Posted on 05/03/2003 10:33:45 PM PDT by detsaoT
Over the years, the concept of republicanism has been diluted by overt abuse of its name. I will seek to correct some of the misconceptions about this concept within this document. Please be sure to read the Disclaimers at the end of this document before sending me hate mail.
What is "Little-R" republicanism?
True republicanism (which I will refer to as Little-R republicanism) is the concept that decentralizes government power as much as possible, to the point of allowing local governments to have greater control over their citizens than central governments. It can also be called government by Local Rule. The concept of decentralization is an end result of the republican's core belief that consolidation of power in large quantities in any area leads to massive corruption and widespread abuse of said power.
What do you mean by "Local Rule"?
Local Rule implies that the government closest to the people is the government which is most able to deal with the citizens which live there. In American terminology, this would imply that the government of Virginia knows more about Virginians, and as a result, is more capable of writing and enforcing legislation for Virginians than, for instance, California. Furthermore, republicanism would state even more specifically that the Lee District of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, would be better at governing those living within Lee District than the State government.
Why is local rule better?
The answer is simpler than you may think - Little-R republicans believe that those who are elected, and continue to live in an area know the citizens of that area better than those who, upon being elected, move out of the area (or, like the term "carpetbagger" describes, moves into the area in order to get elected).
Is local rule even necessary?
Republicans firmly believe that there are large degrees of differences between people in different regions of the country. Furthermore, if one was to look at any State in the Union, one would also find that there are distinct groups of people within various regions of the state. This, to a republican, is not a sign of "bigotry" or "racism," or even "segregation." This phenomenon is, in our view, completely natural.
Take, for example, two states in the United States, California and Florida. Now, compare just the demographics of the two states at large. Certain patterns begin to emerge. For example, many more retirees choose to live in Florida than do in California. California, on the other hand, has a larger immigrant population, and a relatively young workforce. These are some of the differences one begins to see between various states, and they can be extended to every State in the union, as each one has unique characteristics, shaped and formed by the residents who live there.
Now, lets look closer. In Florida, there are also different areas which represent vastly different groups. In Northwest Florida, there are large military bases which keep younger people (mostly Military and related contractors) coming into the area. In the other college cities, Gainsville and Tallahassee being the largest, there are always younger folk, so the economy is geared more towards young college students. In the south, there is Miami, which is largely Hispanic, and Fort Lauderdale, which has a large number of very wealthy retirees, some of whom move there from the northern states. So, even if we look at thingson the intra-state level, we still see many patterns amongst the demographics which cause subtle (but still present) rifts amongst voter needs, in such a manner that the needs of one city do not exactly match the needs of another.
One can even take this analysis further, by analyzing any given large city. If one looks hard enough, patterns will still emerge showing certain areas of the city have different demographics.
Such patterns are celebrated by the republican as being a normal part of human social interaction, rather than being cursed by the centralists, who demand that everyone to be the same as everyone else.
What is the opposite of local rule?
The opposite of local rule is a centralized state which completely controls all aspects of life within all regions of the country. Such centralized states are sometimes even contain the descriptive "Republic" in their name, but the term is completely misleading. Neither China, nor the previous East Germany (Deusche Democratic Republic - a completely ironic name, if there ever was one!), nor Cuba are Republics, as they have totally centralized governmental control which completely supersedes all local authorities.
In fact, if you look hard enough, you will find that there are not many real Republics on the face of the earth. Even though our government was forged as a compromise between centralists and republicans, it is still largely a Republic. So are some of the newly budding provinces in Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe. But, beyond these two immediate examples, very few countries remain to be considered. Certainly, the centralist Democracies of Europe could not be considered a Republic, nor could the "European Union" - which, while the rhetoric coming from Brussels makes it sound as if it is the new United States, is infinitely more centralist than we are.
How does republicanism relate to the United States?
The United States of America started out under the Articles of Confederation, which was a more republican form of government than the system which succeeded it. After it was clear that this approach would not work here in America, the authors of our Constitution went back to the drawing board. What emerged from their historic meeting was a system of government which was a compromise between the Democratic Republicans, who supported a more republican Confederated government, and the Federalists, who supported a stronger and more centralized Federal government. Therefore, our government is a cross between a centralized Federal state, and a decentralized republican Confederacy. (The civil war changed this equation significantly, but that's well beyond of the scope of this document.)
Is the Republican Party "Little-R," also?
Being a member of the modern Republican Party does not imply that one holds Little-R republican ideals. There are some Republicans in the party today who firmly hold republican ideals, just as there are some who hold extreme centralist ideals (John McCain comes to mind, as does the former Republican, nee "Independent" Jim Jeffords). On the other hand, there are very few Democrats who hold republican ideals on governance.
It is also interesting to note that the Republican Party was founded in the 1850's as a centralist party, which felt that the Federal (central) government should have more authority over the states. The Democratic Party of the time was the decentralist party, in complete opposition to the federalization of issues including slavery (though our history textbooks generally gloss over anything outside of the "slavery" issue). This is the complete juxtaposition of the party majorities at present!
(An interesting pattern does emerge out of this trivia, though. In the late 1800's, after the Civil War had been won, much of New England was firmly Republican, while a vast majority of the South and West was Democratic. Now, in the year 2003, New England is essentially a Democratic Party property, while almost all of the South and West side with the Republican Party. Even with names changing as much as they do, I really do think that the people have remained true to their ancestors' views. This, of course, is just a side thought.)
How is republicanism different than libertarianism?
Libertarianism has some common ground with Republicanism, and can at times be a most excellent ally with republican causes. There are, however, elements amongst the Libertarians who feel that absolutely no government is best. This anarchic tendency is where Libertarians depart from Republicans, in that while Republicans hold the notion that the local government, which is run by local citizens, knows how to govern those living there best, Libertarians want no government at all. This sentiment shows its head the most in arguments against current drug policies, or abortion, or "matters of the bedroom," where many libertarians prefer absolutely no governmental intervention, and the elusive "privacy" is sacrosanct. The republican differs, giving the local populace the freedom to sculpt their community as they see fit, rather than allowing absolutely no control over social issues.
It should be noted, though, that libertarians and republicans are not enemies in any sense of the word. In fact, many republicans would be considered "libertarian" when looking at the Federal government! It is important to remember that, to a republican, the debate over government regulation and legal standing should remain on as local a level as possible.
(I would like to say that I have no intention of speaking for "all republicans" in writing this - this was intended to be a general overview for someone who has no concept of the significance of the traditional republican platform, who may never have considered that there IS a massive difference between what it means to be a "republican" than a "democrat.")
FReegards,
:) ttt
:) ttt
The etymology of "republic" is the Latin phrase rei publicae, literally "public things." Some might say "So? Whatever government decides to involve itself with is a public thing." But, as Oliver Wendell Holmes and others have noted, the existence of "public things" clearly implies the existence of private things as well, or there would be no need for the qualifier.
The dividing line between the properly public and properly private spheres will never be drawn once and for all to everyone's satisfaction. However, the recognition that we should concede such a division, and attempt to establish it firmly, is central to republicanism. That's why republican concepts always include constitutional concepts as well; the whole point of a constitution is to put firm limits around the power of the State.
Decentralization and localism assist in maintaining republican orientation in many ways. In particular, people are more likely to constrain their neighbors' exercises of power than they are to act against Washington. The "political competition" evoked by localism is an excellent feedback mechanism that curbs the excesses of government. However, the core idea, the recognition that there exists a zone beyond which government power, no matter its intentions, may not go, is the beating heart of republican thought, the engine that drives the writing of constitutions and the exploration of the nature of rights and the greater good.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.