In a previous post, I mentioned that America was not founded as a democracy, but as a republic. Here’s a short little video describing the difference:
I wonder if any enterprising INSIGHT student (or anyone else) might want to take a stab at the shortcomings of this presentation. Assume that the historical data is accurate, but that there are some major deficiencies in the perspective of the video.
HT: Jonah Goldberg
Advertisement
January 16, 2009 at 9:44 pm
*stab*
The presentation of monarchy points out that monarchy is simply a form of oligarchy. This is inaccurate obviously because God is an absolute monarch. He has no oligarchs behind him. It works because he is perfect. Otherwise, on earth we probably do not have any true form of monarchy.
The shortcomings of the presentation of the spectrum of government going from 0% to 100% is inaccurate because, whether we accept it or not, we are all under authority. The percentages seem to be more of a reflection on how much authority we try to take control of. For example a monarch will try to take the role of God by shooting for 100% authority (which never works, as the video points out), while 0% represents a total denial of being under any authority which is just another way of trying to gain 100% control because it leads to monarchy.
There’s my sheepish attempt at a stab.
January 17, 2009 at 9:57 am
Josh,
Excellent attempt, and good things to ponder. Thanks for putting yourself out there.
I wonder: would the Trinity be both a monarchy and an oligarchy, perhaps an oliga-monarchy?
Your observations about the need for all people, including kings, to recognize that they are under authority is getting closer to what I noticed.
I’ll give a hint: the big deficiency is that the makers of the video leave a huge question unanswered with respect to republics.
Any other attempts?
January 18, 2009 at 11:01 am
I’m not huge into politics, but I found this video to be very interesting. When it comes to the description of a republic, I find myself wondering “if a republic is the rule by the law, then aren’t the true rulers those who set the laws in place, and those who have the power to change them?” It seems that America could not be only a Republic, because we have the amendments. The only law that is never subject to change is the law given to us by God. But God is left out of the picture, because if America admitted to being ruled by God’s law, it would follow that the ultimate authority would be God Himself. So then, who in America ultimately gets the power to change? Is it the government or the people, who both have been corrupted by power, selfishness and greed (or should I simply say sin?). It would seem then that a Republic could never be a perfect Republic, but a mixture of the three governments. I have no idea if I’m making any sense, or if I even have a correct understanding of the three forms of government. Like I said, I’m not a political buff; these are just a few rambling thoughts that the clip brought to my mind.
January 18, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Karissa,
Very perceptive. Yes, one of the chief deficiencies here is the ambiguity of “rule by law.” Which law? Whose law? Why them?
All very relevant, and all very absent from the video. There are certain assumptions behind that which I think Christians should carefully question.
All laws imply a lawgiver. Who is the Lawgiver and why does he have any say over me? Why am I obligated to do what he says rather than what I want?
Not bad for a non-political buff.