Civic Definitions- What is a Republic - History

Civic Definitions- What is a Republic - History

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Everything We Know About the Civic Republic Military, The Walking Dead's Helicopter Group

AMC's The Walking Dead franchise is expanding, with new shows, new movies, and new connections between the three shows in the Walking Dead Universe, The Walking Dead, Fear the Walking Dead, and The Walking Dead: World Beyond. Aside from the zombies, the connective tissue between all the shows is a shadowy group known as the Civic Republic Military, or CRM.

CRM was first glimpsed in The Walking Dead Season 8, and the group ultimately took Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) away from Alexandria in a helicopter and toward his future cinematic adventures. They have since shown up on Fear the Walking Dead, and will play a major role in World Beyond, which has introduced a character who serves as the face of the group, Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Kublek (Julia Ormond).

The group is still shrouded in mystery, but we've actually learned quite a bit about them as information has been doled out piece by piece. Here's what we know about the Civic Republic Military so far.

Who are they?

CRM is the military arm of the Civic Republic, a member of the Alliance of the Three, a network of three communities that pool their resources to better survive the zombie apocalypse. The alliance is symbolized by three interlocking circles, an insignia that appears on the uniforms and equipment of the member communities. The three communities are the Civic Republic, whose location is a closely guarded secret even from the other members of the Alliance but may be somewhere in New York state the city of Omaha, Nebraska, and the "Omaha Campus Colony" where World Beyond began, a satellite outpost of the community and Portland, Oregon, a community about which nothing has been revealed other than it exists.

The Civic Republic is trying to rebuild society into something like what existed before. They have better technology than anyone else on any of the shows so far, as evidenced by their helicopters, futuristic bite-proof suits, and scientific prowess. They're actively working on trying to find a cure for the zombie virus. The leader of the Civic Republic's military is someone named Major General Bill, but the face of the group for now is a woman named Lt. Col. Elizabeth Kublek.

In the series premiere of World Beyond, Kublek visited the Omaha Campus Colony on behalf of the Civic Republic, ostensibly to attend a celebration but really to pass some intelligence to Hope (Alexa Mansour) and Iris (Aliyah Royale) Bennett and ultimately liquidate the colony (more on that later). Hope and Iris' father Leo (Joe Holt) is a scientist who, at the start of the series, was away helping the Civic Republic study the virus. The girls don't trust Kublek or the larger Civic Republic because they're secretive and shadowy, and told Kublek that to her face. So Kublek, in an effort to build trust, told them that their father was teaching at the Civic Republic research facility in New York state, and gave them a coded map that could help them find him -- a map she said could get her in a lot of trouble if anyone found out she gave it to them.

The next day, the girls got a fax from their father that said "IT'S GONE BAD. KEEPING MY HEAD DOWN. I'LL FIND HELP. DON'T TELL THE COUNCIL." So they set off on a mission to rescue him, along with a few other members of the colony. After they left, Kublek and her soldiers massacred the entire colony.

Sydney Lemmon, Fear the Walking Dead

What do they want?

CRM's true motives are still unknown. Their goals don't seem to be purely malicious, even if they're willing to do terrible things in pursuit of their goal, whatever it is. In "The End of Everything," the Fear the Walking Dead episode that introduced Isabelle (Sydney Lemmon), the first CRM member we got to know a little bit, Isabelle wouldn't tell Althea (Maggie Grace) anything specific about what CRM was doing, but she said they were building for a future, and she felt idealistic about their mission. "We are a force who are not living for ourselves or for now," Isabelle told Al. "You have your stories, already making every day the past. We have the future." Plus, Al and Isabelle shared a sincere romantic connection, and it didn't feel like Isabelle was evil.

On World Beyond, Kublek, seemingly sincerely, told Iris that someday she would understand what the Civic Republic was doing and come to trust them, but then she had Iris' entire community killed. But not before she gave Iris and her sister a map to help save their father. But we don't know why she did that. That's a lot of buts that lead to a lot of questions!

We also don't really know the true purpose of any of their missions. The first time viewers ever met CRM was through Jadis (Pollyanna McIntosh), who traded with them in her capacity as the leader of the Heapsters. In exchange for supplies, she gave them people. She gave them Heath (Corey Hawkins), who disappeared in Season 7, and she tried to give them Negan (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) -- however, the then-Savior leader thwarted that effort. Later, she almost gave them Father Gabriel (Seth Gilliam) but changed her mind at the last minute. Finally, she spotted the gravely wounded Rick lying on a riverbank after he'd blown up a bridge, and she made the call to summon them to come and save him. CRM and Jadis categorized the people she gave them as either "A" or "B." The show never explicitly explained these designations, but implied they mean "strong" and "weak." When they picked him up, Rick was a B.

On World Beyond, we don't know what Kublek was really up to. Hope saw four other planes accompanying Kublek's chopper, but we don't know where they were going or why Kublek lied and said the chopper traveled alone. We don't know why she killed the whole colony.

On Fear the Walking Dead, Isabelle was looking for supplies -- gasoline in particular -- and doing recon in one of many territories that belong to the group. But the details of her mission were classified.

During Fear the Walking Dead's [email protected] panel in July 2020, Scott Gimple said we'll find out more about Isabelle in the future, and after watching the premiere of World Beyond, it seems likely that Lt. Col. Kublek is Isabelle's mother. Kublek told Iris and Hope that she has a daughter who's a little bit older than them and a soldier who's away trying to help bring the world back, which is very similar to what Isabelle told Al.

The Walking Dead: World Beyond

Where are they from?

