Republicans: Rich Pubes

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum to write about better democracy and capitalism. A skeleton was found in the closet of the Republican Party. The skeleton? Its semantic roots.

To better understand democracy, the author studied the history of both Greece and Rome. Greece was the Cradle of Democracy. It organized itself into demes from which a leader (demearch) was elected to participate in the next level of common policy-making and so forth. As a rule, this tapping of citizens' intelligence worked very well. Showing the exceptions to the rule was how Greece involved itself in some unsuccessful foreign wars that led to Pyrrhic victories.

As Greece declined, a new power appeared in the central Mediterranean area: Roma. Initially a kingship, Rome evolved into a democracy that was limited to a certain class of citizens. Kings had been advised and assisted by a Council of Elders. The last of the seven kings, Tarquinius Superbus, (Talky the proud) had a day of disagreement. As king, Tarquinius fired the council which immediately fired the king.

[missing paragraphs, see original full analysis]

Roman fathers having knowledge of Greece's experience with democracy, the Roman fathers were not amused by the recurring demagogue who would appear from outside the aristocracy. Demagogues would whip the populous into actions detrimental to the upperclass, e.g., canceling debt. Demagogues were also blamed for the ruinous foreign wars of Greece. Most were seen as landless businessmen or artisans (actors) who did not have anything to lose if Greece lost the war. The Roman fathers decided to limit their democracy to the upper crust who had family history and a landed stake in Roma's future.

Looking about themselves, and with the Greek caveats, the iron ring wearers decreed only Romans who owned a minimum of 6000 iugeras of land (about 3600 acres) could stand for membership in the Roman Senate. Some land-holdings were whole provinces with tens of thousands of slaves and clients. So there you have the origin of "re" in republic, that is, "res" as in real estate--land. This "res" is the origin of related words: rex, regina, regis, and regal.

While words of wisdom occasionally spout from the mouths of babes, the Roman fathers knew the Senate and State were no place for kids. Given that the average person did not live beyond thirty, manhood was established and mandated with the donning of the toga at puberty. Until puberty, a child was not allowed to go outside without a chaperone. If you were not invited to or aware of the toga party--the Roman's bar mitzvah--you would know the kid was not hairless anymore when you saw him going about without a chaperone. "Ah, Gaius, is now a pube. See him over there without his slave."

So there you have it, the real semantic root of "republic"--res pubes. And what do you think the crafty, Romans called a gathering of pubes? Well, a public gathering! For the Romans, it was a simple, matter of fact that they had a democracy limited to real estate owning adults--res pubus, wealthy adults.

The big question is what did America's founding fathers know and when did they know it? Clearly, they admired the original Roman Republic, for the American enfranchisement was limited to the wealthy landowners in each state.

It is wrong to say that a republic is not a democracy. A republic is a democracy limited to a wealthy few, the res pubus. An aristocracy is a democracy limited to a fewer few. A mob is too much democracy. America has in principle, a democracy which is better than a republic. With on-line brainbees, we can have a democracy of, by and for the people which is the ultimate form of human productivity to save and create time.

While the modern day Republicans figuratively and literally fit the semantic roots--rich pubers--the Abolitionists who chose "Republican" for the their political party in 1854 were clearly naive of the Roman roots. Could a group of people dedicated to ending the rule by plantation males (res pubes) knowingly adopt an anti-moniker for its cause of equality and freedom? Why would political activitists dedicated to "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont" (1856 Republican presidential slogan) choose a description of democracy limited to "few adults, slave labor, fee speech, states rights?"

Would Lincoln be a Republican today? Is the Republican Party the party of Lincoln? No. And, it never was as was shown by its political actions after the Civil War when the plantation masters were replaced by Robber Barons enslaving workers to economic serfdom.

An interesting coorelation is the genetic offspring of the man who put Lincoln in the White House:

  1. Judge David Davis, 8th Illinois Circuit Court (richest man in Illinois, truly a republican in wealth) whose nephew was
  2. David Davis Walker the father of
  3. George Herbert Walker (1916 Republican VP candidate and financial major domo for four richest families in America) who was the father of
  4. Dorothy Walker who married
  5. Prescott Bush (son of Rockefeller's transportation czar, Sheldon Bush) who was father of
  6. Geo. Herbert Walker Bush who was father of
  7. Geo. Walker Bush who was cousin of
  8. George Herbert Walker IV, a Wall Street partner and managing director of Goldman Sachs.

The most powerful political family in America is not on the public radar but is in the middle names of the relatives they put in the White House.

(The Davis and Walker families were active in sports, the tennis Davis Cup and former golf Walker Cup, now President's cup.)

Republicans have a version of his Gettysburg Address, that is, the "Get It Boys Address."

Full analysis and addendum

Lincoln would not be a Republican today.