Last night (Wednesday, 16 Jan), I watched The A Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  His guest was Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.  The interview quickly digressed into a gentle shouting match where Goldberg insisted that the terms used by liberals like Hillary Clinton to describe their political philosophy are historically tied to the fascism of the 1940's and Stewart trying to invoke Godwin's Law.

The essential problem with the discussion was that Goldberg was interpreting the relatively imprecise language used casually by politicians in light of the far more precise meanings that the same terms take on in formal (usually academic) literature.  Does Hillary Clinton want to institute fascist policies?  I don't know, but I'm sure that I won't be able to find out by trying to read meaning into her choice of words.

I bring this up here because there is a strong tendency for people at this site to get hung up on the perceived meaning of words, usually applying an interpretation that was not at all intended in the original.  This happens most often (or noticeably?) with the word "democracy" and its derivatives.  Formally, the word "democracy," when used without qualification, may be interpreted to mean a system where all decisions are made based on the preferences of the majority, usually determined by a vote or some other means.  This is perceived as being unacceptable for various reasons (usually the official argument is that it is contrary to the way things were laid out in the Constitution), but outside of a political science classroom, nobody uses the word "democracy" in that context.  In public discourse, the word is used to describe any system of government where a large number of citizens are allowed to make decisions about the government, usually in the form of voting for their leaders.  In this context, the term "democracy" is not at all inconsistent with the Constitution, either as originally written or amended.

My point is that petty arguments about what people really mean based on the underlying meanings of the words that they use are not useful.

P.S. This also applies to phrases.  The most notable example is of the identically worded but differently capitalized phrases "New World Order" and "new world order" that apply to a (secret?) world government and international peace and cooperation respectively and are not equivalent to each other.

I have just one question. What happened to just using the right terms for things to begin with? Would it be proper to say "rape me in a blanket" or "wrap me in a blanket?" That is about the same level of difference when it comes to a democracy vs. republic. I'll choose the latter of the two both times thank you very much

It is true that most people don't hang around in the political science classroom but their apathy in such matters is why many people also blindly think the United Nations is the great savior of the world.

This question would be more reasonable if each word in our language only had one meaning that could be implied by it.  The whole problem here is that many words have multiple meanings and, except when a need for clarity requires it, are used without the qualifiers that indicate which meaning is intended.  It's usually implied by context instead.

Thanks for making a comically reactionary comment about the difference between democracy and republicanism.  The coda of anti-UN knee-jerkage was the perfect garnish, making your whole post a delightful treat!