The word republic comes from two Latin words res + publicum. It means literally that which is public. The term was used to translate a Greek word politea, which means constitution. The work we all know as Plato's Republic is called Politea in Greek.
Eventually the word republic came to mean any state that is not a monarchy (i.e., a state that has a constitution instead of a king). Activists who work to demote monarchy and replace it with a constitutional state are called republicans throughout history.
I have already said enough about the history of the term to fully convict the American republican party of seriously failing to live up to the greatness of their name.
First off, the republican party is not a party favoring "that which is public". Rather, it is a party that disdains all things public, whether it is public libraries, schools or pensions. Public spending per se seems distasteful to republican palates, but public spending is precisely what "that which is public" requires. There are no public libraries, parks, schools or military without it. There are no public harbors, airports, roads or sewers either. But it is not just these obvious uses of public monies that the republican party loathes. It is the hard to see stuff too, like social security payments, medicare, medicaid, student loans, unemployment insurance, small business loans, job training and myriad other programs. Whatever the public wants and enjoys, the republican party of today is set to disdain.
So, the republican party is definitely not the party for "that which is public." They are the party against "that which is public." About the only public things that the republican party can tolerate these days are police violence, angry mobs, federal prisons, state prisons and tax cuts.
What about the other part of the meaning of republican, the part about preferring constitutional republics over monarchy? Surely the GOP fits that form?
Yeah, well, I'm afraid the results here are mixed. It is not enough to oppose monarchy. One has to embrace constitutional forms of government. An activist who prefers a different monarch from the one in power, and works to replace one monarch with another, is not a republican. That is a monarchist. A republican in the historical sense has to favor constitutional rule over monarchy.
This is, of course, where the modern GOP starts to escape the republican mold. They are not a party given to palpitations and glittery words about the rule of law. They are instead a party given to making virtuous noise about stuff that they ultimately loathe and want to destroy. Thus they told us that Roe v. Wade was settled law, precedent, stare decisis and all that. But their words were mere flowers and incense that sweetened the air around their corrupt intentions.
Any words GOP leaders mouth about the rule of law must be taken with a grain of salt. Their recent promise from the floor of the SOTU speech as well. That promise on social security and medicare was not worth a pixel. Nor was their cheer in favor of seniors. You cannot trust a party that wants to snatch away rights.
But my point has to do with the historical meaning of "republican". Today's GOP is not an anti-monarchical party in two ways. First, because it is not an anti-authoritarian party. Second, because it is not anti-fascist, by which I mean, anti-rule-by-force. The GOP is prepared to impose authoritarianism by force on the nation. So, they can no longer be considered anti-monarchic. Monarchy is just a nice word for tyranny. The GOP is no longer anti-tyrant. They have not quite become vocally pro-tyrant. However, some of their extreme elements are saying it. The worst of their base wants tyranny and forced acceptance of what they say.
Fascism and authoritarianism are terms thrown about these days for good reason. The GOP has come to fit those molds. Rule by force is simply called fascism these days, and rule by force is one of the things the GOP has begun to fantasize. Authoritarianism has to do with enforcing strict obedience, and this is one of the things you can see the GOP jonesing for. They expect it. Their corrupt SCOTUS wonders how it could be losing authority. The churches, the business leaders too -- they feel their authority weakening even as they step up demands for it. One of the things these haters of authority do not understand is that when they deride and damage the authority of science, they damage their own authority too. When they heckle the president they trash themselves. When they demean the value of teachers and professors, they lower the value of their own degrees. If they show no respect they will get no respect.
In addition, the GOP staged a coup. The GOP is still lying about the coup. The GOP is also trying to hamstring investigations into the criminals directly involved in the coup. The GOP has left its political moorings and gone adrift in their effort to placate a deranged man. It has not gone well, but they are not sufficiently convinced of that fact to go back to port. They still think their nine year spineless drift might all turn out to be worth it, maybe when they get the dotard back in the oval.
So, the GOP is not really anti-monarchical, and they do not clearly prefer the rule of law to the rule of men. As a result, the constitution is in peril.
But what should they be called now? They do not favor republicanism, that is, constitutional law, anti-authoritarianism, anti-fascism and anti-tyranny. So, they should no longer be allowed to call themselves republicans. In fact, this party is an insult to all the republicans who fought the injustice of royalty over the centuries. None of the GOP deserve respect from true republicans. And none of them deserve to share a name with great people in history.
I suggest we rename the party. I have enjoyed a few memes involving GQP, which uses Q because of the Qanon conspiracy theory that republican party leaders are too cowardly to denounce. But that one is mostly a sight gag, it is funny but you have to see it written. Hearing it is just different and not nearly as funny. I like to call them the G-O stinky P. That designation is funny in live speech, but does not come off very well in writing. I would love, and I mean love to hear a Dem refer to his or her opponent's party as the G-O stinkin' P in a debate. It would get attention, and the repugs would cry all over the internet about it.
Because they cannot be counted on in a fight against kingship, I really cannot continue to call them the republican pig party, which has been my personal favorite moniker for the GOP for over a decade, and has been especially useful in recent years. I think of terms like The Bigot Party, The Complainers Party or The Hates A Lots. There are others, such as The Woman Haters or The Paranoid Party that are spot on.
Looking at the names of parties around the world, the best moniker for them is the Nationalist Party, because nationalism is a sickness, and the party is truly sick.
