We're A Constitutional Republic, Not A...

It doesn't matter what the subject is, the right wing likes to remind us that we're a constitutional republic. The problem isn't that we're not a constitutional republic, we are. We're a republic and we have a constitution. It's that they don't seem to truly understand what makes a republic a republic, or that some of the features of how our government is set up are not requirements of a republic, nor is our constitution the only way a constitution can be written. 

A response to any mention of our nation as a democracy is probably the most common scenario where we hear "constitutional republic". Of course the two are not mutually exclusive, and "democracy" is shorthand for "democratic republic". But what is a republic?

Simply put, a republic is "not a monarchy". Republics can take many forms, as long as they aren't monarchies. Not every republic, however, is a democracy. The People's Republic of China, for example, certainly isn't a democracy. On the other hand, the United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy, but isn't a republic — it's a constitutional monarchy. A republic may or may not have a constitution, it may be a federal republic, or a unitary nation. The United States of America is a democracy because we vote, a representative democracy because we vote for our leaders. Rightists tend to conflate democracy with direct democracy, where there aren't any representatives — they call this "mob rule", not inaccurately. 

The United States of America is also a federal republic, i.e. composed of subnational units, the states, that retain a level of sovereignty. American states are not simply administrative divisions, but derive from our pre-independence days when every colony was a distinct entity. During the Articles of Confederation era the thirteen states were closer to independent countries, bound together by treaty obligations, than parts of a common nation. I've heard people argue that our federal structure is a necessary part of our status as a constitutional republic. France, for example, is a unitary nation. The French provinces are simply administrative units, not unlike the counties in an American state, and do not have subnational sovereignty. Federalism is an attribute of our constitutional structure, but is by no means a requirement for a constitutional republic. The origins of the founding states as distinct colonies with their own unique histories was recognized as the Constitution was drafted, with the various state representatives still viewing themselves as representing sovereign states with varying interests and priorities. This led to a framework that included equal legislative representation for states in parallel to representation by population, which in turn influenced how the president was chosen. 

Speaking of how the president is chosen, I often hear Electoral College proponents cite the fact that we're a constitutional republic as a reason to have a method of presidential election like the electoral college. Of course our constitution requires the Electoral College, but that was the choice of the members of the Constitutional Convention, not an inevitable path that constrained them to create it. There are other ways that nations choose their chief executive. 

Although I have heard people claim that we're a republic and not a democracy for 40 years, it's definitely picked up in the last ten years or so. An ignorance of what the terms mean is part of it, but why the vehemence in the way they state them? My theory is that the those who most vociferously defend that position are part of a demographic has been seeing their dominance steadily erode. The same people who are making it harder to vote and gerrymandering their way to permanent power. They are embracing the anti-democratic aspects of the Constitution in an effort to hold onto to power and influence. To them "democracy" means letting people that they feel are inferior rule over them. 

It's more than just an ignorant slogan.