We can't say for sure, but signs point toward the New York City metro area. Leo Bennett is somewhere in New York, and on Michonne's (Danai Gurira) last Walking Dead episode, she found evidence that Rick was still alive, many years after he'd been taken, and had relatively recently been aboard a ship that had originated in a New Jersey port.

But it's possible the Civic Republic's territory covers a lot of land. Isabelle was in Texas, which is very far from the Northern Virginia region where Rick was taken, which is itself quite far from New York. At [email protected], Julia Ormond was asked if Kublek knows where Rick Grimes is. "If Elizabeth knows where Rick is, I'm not sure that she would tell you," she answered. "And if Elizabeth tells you, I'm not sure that you should believe her, and I, Julia, am not going to say anything because I'd like to keep my job."

One thing we do know for sure is that the Civic Republic is not the Commonwealth, a very advanced community that in the comics was based in Toledo, Ohio. The Walking Dead Universe chief content officer Scott Gimple emphatically said that Rick was not taken there. The Commonwealth was introduced on the show in the episode "A Certain Doom," and we'll be learning more about them when The Walking Dead returns. But their soldiers' red-and-white suits were very different than the CRM's all-black suits, and conspicuously lacked the Alliance of the Three's three-ring symbol.

When will we learn more?

At this point, our best bet is to watch Season 1 of World Beyond and Season 6 of Fear the Walking Dead, which premieres on Oct. 11, as they are presumably building to some sort of crossover event that will culminate in the first Rick Grimes movie. We guess! We'll just have to wait and see what Scott Gimple is cooking up.

The Walking Dead will return for six more Season 10 episodes in early 2021. Fear the Walking Dead premieres Sunday, Oct. 11 at 9/8c on AMC, and The Walking Dead: World Beyond airs Sundays at 10/9c on AMC. The Rick Grimes movie is still in development.

Civic Definitions- What is a Republic - History

democracy, republic, commonwealth (noun)

a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch

"the head of state in a republic is usually a president"

Wiktionary (3.00 / 3 votes) Rate this definition:

A state where sovereignty rests with the people or their representatives, rather than with a monarch or emperor a country with no monarchy.

The United States is a republic Great Britain is technically a monarchy.

Etymology: From république, derived from res publica, from res + publicus hence literally “the public thing”.

A state, which may or may not be a monarchy, in which the executive and legislative branches of government are separate. (archaic)

Republicanism is the political principle of the separation of the executive power (the administration) from the legislative despotism is that of the autonomous execution by the state of laws which it has itself decreed. . Therefore, we can say: the smaller the personnel of the government (the smaller the number of rulers), the greater is their representation and the more nearly the constitution approaches to the possibility of republicanism thus the constitution may be expected by gradual reform finally to raise itself to republicanism . None of the ancient so-called "republics" knew this system, and they all finally and inevitably degenerated into despotism under the sovereignty of one, which is the most bearable of all forms of despotism. uE00018089uE001 Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace

Etymology: From république, derived from res publica, from res + publicus hence literally “the public thing”.

One of the subdivisions constituting Russia. See oblast.

The Republic of Udmurtia is west of the Permian Oblast.

Etymology: From république, derived from res publica, from res + publicus hence literally “the public thing”.

Webster Dictionary (0.00 / 0 votes) Rate this definition:

Etymology: [F. rpublique, L. respublica commonwealth res a thing, an affair + publicus, publica, public. See Real, a., and Public.]

a state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them a commonwealth. Cf. Democracy, 2

Etymology: [F. rpublique, L. respublica commonwealth res a thing, an affair + publicus, publica, public. See Real, a., and Public.]

Freebase (1.00 / 1 vote) Rate this definition:

A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter", not the private concern of the rulers. In a republic, public offices are appointed or elected rather than inherited, and are not the private property of the people who hold them. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch. Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names. Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the Roman Republic, which referred to Rome in between the period when it had kings, and the periods when it had emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism" is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.

Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (0.00 / 0 votes) Rate this definition:

rē-pub&primelik, n. a commonwealth: a form of government without a monarch, in which the supreme power is vested in representatives elected by the people.&mdashadj. Repub&primelican , belonging to a republic: agreeable to the principles of a republic.&mdashn. one who advocates a republican form of government: a democrat: one of the two great political parties in the United States, opposed to the Democrats, favouring a high protective tariff, a liberal expenditure, and an extension of the powers of the national government.&mdashv.t. Repub&primelicanise .&mdashn. Repub&primelicanism , the principles of republican government: attachment to republican government.&mdashn. Republicā&primerian .&mdashRepublic of Letters, a name for the general body of literary and learned men.&mdashRepublican era, the era adopted by the French after the downfall of the monarchy, beginning with 22d September 1792.&mdashRed republican, a violent republican, from the red cap affected by such. [Fr. république&mdashL. respublica, commonwealth.]

The Nuttall Encyclopedia (2.00 / 2 votes) Rate this definition:

the name given to a State in which the sovereign power is vested in one or more elected by the community, and held answerable to it though in point of fact, both in Rome and the Republic of Venice the community was not free to elect any one outside of a privileged order.

Editors Contribution (0.00 / 0 votes) Rate this definition:

Is a governmental system in which the democratic power is with the citizens of official voting age who are empowered to elect people into a unity government through a transparent and fair form of proportional representation voting system.

Many countries around the world are a Republic. e.g. the Republic of Ireland, The Republic of Congo.

British National Corpus

Rank popularity for the word 'Republic' in Spoken Corpus Frequency: #2301

Civic Definitions- What is a Republic - History

Frequently, politicians, and many ordinary Americans, refer to the United States as a democracy. Others find this aggravating because, unlike in a democracy where citizens vote directly on laws, in the United States, elected representatives do – and, therefore, the U.S. is a republic.

