusing here whether you mean republicanism as in historical republics or the republican party.
What's even more confusing is why I care.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
You don't matter, why bother?
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
Can you even into US History? I mean, it seems clear that you aren't American, but if you're going to make such inane statements about our political system then you should at least have an idea of how it works.

The President is not a king. This can date back to after the Revolutionary War, when the people wanted to install George Washington as King but he refused (he didn't even want to be president, but he recognized that the people wanted him and so he put his life aside).

The government is split into three branches:
The Executive Branch (this includes the president), which signs or vetoes bills, appoints the Cabinet and recommends members of the Supreme Court, and generally acts as our primary diplomat; he is also the Commander-in-Chief of all of our armed forces, and can ask for declarations of war. The Vice president has little actual power but can act as a tiebreaker in the case of a tie in Congress.

The Legislative Branch (the Senate and the House of Representatives) is responsible for drafting our laws, and while a President can veto a law, a supermajority of Congress can overturn the veto. They also must approve declarations of war and approve Supreme Court candidates. In the rare event of a tie in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives votes on the President while the Senate votes on the Vice President (had this happened, we would've seen a Romney/Biden presidency). They generally hold most of the power right now.

The Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court) is not elected unlike the President and Congress, but rather appointed, and for life. Therefore, we can have a liberal President but a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that he can't do much about. Their duty is to decide on matters of Constitutionality. They can review laws to see whether they are constitutional, and they also hear cases that have to do with constitutional rights. Their interpretation of the Constitution defines what is constitutional and what isn't. Three Supreme Court Justices are set to retire during Obama's second term, allowing him to appoint three liberal Justices and create a liberal majority, which will be a thorn in the side of conservative presidents for years to come.

Of course, its likely that you're a troll and I'm just wasting my time. However, I love lecturing people, and so it doesn't matter to me either way. Maybe I should become a teacher after all...
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
In the debate over a single executive, the US founding father, Edmund Randolph, referred to it as a "foetus of monarchy". He was not far wrong.
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
our only royalty is the Burger King and Dairy Queen XD

but really the Prez is no king, he's the commander in chief.
Reply
:iconyaotl:
yaotl Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
And now, I want ice cream :(
Reply
:iconnephenee:
Nephenee Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
Me too. :( I'm thinking Chocolate Cookie Crumble.

With hot fudge.
Reply
:iconyaotl:
yaotl Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I took out my cherry garcia to let it defrost a little, and I forgot about it :(
Reply
:iconnephenee:
Nephenee Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012
:( A moment of silence for the dearly departed?
Reply
:iconnephenee:
Nephenee Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2012
:( A moment of silence for the dearly departed?
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
"In the US, the President is a de facto king."

No, the pundits just keep insisting he is. Congress has most of the power to change things.

the US is a democratic republic.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
You are wrong.

The president is FAR from a de facto king. Hell the president has less power than a Prime Minister in a parliamentary system. Republicanism is simply a government that isn't ruled by a monarch. Republicanism has no more chance of failing than a monarchy.
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
1. A president is not a king. Not even slightly.
2. Republicanism has always failed? Well seeing as America has not failed, your statement is automatically false
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
pure republicanism is fail. the US is a demcratic republic, as opposite to a pure republic, such as rome, which was an oilarchy.
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
I know, I was just saying he is incorrect to say all republics have failed.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
true.

I was just pointing out that a pure republic is fail from the perspective they are repressive and backwards.

most republics we think of as virtuous by modern standards are democratic republics, which try and establish virtues of republicanism without the oppression.

The United States of America was always a democratic republic. Throughout its history the trend in constitutional amendments was that it became more democratic over time.

I personally think we should take the next step in this long process, and purse an amendment for ballot iniatives and direct election of the president of the united states(end the electoral college).
Reply
:iconpakaku:
Pakaku Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
"P.S. The US is a failed state."

Oh my god, you've finally said something that makes sense
Reply
:iconrockstar1009:
rockstar1009 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Nah, you're wrong. So completely wrong. :unimpressed:
Reply
:iconneurotype:
neurotype Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
"In the US, the President is a de facto king." ...what definition of kingship are you using?
Reply
:iconzagstrike:
ZaGstrike Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
"Am I right or am I wrong?"

:iconwrongplz:
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Republicanism is people holding onto the past :shrug:
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
It shouldn't be so but it is.
Reply
:iconmaryyana:
MaryYana Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012   Traditional Artist
Republicanism is fucking stupid :dummy:
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
An equation needs all parts to be applied correctly if it is to work. If one part of the equation is applied incorrectly, it is not the equation's fault if it doesn't come out right; the fault lies with the person or persons who didn't apply the part as it needed to be.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Politics is not mathematics, think again.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012
Republicanism is based on the idea of politics being restrained by laws. If you take away the restraining of politics, then what you have isn't a republic, ergo republicanism is not to blame when things go wrong because of the lack of rules. You can't blame republicanism for things that aren't part of a republic.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
A republic is not a basket case.
Reply
Add a Comment: