Will the Next US President Be a Republican? (VOA On...
VOA National Correspondent Jim Malone joins On Assignment #39;s Imran Siddiqui to discuss the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible candidates from the Re...
By: yunus soylu
Follow this link:
Will the Next US President Be a Republican? (VOA On... - Video
3 Democratic Leaders Suggest Racism Within Republican Party
3 Democratic Leaders Suggest Racism Within Republican Party - America #39;s Newsroom Credit: Fox News: http://foxnews.com/ Please: Like, Share and Subscribe ...T...
By: Disillusioned
Read more:
3 Democratic Leaders Suggest Racism Within Republican Party - Video
Broadly defined, republicanism means a preference for nonmonarchical government and a strong dislike of hereditary monarchy. Narrowly defined, and in its early modern context, it means self-government by a community of citizens in a city-state.
Republicanism is a prominent concept in the history of political thought. Republican ideology claimed that citizens of republics enjoyed a liberty unknown to the subjects of monarchies because they were bound by laws that they themselves had made, not the personal whim of an individual monarch. In the early modern period, republicanism had special relevance in Italy (where Florence and Venice became the most famous republics in early modern history), Switzerland (a federation of autonomous rural and urban cantons that had never been effectively governed by a monarch), Germany (where many free imperial cities maintained a high degree of autonomy within the Holy Roman Empire), the Netherlands (where a new state, the Dutch Republic, was born in the sixteenth century out of a revolt against the Spanish monarchy), England (where, in the mid-seventeenth century, a revolt against the monarchy led to a short period of kingless government that paved the way for parliamentary government under a constitutional monarchy), and the United States of America (which revolted against the British monarchy and became a federal congressional republic in the 1770s). Early modern theorists whose writings are relevant to republicanism include Niccol Machiavelli (14691527), Francesco Guicciardini (14831540), Thomas More (14781535), Thomas Hobbes (15881679), John Milton (16081674), John Locke (16321704), Algernon Sidney (16221683), Charles-Louis de Secondat de Montesquieu (16891755), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (17121778). What follows is an introduction to republics and republicanism, not a survey of thinkers or their ideas. Three institutional levels within republican government will be distinguished: the voting assembly, the intermediate council, and the executive magistracies. The differences between three models will also be emphasized: direct democracy, republicanism, and parliamentary representation.
Ancient and Medieval Background
Greek city-states, when not ruled by tyrants, governed themselves by some form of direct democracy: an assembly of all the adult male citizens, meeting and voting frequently to pass legislation, make decisions, act as a high court, and elect (from their own ranks) the short-term members of the intermediate councils and holders of magistracies and military commands. The Greek model of direct democracy was replicated in European history only at the village level, notably in Switzerland, and in the imaginations of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the proto-Romantics.
In contrast, the Roman republican model became prominent in later European history. Compared to direct democracy, it was marked by greater social stratification and the dominance of (largely hereditary) elites. Livy's history of the early Roman republic depicted the foundation of the republic in 753 B.C.E. as a revolt in the name of liberty by members of leading families against a primeval monarchy. The earliest group of ruling families, and the clans they spawned, called themselves "patricians" and formed a hereditary status group that attempted to monopolize political power against the rest of the populationthe plebeians. Livy records and dramatizes bitter social and political conflict between the patricians and the plebeians, but the latter succeeded over several centuries in breaking the patrician monopoly on the political institutions, so that the political elite included members of both groups.
Instead of a simple voting assembly, Rome had a complicated system of assemblies in which individual preferences were combined into bloc votes, with preponderant weight given to the blocs in which men of higher status and higher socioeconomic class were enrolled. There was a semi-formal nobility consisting of families whose members, past and present, patrician or plebeian, had competed successfully in the annual elections of magistrates in the assembly, and entry by "new men" (ones without an office-holding ancestor) into the nobility was possible, though never easy. The nobility governed the republic through an intermediate council that had no real precedent in Greek history and became one of the most famous political institutions of all time: the Roman Senate. All former magistrates were senators, and though they often stood for election and left the Senate for a year to hold a magistracy or a military command, they always returned to it at the end of their term: membership was for life. The Senate was the locus of debate and decision making in Rome. Many of Cicero's most famous works are political speeches delivered during deliberations in the Senate or prior to a vote in one of the assemblies.
Social conflict never disappeared from the Roman republic, but that did not prevent its armies of citizen-soldiers from making it the greatest conquest state in European history. The Roman republic ended in chaos and was transformed into an empire ruled by a monarchical emperor, but the Senate survived for as long as the empire did; its members, though, became a hereditary status group, no longer the winners of electoral contests held in a voting assembly. The historian Tacitus (c. 55c. 117 C.E.) vividly described the despotic behavior of the early Roman emperors, the corrupt courts that surrounded them, the servile and fearful behavior of the Senators, and the decline of free debate in the Senate.