Happily, both are right! Here’s why:

“Republic” proponents define “democracy” as it was originally used. Called alternately “direct democracy” or “pure democracy,” in this form of government, rather than having representatives vote on laws and other actions, each citizen gets to vote – and the majority decides it.

Although on the state and local level, referenda (e.g., legalizing marijuana) and ballot initiatives (e.g., bond issues), where citizens vote directly on legislation, are used occasionally, on the whole, few things are decided this way in America – even the President is not chosen by the majority of the vote of the citizens, but rather by the votes of our electoral representatives.

This disdain for pure democracy in America traces back to the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton didn’t like it: “Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.” Nor did Samuel Adams: “Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself!”

So what were they worked up about? Besides historical examples, they had seen pure democracy in action across the young nation in the state governments established after the Declaration of Independence but prior to the U.S. Constitution:

The legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabeled “Constitutions.” Neither the governors nor the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements.

Thomas Jefferson experienced these infringements first hand in Virginia:

All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one.

Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry agreed: “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy,” as did the former governor of Virginia Edmund Randolph who described his desire for a republic at the Constitutional Convention in 1787:

To provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy.

Many saw pure democracy as a form of government that inevitably “degenerate[s] into either anarchy or the tyranny of “mob rule.” This was certainly the observation of James Madison, who wrote to Jefferson: “In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.”

In fear of this tyranny of the majority, the founders clearly and explicitly established a constitutional republic, where laws are made and administered via representatives and powers limited by the written constitution. The founders and other Enlightenment thinkers believed it would:

Help protect against majority tyranny by filtering the people’s desires through the rational discretion of other representatives. . . . [and] help prevent government actions from depriving individuals of their rights, even when those actions are supported by a majority – sometimes an overwhelming majority – of the people . . .

So, clearly, the United States is a republic.

“Democracy” derives from the Greek terms demos meaning “common people” and kratos meaning “rule, strength,” which together morphed into demokratia meaning “popular government.”

Few would argue that the government of the United States does not derive its power from its people. In fact, one of the greatest American presidents, Abraham Lincoln, described our nation as having a “government of the people, by the people [and] for the people.”

Proponents of America as democracy identify a few fundamental principles common to democracies, including “democratic representation, the rule of law, and constitutional protections,” and this is consistent with Aristotle’s primary criterion for a democracy, which is that each person shared in “numerical equality.”

The U.S. government in the modern era has, likewise, discarded the limited definitions of pure democracy and direct democracy in favor of an expanded version:

Democracy is the institutionalization of freedom . . . .[P]ower and civic responsibility are exercised by all adult citizens, directly, or through their freely elected representatives . . . . [where] all levels of government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible . . . . [and] protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion . . . equal protection under law . . .[and] the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.

This is certainly the case in America and each of its fifty states. So, clearly, the United States is, under the modern definition of the term, a democracy.

From the beginning, the founders intended to form a:

“Mixed” government that combined the best attributes of the three pure forms [monarchy, aristocracy and democracy] and which provided ‘checks’ against their corruption into absolutism.

And it appears they succeeded. Commentator Gary Gutting has characterized our hybrid republic as: “a multarchy . . . a complex interweaving of many forms of government – indeed, of all Plato’s five types [aristocracy, timarchy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny].”

Progressive writer and talk show host Thom Hartman calls it:

A constitutionally limited representative democratic republic [where] . . . the constitution, limits the power of government. We elect representatives, so it’s not a pure democracy. But we do elect them by majority rule so it is democratic. And the form of, the infrastructure, the total form of government, is republican, it is a republic.

Professor Peter Levine agrees, concluding: “Ultimately, the United States can be called republican and democratic.”

If you liked this article, you might also enjoy our new popular podcast, The BrainFood Show (iTunes, Spotify, Google Play Music, Feed), as well as:


Typical american thinking. UK is monarchy but is also a democracy. Democracy is a political structure not form of government. You can have a republic and oligarchy like Venetian Republic and it won’t be a democracy.

I, too, am flabbergasted that an article about American government reflects “typical American thinking”. I mean, what the hell

The problem is that this is typical American right wing opinion. You can tell that any time you google the subject. Try it.

So…Frame the question – Define the terms – Cite historical examples and finally, make a declarative statement based on those preceding actions. That is a typical American Right Wing Opinion?

@Mike, the british exceptionalist. sorry you lost and are stuck in the old world system.

America is a representative republic… It covers the democracy part of it like a blanket so as to completely avoid being a democracy. Democracies are inherently evil.

A republic is a merely a type of democracy ergo, if a democracy is evil then so is a republic.

Being a republic does not mean you cannot also be a democracy. I often hear people argue (often quite militantly) that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And the same two meanings of “democracy” (sometimes direct democracy, sometimes popular self-government more generally) existed at the founding of the republic as well. Some framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic” see, for instance, the Federalist (No. 10), as well as other numbers of the Federalist papers. But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794 so did Noah Webster in 1785 so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted. Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

Sir William Blackstone, who was much read and admired by the framers, likewise used “democracy” to include republics: “Baron Montesquieu lays it down, that luxury is necessary in monarchies, as in France but ruinous to democracies, as in Holland. With regard therefore to England, whose government is compounded of both species, it may still be a dubious question, how far private luxury is a public evil ….” Holland was of course a republic, and England was compounded of monarchy and government by elected representatives — Blackstone was thus labeling such government by elected representatives as a form of “democrac[y].”

And this is how “democracy” is like “cash” (and like lots of other words). If you pay cash in a store, what does that mean? It means that you’re paying with bills and coins, rather than with a check or a credit card. But if you buy your house for cash, does that mean that you show up with a briefcase full of bills or coins? Unless you’re in some peculiar lines of work, probably not. Likewise, when people in the framing era were discussing popular government as opposed to government in which the bulk of the people had no voice, they often used “democracy” (or “democratic” or “democratical”) to mean “not monarchy or despotism or aristocracy,” with the “demo-” referring to popular control (what would become Lincoln’s “government of the people, for the people and by the people.” But when they were discussing representative government as opposed to direct government, they often used “democracy” or “pure democracy” to mean “not representative government,” with the “demo-” referring to popular decision-making.

The same is so today. America is a democracy, in that it’s not a monarchy or a dictatorship. (Some people claim it is too oligarchic, in which case they’d say America isn’t democratic enough — but again they’d be distinguishing democracy from oligarchy.) America is not a democracy in the sense of being a direct democracy. If you’re asking whether to do something by direct ballot or by representative processes, you might ask whether we should be more democratic or more republican. If you’re asking whether China would be better off giving more power to Chinese voters, you might ask whether it should be more democratic or less democratic, quite apart from whether you think the democracy should be direct or representative.

To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy.

And you’re a broken pencil But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level. (State and even national referenda are sometimes used, but only for a very small part of the state’s or nation’s lawmaking.) Democracy, then, has multiple meanings — as do so many words — and has long had multiple meanings. You might think the English language, or political discourse, would be better if democracy had just one meaning. But you can’t arbitrarily select that meaning, and label contrary meanings as linguistically wrong, even if having such a single meaning would be more convenient.

Nor should you invest so much significance, I think, into the particular word. Concepts are important there is an important distinction between direct-democracy processes and representative-democracy processes, and among different degrees of directness or representativeness. But don’t expect that the English language as actually used by a large array of English speakers — from Adams, Jefferson, and Wilson on down — will perfectly or even near-perfectly capture such distinctions.


A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.

Civic education in the United States

The promotion of a republic and its values has been an important concern for policy-makers – to impact people´s political perceptions, to encourage political participation, and to foster the principles enshrined in the Constitution (e.g. liberty, freedom of speech, civil rights). The subject of “Civics” has been integrated into the Curriculum and Content Standards, to enhance the comprehension of democratic values in the educational system. Civic literature has found that “engaging young children in civic activities from an early age is a positive predictor of their participation in later civic life”. [1]

As an academic subject, Civics has the instructional objective to promote knowledge that is aligned with self-governance and participation in matters of public concern. [2] These objectives advocate for an instruction that encourages active student participation in democratic decision-making environments, such as voting to elect a course representative for a school government, or deciding on actions that will affect the school environment or community. Thus the intersection of individual and collective decision making activities, are critical to shape “individual´s moral development”. [1] To reach those goals, civic instructors must promote the adoption of certain skills and attitudes such as “respectful argumentation, debate, information literacy”, to support “the development of morally responsible individuals who will shape a morally responsible and civically minded society". [1] In the 21st century, young people are less interested in direct political participation (i.e. being in a political party or even voting), but are motivated to use digital media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). Digital media enable young people to share and exchange ideas rapidly, enabling the coordination of local communities that promote volunteerism and political activism, in topics principally related to human rights and environmental subjects. [3]

Young people are constructing and supporting their political identities in the 21st century by using social media, and digital tools (e.g. text messaging, hashtags, videos) to share, post, reply an opinion or attitude about a political/social topic and to promote social mobilization and support through online mechanism to a wide and diverse audience. Therefore, civics' end-goal in the 21st century must be oriented to “empower the learners to find issues in their immediate communities that seem important to the people with whom they live and associate”, once “learners have identified with a personal issue and participated in constructing a collective framing for common issues”. [3]

According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, one of the purposes of Civic Education is to “foster civic competence and responsibility” which is promoted through the Center for Civic Education’s We the People and Project Citizen initiatives. [4] However, there is a lack of consensus for how this mission should be pursued. The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) reviewed state civic education requirements in the United States for 2012. [5] The findings include: [6]

  • All 50 states have social studies standards which include civics and government.
  • 39 states require at least one course in government/civics. [note 1]
  • 21 states require a state-mandated social studies test which is a decrease from 2001 (34 states).
  • 8 states require students to take a state-mandated government/civics test.
  • 9 states require a social studies test as a requirement for high school graduation.

The lack of state-mandated student accountability relating to civics may be a result of a shift in emphasis towards reading and mathematics in response to the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. [7] There is a movement to require that states utilize the citizenship test as a graduation requirement, but this is seen as a controversial solution to some educators. [8]

Students are also demonstrating that their civic knowledge leaves much to be desired. A National Center for Education Statistics NAEP report card for civics (2010) stated that “levels of civic knowledge in U.S. have remained unchanged or even declined over the past century”. Specifically, only 24 percent of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders were at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in civics. [9] Traditionally, civic education has emphasized the facts of government processes detached from participatory experience. [10] In an effort to combat the existing approach, the National Council for the Social Studies developed the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. The C3 Framework emphasizes “new and active approaches” including the “discussion of controversial issues and current events, deliberation of public issues, service-learning, action civics, participation in simulation and role play, and the use of digital technologies”. [11]

