My reading of the "DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" rant was that Mr. Canary considers "democratic" and "republic" to be mutually exclusive opposites (despite wide-spread use of the term "democratic republic" to describe modern governments which include general elections of one form or another [a democratic element] AND representative bodies to make the laws [a republic]). I've run into this (to my mind somewhat extreme and pointless) opinion that the two terms can't go together without creating a self-contradictory designation. Despite the claims that it's a vacuous oxymoron to put democratic and republic together, it certainly is a widely used term in both political science and history. E.g. Martin Diamond's "The Founding of the Democratic Republic" and Stephan Cranson's more recent "Preserving a good policitical order and a Democratic Republic" among other titles....
Honi soit qui mal i pense?
JMC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I don't think it's that clear at all.
You see if Mr. Canary's main motivation was to highlight spelling mistakes, surely he should have managed to spell "dosen't" don't you think?
My gut tells me the post had some very deep and mysterious subtext we all missed...
--On Tuesday, February 18, 2003 14:37:37 -0500 Shannon Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>Robert Canary wrote: | What a "DEMOCRTIC REPUBLIC"!! That alone tells me someone dosen't | know what they arre talking about!!! |
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