The European cities of the medieval and early modern periods were born as communes: sworn associations of male heads of households who collectively claimed freedom from feudal overlordship. The primordial institution of the commune was the assembly of all the citizens, as in the ancient Mediterranean cities. Each commune was a small republic, and the story of republicanism in Europe is largely the story of Europe's cities. Europe was the only area of world civilization in which so many and such autonomous city republics emerged. In every communal city of Europe, as in the ancient Mediterranean, citizenship was a privileged hereditary status to which newcomers were not granted easy or automatic access. In each city, families belonging to the earlier strata tried to monopolize political power, like the Roman patricians, and were challenged from below by ambitious families and rising status and socioeconomic groups. In each there was a complex structure of councils and executive committees, but the primitive communal institution, the voting assembly of all the citizens, ceased to be summoned regularly in most cities.
The European cities were the motor of a dynamic European economy based on free rather than slave labor; this was a fundamental difference between the city-states of the ancient world and the European cities. In Italy a number of cities (Milan was an example) went from republican (or "communal") government to monarchical rule by a princely family at the close of the Middle Ages, but in others, like Florence and Venice, republican structures persisted. Florence and Venice were not the only republican city-states in Italy, but they were the only ones to conquer not just the adjacent countryside but many other smaller cities as well, thereby building up large territorial states.
Elsewhere in Europe, and even in some parts of the Italian peninsula, the feudal system was giving birth to a type of political institution unknown to the ancient world or the republican tradition: the feudal parliament or meeting of the Estates, an assembly of representatives delegated by the various social strata and localities in the lands of a monarch to represent them. But the conquered subjects of Florence and Venice were not represented in any parliament, and thus had no institutional recourse against harsh exploitation. Parliamentary government in nation-states was the way of the future; republican government in city-states had, by the close of the early modern period, come to the end of its historical course.
Excerpt from:
republican: Definition from Answers.com
Politics 2014 Election Ben Sasse, Republican congressional candidate from Nebraska Tom WilliamsCQ-Roll Call/Getty Images
Elections are like any other job hunt: the key to getting selected is often to have the right people vouch for you. Intelligence and experience are wonderful attributes in a campaign. But if your opponent boasts connections to powerful people with fat wallets, all the town halls and policy papers in the world may not win you a ticket to Washington.
For Republican primaries candidates, some of the most coveted recommendations come from the cadre of national conservative groups whose money and reputation can lift an unknown challenger. Of all the conservative upstarts running in 2014, Ben Sasse of Nebraska has been among the best at winning their support.
Sasse, the 42-year-old president of Nebraskas Midland University, has piled up endorsements from groups like Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund, as well as from boldface names like Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee and House GOP star Paul Ryan. The endorsements have boosted Sasse in a competitive Republican primary to succeed retiring Republican Senator Mike Johanns.
Sasse needed it. His top competitor in the May 13 primary, former state treasurer and Navy aviator Shane Osborn, has the tacit support of key party power brokers, include Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. When FreedomWorksthe biggest national conservative group to endorse Osbornabruptly threw its support to Sasse in late March, the decision seemed to cement Sasses stature as the Tea Party choice.
But things are never so simple in the great Gordian knot of Republican politics.
On April 8, a coalition of 52 Nebraska conservatives released a letter stating that Sasse wasnt their guy. Sasse is NOT the choice of conservative, libertarian, and tea party movement activists and group leaders in Nebraska, they wrote. We are disappointed with the way DC organizations are telling Nebraskans what the Tea Party in Nebraska thinks.
In fact, the collection of national endorsements may count as a strike against Sasse back home, explains Faron Hines, a pest management technician from Thayer, Neb., and a member of the York County Tea Party. All of his endorsements are from out of state. Those big national groups dont represent the people of Nebraska, says Hines, who hasnt endorsed a candidate but says hes learning toward Osborn. That isnt the Nebraska way, and that does rile a few people. Who is he going to represent when he gets to Washington?
Sasses supporters dismiss the letter as an effort to stanch the momentum of a surging candidate. Its obviously from Osborn, says an adviser with one of the national groups backing Sasse. They needed to do something.
Osborns support is real: one recent poll showed him with a 35% to 24% edge. But Sasse has Tea Party support on the ground as well. (Two days after the missive against Sasse, more than 100 Nebraska conservatives signed a second letter singing his praises.) Yes, we have support outside the state, says Tyler Grassmeyer, Sasses campaign manager. But we also have the most support inside the state.
Read the original here:
Tea Party Divided In Nebraska Republican Senate Race
The Republican Party in Congress, under the aegis of such lawmakers as Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., has sought to appear as fighters for womens equality and refute Democrats potent 2012 battle cry of a GOP war on women.
Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Republican National Coalition for Life and head of the Eagle Forum, March, 2012. (Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)
But a veteran party leader and anti-feminist Republican has come up with a new argument: Women should accept lower pay as the price of finding a good husband.
She is Phyllis Schlafly, who successfully mobilized opposition to the federal Equal Rights Amendment, organized the Republican National Coalition for Life, served as a Republican Platform Committee member, and headed the Eagle Forum. She has been a GOP activist for 60 years.
In an op-ed piece for the Christian Post, Schlafly makes the case against equal pay:
Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men dont have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.
While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.
Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.
Obviously, Im not saying women wont date or marry a lower-earning man, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all . . .
The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.
Read the original:
Pay gap helps women find good husbands: Republican activist