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, among teens 12–17 years old, 95% have access to the Internet, 70% go online daily, 80% use social networking sites, and 77% have cell phones. [12] As a result, participatory culture has become a staple for today’s youth, affecting their conceptualization of civic participation. They use Web 2.0 tools (i.e. blogs, podcasts, wikis, social media) to: circulate information (blogs and podcasts) collaborate with peers (wikis) produce and exchange media and connect with people around the world via social media and online communities. [13] The pervasiveness of participatory digital tools has led to a shift in the way adolescents today perceive civic action and participation. Whereas 20th century civic education embraced the belief of “dutiful citizenship” and civic engagement as a “matter of duty or obligation” 21st century civic education has shifted to reflect youths' “personally expressive politics” and “peer-to-peer relationships” that promote civic engagement. [12]

This shift in students' perceptions has led to classroom civic education experiences that reflect the digital world in which 21st century youth now live, in order to make the content both relevant and meaningful. Civics education classrooms in the 21st century now seek to provide genuine opportunities to actively engage in the consumption, circulation, discussion, and production of civic and political content via Web 2.0 technologies such as blogging, wikis, and social media. [14] Although these tools offer new ways for engagement, interaction, and dialogue, educators have also recognized the need to teach youth how to interact both respectfully and productively with their peers and members of online communities. As a result, many school districts have also begun adopting Media Literacy Frameworks for Engaged Citizenship as a pedagogical approach to prepare students for active participatory citizenship in today’s digital age. This model includes critical analysis of digital media as well as a deep understanding of media literacy as a “collaborative and participatory movement that aims to empower individuals to have a voice and to use it.” [15] [16]

The Walking Dead: World Beyond Civic Republic and Three Rings Explained

The Walking Dead: World Beyond explains the franchise’s Three Rings symbol with the introduction of three new colonies.

Photo: AMC

The following contains spoilers for The Walking Dead: World Beyond episode 1.

Way back in the tenth episode of The Walking Dead’s sixth season, Paul Rovia a.k.a. Jesus (Tom Payne) made a promise to Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln).

“You’re world’s about to get a whole lot bigger,” the Messianic-appearing figure said. And it did not take long for Jesus’s promise to bear fruit. Rick Grimes’s world did get bigger with the introduction of the Hilltop Colony, The Kingdom, Oceanside, and even The Sanctuary.

Since that moment, the world of The Walking Dead has only continued to grow. That growth reaches its apex (thus far at least) in the premiere of the third TWD spinoff, The Walking Dead: World Beyond. This latest installment of the franchise introduces viewers to not just one new location but three…and maybe more than that. And unlike Hilltop, Alexandria, The Kingdom, The Sanctuary, or even Stephanie’s supposed community in West Virginia, these communities aren’t confined to merely the mid-Atlantic. These communities, the Civic Republic, Pacific Republic, and Campus Colony, span the entire country.

Ad – content continues below

Here is what we know about The Walking Dead’s latest expansion based on World Beyond’s first episode, “Brave.”

While World Beyond introduces three new communities, viewers spend time in only one. The series begins on the outskirts of Omaha, Nebraska in the Campus Colony of Omaha. This is where all main characters Hope (Alexa Mansour), Iris (Aliyah Royale), Elton (Nicolas Cantu), and Silas (Hal Cumpston) reside. There appear to be at least two components of the Omaha settlement. Many children and their respective caretakers and educators reside in the Campus Colony portion. There is also clearly an urban portion of the community in Omaha proper. It’s mentioned that the Campus Colony is “100 miles” from the city. The Campus Colony contains 9,671 people according to Iris’s therapist.

This suggests that things have settled down enough in The Walking Dead universe that individuals are able to band together to create quasi-super cities or at least a series of small communities over a relatively large area that are united enough to consider themselves one city. It would kind of be like if Alexandria, Hilltop, Kingdom, Sanctuary, and Oceanside all existed under one “Washington’ banner.

But the world gets even bigger than that on World Beyond. The first episode’s plot deals with some very special guests coming to town. The Campus Colony of Omaha is one of three political entities bound in what is known as “The Alliance of the Three.” The other two are the Pacific Republic based out of Portland, Oregon and the Civic Republic based out of…well nobody knows where, as they won’t tell anyone. The Alliance of the Three is represented by a logo featuring three interlocking rings, which viewers have seen previously on The Walking Deadand Fear the Walking Dead.

Of the three, the Civic Republic (sometimes abbreviated as CRM for “Civic Republic Military”) are clearly the dominant faction. Despite not knowing where the Civic Republic is located, we still learn quite a bit about them in this first hour. The Civic Republic is a highly technologically sophisticated society. They have access to helicopters, proper body armor, and efficient zombie-killing automatic weapons. Though they’re careful not to reveal where they’re from, they do mention that it was a long trip out to Omaha. They also have at least one facility in New York state if Lt. Colonel Elizabeth Kublek (Julia Ormond) is to be believed. A lot of further information about the Civic Republic that can be gleaned from the previous two Walking Deadseries.


Republicanism in the United States grew out of some very old ideas. It includes ideas from ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Renaissance, and England. [4]

Some of the most important ideas of republicanism are that: [5]

    and "unalienable" rights (natural rights) are some of the most important things in a society
  • Government should exist to protect these rights
  • The people who live in a country, as a whole, should be sovereign (they should be able to choose who leads them and have a say in how their government is run)
  • Power must always be given by the people, never inherited (like in a monarchy)
  • People must all play a role in their government by doing things like voting
  • Political corruption is terrible and has no place in a republic

Republicanism is different than other forms of democracy. In a "pure" democracy, the majority rules. If a majority of the people voted to take rights away from a certain group, that is what would happen. [6] [7] Alexis de Tocqueville, a famous French political thinker, called this the "tyranny of the majority." [8] He meant that a pure democracy could still turn into an unfair, unequal, corrupt society if the majority of the people decided to take away others' rights. [8]

However, republicanism says that people have "unalienable" rights that cannot be voted away. Republican governments are different than "pure" democracies, because they include protections to make sure people's rights are not taken away. In a true republican government, one group - even if it is a majority - cannot take another group's unalienable rights away. [9]

American republicanism was created and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. For them, "republicanism represented more than a particular form of government. It was a way of life, a core ideology, an uncompromising commitment to liberty, and a total rejection of aristocracy." [10] Republicanism shaped what the Founders thought and did during the American Revolution, and after.

