Indeed!

It has been long since I've read any of the histories of the founding of the country or the Federalist Papers for that matter, but I seem to recall reading that the Founders even held the word "Democracy" to be anathema.

I have some difficulties to understand the difference between "republicanism" and "democracy". To resolve my problem I went to one of the best writer of the beginning of USA : Alexis de Tocqueville, in his work "Democracy in America" (1851).I found this in Wiki about his work :

"Tocqueville's penetrating analysis sought to understand the peculiar nature of American political life. In describing America, he agreed with thinkers such as Aristotle and Montesquieu that the balance of property determined the balance of political power, but his conclusions after that differed radically from those of his predecessors. Tocqueville tried to understand why America was so different from Europe in the last throes of aristocracy. America, in contrast to the aristocratic ethic, was a society where hard work and money-making was the dominant ethic, where the common man enjoyed a level of dignity which was unprecedented, where commoners never deferred to elites, and where what he described as crass individualism and market capitalism had taken root to an extraordinary degree."

and :

"This rapidly democratizing society, as Tocqueville understood it, had a population devoted to "middling" values which wanted to amass, through hard work, vast fortunes. In Tocqueville's mind, this explained why America was so different from Europe. In Europe, he claimed, nobody cared about making money. The lower classes had no hope of gaining more than minimal wealth, while the upper classes found it crass, vulgar, and unbecoming of their sort to care about something as unseemly as money; many were virtually guaranteed wealth and took it for granted. At the same time in America workers would see people fashioned in exquisite attire and merely proclaim that through hard work they too would soon possess the fortune necessary to enjoy such luxuries.

But, despite maintaining with Aristotle, Montesquieu, and others that the balance of property determined the balance of power, Tocqueville argued that, as America showed, equitable property holdings did not ensure the rule of the best men. In fact, it did quite the opposite. The widespread, relatively equitable property ownership which distinguished America and determined its mores and values also explained why the American masses held elites in such contempt.

More than just imploding any traces of old-world aristocracy, ordinary Americans also refused to defer to those possessing, as Tocqueville put it, superior talent and intelligence. These natural elites, who Tocqueville asserted were the lone virtuous members of American society, could not enjoy much share in the political sphere as a result. Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted, as he put it, a middling mediocrity.

Those who possessed true virtue and talent would be left with limited choices. Those with the most education and intelligence would either, Tocqueville prognosticated, join limited intellectual circles to explore the weighty and complex problems facing society which have today become the academic or contemplative realms, or use their superior talents to take advantage of America's growing obsession with money-making and amass vast fortunes in the private sector. Uniquely positioned at a crossroads in American History, Tocqueville's Democracy in America attempted to capture the essence of American culture and values."

I dont see here any difference between "republicanism" and "democracy". Republicanism without democracy is dictatorship. I'm sure it's not what you want for your country .

Tocqueville made a fundamental mistake writing on the United States as Marxism had taken a revolutionary tone on European lower classes. He was focusing on the American naturalism versus the industrialization of European society. For his part, he had not seen what the next few years would bring to the United States.

As long as there was land to spread around in the US and excess potential for wealth based on the old notion of land ownership, then yes, equality and social mobility could be maintained through hard work and determination.

However, after the Civil War in the United States, the fact was no longer true. Those who possessed talent were able to rise above the masses through luck, sheer will, and talent like Rockefeller, Edison, Carnegie, Dupont, and Morgan.

Wealth was no longer based on merely land; it was based on shares of Wall Street, the productivity of workforce, and the sale of products based on marketing and integration styles.

Also, Tocqueville was an anti-individualist in his principles; he was hoping through his analysis to explore the need for group consensus through the gradual end of individualism through shared capitalist ideals.

Democracy is an individualist based concept for government, which Tocqueville failed to see was also the most dangerous aspect of American politics.

The US Civil War a few years later made his entire analysis moot and firmly established that Republicanism, not Democratic ideals, were the source principles of the United States, if it would survive as a nation.

As for what is Republicanism versus Democracy, American Republicanism values the classical conservative and classical liberal thoughts that a nation must be founded on an open society with an understanding of law and reason. A dictatorship within a Republic occurs when Republicanism has lost its underlying principles as charismatic people take greater emphasis. Julius Caesar comes to mind as such a man.

A Democracy is by its nature a nation ruled by the people; consensus must be reached before all actions. This form of nation leads inevitably towards Civil War as factions begin to form and entrench their belief systems into cold hatred. Tocqueville did not analyze the issue of Slavery as in-depth as he should have or else he would have realized that the nature of growing American Democracy was leading to its bloodiest issue.

What is needed for Republicanism to survive are selfless individuals willing to fight off their own ambitions, pride, and avarice.

George Washington was probably the closest to such a character in American history. When he dissolved his Continental Army; people around the world were shocked. Very rarely has a victorious general not sought power in human history. King George of England reportedly said George Washington was "The Greatest Character of the Age" due to his actions.

A Republic needs the selfless to survive, but the United States has become too self-absorbed with the few remaining selfless souls fighting against a torrent of "popular" leaders.

People don't rejoice in Republican values anymore; they rejoice in the so-called "Democratic" values of America from both the Political Left and Right.

Interesting !

We in Europa make apparently the same error about USA as Tocqueville did. You wrote :

A Democracy is by its nature a nation ruled by the people; consensus must be reached before all actions. This form of nation leads inevitably towards Civil War as factions begin to form and entrench their belief systems into cold hatred.

For us, a democratic nation is ruled by the people (voters for laws, elected authorities for decisions) not by consensus but by majority of votes. The system works, for instance in Switzerland since 8 centuries ! We had our civil wars, about two times, but it was for religious reasons).

IMO, your reasoning is perhaps valid for your country, but certainly not for the majority of the other democracies (excepted the "popular democracies" !).

BTW, it seems that a lot of Europeans made the same mistake as Tocqueville. It's very difficult for us to understand the deep feelings of the US citizens.