Creating American republicanism Edit

The leaders of colonial America in the 1760s and 1770s read history carefully. Their goal was to compare governments and how well different types of governments worked. [11] They were especially interested in the history of liberty in England. They modeled American republicanism partly after the English "Country Party." This was a political party which opposed the Court Party, which held power in England. [11]

The Country Party was based on ancient Greek and Roman republicanism. [12] The Party criticized the corruption in the "Court" Party, which focused mostly on the King's court in London. It did not focus on the needs of regular people in England, or on areas outside of the capital city. [13]

By reading history, The Founders came up with a set of political ideas that they called "republicanism." By 1775, these ideas were common in colonial America. [14] One historian writes: "Republicanism was the distinctive political [way of thinking] of the entire Revolutionary generation." [15]

Another historian explains that believers of American republicanism saw government as a threat. He writes that colonists felt constantly "threatened by corruption." Government, to them, was "the [biggest] source of corruption and operat[ed] through such means as patronage, faction, standing armies ( [instead of] the ideal of the militia) [and] established churches" which people would have to belong to. [16]

Cause of Revolution Edit

By the 1770s, most Americans were dedicated to republican values and to their property rights. This helped cause the American Revolution. More and more, Americans saw Britain as corrupt hostile and a threat to republicanism, freedom, and property rights. [17] Many people thought that the greatest threat to liberty was corruption – not just in London, but at home too. They thought corruption went along with inherited aristocracy, which they hated. [17]

During the Revolution, many Christians connected republicanism with their religion. When the Revolution started, there was a major change in thinking that "convinced Americans . that God was raising up America for some special purpose," according to one historian. [18] This made the Revolutionists believe that they had a moral and religious duty to get rid of the corruption in the monarchy. [17]

Another historian, Gordon Wood, writes that republicanism led to American Exceptionalism: "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy." [19]

In his Discourse of 1759, Revolutionist Jonathan Mayhew argued that people should only obey their governments if they "actually perform the duty of rulers by exercising a reasonable and [fair] authority for the good of human society." Many American colonists were convinced that British rulers were not using their power "for the good of human society." This made them want to form a new government which would be based on republicanism. They thought a republican government would protect – not threaten – freedom and democracy. [17]

Founding Fathers Edit

For example, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that a government that had the most possible participation by "its citizens in mass" (all the people together) was the safest kind. He said a republic is:

. a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority. [T]he powers of the government, being divided, should [each] be exercised . by representatives chosen. for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. [T]he mass of the citizens is the safest [protector] of their own rights. [20]

The Founding Fathers often talked about what "republicanism" meant. In 1787, John Adams defined it as "a government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws." [21]

Other ideas Edit

Some other ideas also affected the Founding Fathers. For example, in the 1600s, John Locke, an English philosopher, had created the idea of the "social contract." [22] This idea said that people agree to obey governments, and in return, those governments agree to protect the people and their rights. This is like a contract made between the people and the government. If the government breaks this contract, and does not protect the people's rights, then the people have the right to overthrow their leaders. [22] This idea was important to the Revolutionists.

When they were writing state and national constitutions, the Americans used ideas from Montesquieu, an 18th-century French political thinker. Montesquieu wrote about how the perfect British constitution would be "balanced." [23] The idea of a balance of power (also called "checks and balances") is a very important part of the Constitution. It is one of the strategies the Founders used to make sure their government would be republican and protect the people from government corruption. [23]

The Founding Fathers wanted republicanism because its ideas guaranteed liberty, with limited powers checking and balancing each other. However, they also wanted change to happen slowly. They worried that in a democracy, the majority of voters could vote away rights and freedoms. [6] [24] They were most worried about poor Americans (who made up most of the United States) turning against the rich. [25] They worried that democracy could turn into "mob rule." [26]

To guard against this, the Founders wrote many protections into the Constitution. For example: [27]

  • They made sure the Constitution can only be changed by a "supermajority": two-thirds of the United States Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures[a]
  • They set up a court system that could help protect people's rights if the majority of Americans decided to take a group's rights away
  • They created an Electoral College, where a small number of elite people would select the President
    • Soon, political parties controlled elections more than the Electoral College did

    Most adult white males were able to vote. In 1776, most states required people to own property to be able to vote. However, at that time, America was 90% rural, and most people owned farms. As cities grew bigger and people started doing work in the cities, most states dropped the property requirement. By 1850, this requirement was gone in every state. [28]

    Republican motherhood Edit

    Under the new government after the Revolution, "republican motherhood" became an ideal. Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren were held up as the perfect "republican mothers." This idea said that a republican mother's first duty was to teach her children republican values. Her second job was to live simply and avoid luxury, which the Founders linked with corruption. [29] [30]

    Democracy Edit

    Many of the Founders did not think "democracy" was a good idea. Their idea of "democracy" was the "pure democracy" that de Tocqueville had described. [8] They worried often about the problem of 'tyranny of the majority' that de Tocqueville had warned about. They wrote many protections into the Constitution to prevent this from happening. As historians Richard Ellis and Michael Nelson write: "The principles of republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an effort by the framers to [make sure] that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be [destroyed] by majorities." [31] Thomas Jefferson warned that "an elect[ed] despotism is not the government we fought for." [32]

    James Madison, in particular, worried about this, and wrote about it in The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers talk about democracy as being dangerous, because it allows a majority to take away the rights of a smaller group. [33] However, Madison thought that as more people came to the United States, the country would get more diverse, and it would be harder to form a majority big enough to do this. [34] In Federalist No. 10, Madison also argued that a strong federal government would help protect republicanism. [35] The United States' first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave most power to the states and had a very weak federal government that could not get anything done. In Federalist No. 10, Madison argued that a small but powerful group might be able to take control of a small area, like a state. However, it would be much harder to take over an entire country. The bigger the country, he argued, the safer republicanism would be. [35]

    As late as 1800, the word "democrat" still had a very bad meaning to most Americans. It was mostly used to attack an opponent of the Federalist party. In 1798, George Washington complained that a "Democrat . will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country." [36] This changed over the next few decades.

    Property rights Edit

    United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779–1845) made the protection of property rights by the courts a major part of American republicanism. James Madison appointed Story to the Court in 1811. Story and Chief Justice John Marshall made the Court a protector of the rights of property against runaway democracy. [37] Story believed that "the right of the citizens to the free enjoyment of their property" (if they got it legally) was "a great and fundamental principle of a republican government." [38] Historians agree that Story—as much or more than Marshall or anyone else—reshaped American law in a conservative direction that protected property rights. [39]

    Military service Edit

    Republicanism saw military service as one of a citizen's most important duties. [40] John Randolph, a Congressman from Virginia, once said: "When citizen and soldier shall be synonymous terms, then you will be safe." [41]

    However, at this time, the word "army" meant "foreign mercenaries." After the Revolutionary War, Americans did not trust mercenaries. [42] Instead, they came up with the idea of a national army, made of citizens. They changed their definition of military service from a choice of careers to a civic duty – something every good republican should do. [42] Before the Civil War, people saw military service as an important show of patriotism, and a necessary part of citizenship. To soldiers, military service was something they chose to do, something they had a say in, and it showed that they were good citizens. [43]

    Republic Edit

    The term republic is not used in the Declaration of Independence. [44] However, it does appear in Article Four of the Constitution, which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." [45]

    The United States Supreme Court has created a basic definition of what a "republic" is. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic. [46] Later, the Court's decision from In re Duncan (1891) ruled that the "right of the people to choose their government" is also part of the definition of a republic. [47]

    Democracy Edit

    Over time, most Americans changed their opinion about the word "democracy." By the 1830s, most Americans saw democracy as a great thing, and members of the new Democratic Party proudly called themselves "Democrats." [48] [49]

    After 1800, the limitations on democracy (like rules that limited who could vote) were removed one by one:

    What is an example of a Republicanism?

    A non-example of republicanism is care for the elderly and the poor. In Republicanism, citizens are expected to be independent in their performance of their duties and responsibilities of being a citizen of the republic.

    what is the Republican principle? It stresses liberty and unalienable individual rights as central values, making people sovereign as a whole rejects monarchy, aristocracy and hereditary political power, rejects direct democracy, expects citizens to be virtuous and faithful in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.

    People also ask, what is Republicanism in the Constitution?

    Republicanism in the United States is a set of ideas that guides the government and politics. A republic is a type of government (one where the people can choose their leaders). Republicanism is an ideology &ndash set of beliefs that people in a republic have about what is most important to them.

    What does classical republicanism mean?

    Classical republicanism, also known as civic republicanism or civic humanism, is a form of republicanism developed in the Renaissance inspired by the governmental forms and writings of classical antiquity, especially such classical writers as Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero.

    Joe Biden, Donald Trump and the Weimar Republic: History's dark lessons

    By Matthew Rozsa
    Published June 6, 2021 6:00AM (EDT)

    Joe Biden, Kyrsten Sinema, Mitch McConnell, the QAnon Shaman and Adolf Hitler (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)


    If Donald Trump's movement is destined to be America's answer to Nazism, than the Joe Biden administration is currently a rough equivalent of the Weimar Republic — the unstable constitutional democracy that governed Germany before the rise of Adolf Hitler. The comparison is imperfect, but the cautionary tale is still clear. There is an obvious risk that Biden and the narrow Democratic majorities in Congress will fail, and that Trump or a successor will take over and then cement themselves into power for at least the next generation. Every American who wants to avoid this — especially Biden and the leading Democrats in Congress — needs to learn the right lessons from Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.

    It would require a medium-length academic article to lay out all the similar and dissimilar qualities of these two nations in these two periods. But for the purposes of understanding the threat posed by Trumpism, there are five key similarities:

    1. Both sagas began with an incompetent right-wing ruler. In Germany's case, they had the misfortune of being led by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who has been described as viewing "other people in instrumental terms," as a "compulsive liar" and possessing "a limited understanding of cause and effect." That sounds more than a little bit like Donald Trump, whose administration was plagued with scandal and who failed to effectively manage the COVID-19 pandemic. On both occasions, that ruler was eventually removed from power (through losing both World War I and the German Revolution in the case of the former and losing the 2020 election in the case of the latter).

    2. Both stories continued because of a Big Lie. Hitler appealed to nationalist sentiments by claiming that Germany had actually won World War I but been betrayed behind the scenes by a conspiracy of socialists and Jews. Trump, who displays narcissistic traits and has spent years telling people that any election he loses is by definition stolen from him, has without evidence or any logical argument insisted that Biden cheated in 2020. Another defeated president might have been dismissed as a pathological sore loser, but Trump's cult of personality is so strong that his Trumper tantrum has now become a defining part of Republicanism.

    3. Both used their Big Lies to break democratic norms. In Hitler's case, he became a de facto legal dictator shortly after rising to power. Because America has a much longer history of unbroken democratic government than Germany did in 1933, things will be trickier for the Trumpists. In Trump's case, he became the first president to lose an election and refuse to accept the result (there have been 10 previous defeated presidents, and all accepted the voters' verdict), as well as the first to incite an insurrection to stay in power. Trump is now reportedly fueling conspiracy theories that he could still overturn the election just as significantly, Republicans are using his Big Lie to restrict voting for Democratic-leaning groups throughout the country. Through these methods, they will make it possible for Republicans to steal future elections — presidential and local — through means created to "fix" the problem they manufactured through their Big Lie. No doubt there will be many future Big Lies.

    4. Both Hitler and Trump use fascist tactics to win over their supporters. These include appeals to nationalism, vilification of "out" groups and conditioning their followers to use self-expression as a substitute for authentic political self-agency. (It helps when they can create a cult of personality around the leader figure.)

    5. Both may wind up using their legal troubles to create resurrection narratives. Hitler famously served nine months in prison for participating in a failed coup d'état known as the Beer Hall Putsch. Trump may go to prison for anything and everything from his own coup attempt to the numerous financial crimes alleged against him. If he's convicted, he will likely be held up as a martyr if he doesn't, that fact will be cited as vindication.

    Because of these similarities, it is unfortunately conceivable that Trump will complete his takeover of the Republican Party (generously assuming he has not already done so) and the Trumpists will win every future election because of their various voter suppression laws and Orwellian propaganda. We face a future in which Trump's brand of right-wing politics is not only empowered, but virtually impossible to dislodge. My guess is the process will start gaining steam soon, win some important victories in the 2022 midterm elections and then climax when either Trump or a Trumpist is elected in 2024.

    How can Biden make sure this does not happen?

    He must recognize the gravity of the crisis and prioritize neutralizing it. That means making sure Republicans can't cover up the truth about Trumpism's anti-democratic agenda, and that voting rights are protected.

    None of that will be possible as long as Republicans in the Senate can filibuster legislation to death. Even though Democrats have a theoretical majority in a 50-50 Senate because of Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote, two Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have infamously refused to support ending the filibuster. Their rationale is that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who notoriously gave part of Czechoslovakia to Germany and thereby emboldened Hitler: Like Chamberlain, they want to appease the far right extremists in their midst. Today this means legislation that would protect voting rights, investigate the Trumpist coup effort and help America's economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic is being unnecessarily thwarted or watered down by Republicans bent on reclaiming power.

    While Biden has expressed frustration with Manchin and Sinema, that is nowhere near enough. Biden and other leading Democrats need to make it clear that if Manchin and Sinema do not support ending the filibuster, they will suffer serious political consequences. The Trumpists understood this principle when they stripped Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming of her position in the House Republican leadership because she wouldn't back the Big Lie. In their quest to Make America Forever Trumpist, they will tolerate no dissent. When it comes to what Democrats must do to stop Manchin and Sinema, however, the goal is not to suppress dissent but to make sure that those who do suppress dissent can't rise to power. If Manchin and Sinema refuse to do something reasonable to stop them, the Democratic Party must make them suffer politically for it. To quote John F. Kennedy's final speech (which he never got to deliver because he was assassinated: "This is a time for courage and a time of challenge. Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed."

    Consider this nightmare scenario: Sinema and Manchin switch parties and Democrats lose control of the Senate. As bad as that might be, it would also force Republicans to shoulder some of the blame for political gridlock, and might be preferable to Democrats being seen as impotent because two bad senators are blocking their entire agenda. If Biden can't get Manchin and Sinema to stop supporting the filibuster and back his agenda, then they deserve to be effectively treated as Republicans even if they remain nominal Democrats. Biden can still creatively use executive power to at least somewhat follow this next step. (I elaborate on that here.)

    That step is to make sure that he adequately addresses the people's legitimate needs. The Weimar Republic fell, in part, because of widespread economic hardships that the government simply could not fix. Biden needs to make sure that the vast majority of Americans feel economically secure, safe from threats foreign and domestic (like terrorists and pandemics), and protected from long-term existential crises like global warming, plastic pollution and income inequality. Any legislation passed anywhere in the nation that limits citizens' access to voting must be stricken from the books. Lies spread in bad faith to discourage voting, from Trump claiming he won in 2020 to myths about mail-in ballots, have to be proactively rebutted.

    It is unrealistic to expect Biden to be a revolutionary even if Manchin and Sinema do stop playing God, but he is capable of doing a lot entirely on his own. Whenever possible, he must be bold.

    Finally, Biden must make sure that we never forget Jan. 6. Just as George W. Bush's presidency was defined by his response to the 9/11 terrorist attack, so too will Joe Biden's be defined by whether he can make 1/6 into a cornerstone of our political consciousness. If he can do that, he will be able to make sure that Trumpism's anti-democratic philosophy — which poses a far more dangerous threat to America than Islamist terrorism — is known by all but its followers for what it is.

    This won't be easy, but we don't have a choice. A century ago one of the world's great powers collapsed into authoritarian evil with astonishing rapidity: While monarchists and major capitalists believed Adolf Hitler was a clown they could control, the opponents were divided, confused and ineffective. Aspects of that history are repeating themselves, and the question now is whether we have learned from the mistakes of the past to alter the outcome.

    Matthew Rozsa

    Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.