To sum it all up...

As we could see from the different posts, it is nearly impossible to compare those two parties. The US-party exists much longer and has an important tradition, whereas in Germany the Republikaner are a pretty new party. Second of all, you have to consider the size: In the US, the party is one of the two major parties and you could even consider it as a personal political attitude. In Germany the party is often too small to even get some seats in the Bundestag or Landtag.
The third point is, that you can not compare the two parties, because in the US you vote for a candidate and in Germany you vote for the party and its policies.
I think the political culture plays an important role as well, because in Germany it is not too welcome to be a bit more extreme than the others are and especially not when it goes into the direction of being patriotic or even nationalist. All in all we figured out that "being republican" means something totally different in the two countries.

pictures from democraticunderground.com and politik-visuell.de

Reactions to the German Republicans

Wow, that was hard. The only thing you will find when you search for, let's say "deutschland republikaner reaktionen", is firstly reactions to the US-Republicans, and secondly you'll find websites that are actually created by the party "Die Republikaner". There are some facts and reactions to Landtags-elections, but they are from 1986. That was around the time (as we know from the historical aspects of the party) they first appeared.
The only thing that was somehow in the news recently about the Republikaner was that they used a German comedian for their campaign in a campaign TV-spot, which was prohibited by a court shortly after it came up.
A few antifascist websites try to inform about the party, but even they somehow are not up to date about some facts.
What does that tell us about the party? Maybe that it is not important at all, maybe that you can’t take them seriously? Are there no reactions of the bigger parties on the web, because they ignore the Republikaner? I don’t know. If you have ideas – please comment!

The reactions to the US-Republicans concerning the election 2008

In this post, we wanted to write about the reactions to the presidential elections concerning the role of the republicans. I found out pretty fast that it is hard to find some reactions to the election that are NOT about Obama. So let’s try to figure out how we can use that.
Some took the election’s result as a reason to comment the general situation of the republican party. Many comments rated the situation of the Republicans not too good, many are speaking of a general loss of identity and direction.
In comparison to that, in a sum-up of the world’s reactions to the election, most country welcome the new Democrat president. In Europe people welcome the choice of the Americans for “youth, freshness, openness, optimism and change” , in the Middle East, people in general think that everyone is better than Bush were and they hope for better opportunities. The South-American states also hope for better relations to the USA (especially Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, who named George W. Bush “the devil”). I think that tells us a lot about the world’s opinion on the Republicans and their presidential candidates!
On the other hand, maybe it showed that Barack Obama is just extra-ordinary and speaks for many people, not limited by their general political opinion. As a proof for that, I’d like to show you a website I found: http://www.republicansforobama.org/ That’s amazing, right?
Well if you would like to hear some opinions on one of McCain’s speeches in September 2008, you should really watch this video. It is pretty interesting because it contains a broad spectrum of opinions.

Head of the German Republicans - Rolf Schlierer

Rolf Schlierer was born on 21st February 1955 in Stuttgart. He is married, a Protestant and has two children.

He studied medicine in Gießen and got the license to practice medicine in 1979. From 1981-1988 he studied law and philosophy in Tübingen. He got his First Legal State Examination in 1988, his Second Legal State Examination in 1991

Schlierer has done practical work as a doctor and journalist. Since 1991, he is established as an attorney with a law firm in Stuttgart.

German election - facts

Because of the fact that the German republicans have a different candidate for each land, I decided to introduce the National Chairman of the German republicans, Rolf Schlierer, to you.

As you know from before, he is the head of the party since 1994. I did not find out with how many votes he was elected as the chairman of the german republicans on the party conference in Sindelfingen on 17^th of December 1994. Maybe that is simply not important. What seem to be sure is the fact that his election was a curtly one.

Furthermore he seems to be really disliked in his own party. There were rumours in 2008, that he had left his position. In 2009 some Republicans claimed his resignation. The reason for his unpopularity in his own party might be that he does not want to cooperate with NPD and DVU. Moreover he is blamed for the fact that the party lost its political meaning since several years. During the Bundestag elections of 2009, the party reached only 0,4 percent of all votes.

Republican face of the american presidential election in 2008 - John McCain

In spite of the fact that a loser image clunked to him while his applications for the White House, John McCain, the white-haired senator from Arizona, was suddenly the front runner of the Republicans for the presidential election in 2008.

The Vietnam veteran was one of a rush forward in Iraq, which itself was unpopular even among many Republicans. Therefore remained donations for his campaign. In July 2007, his campaign was broke. He had to laid off many employees. McCain rose from the elections by jet and receptions in expensive hotels around on his good coach, the "Straight Talk Express" and toured the States early code, now as underdog. In this role, he was more credible. At that time the number of attacks has fallen in Iraq.

McCain was now regarded as the wise man who tells the citizens, "what you do not want to hear, but need to know" - and kept the law.

His sudden popularity might have arose from his complex relationship with the Republican Party and the conservative voters.

They do not love him, because he is too liberal. But they respect his principled, they respect his character and honour him as the war hero of Vietnam.

He has the reputation that he does what he think is right, even if it is politically bad. Often he was called a "Maverick": an outsider, a young animal without a brand, that is uncontrollable.

Sworn conservatives criticize McCain for disregarding the basic republican virtues.

So let's have a look on at his political attidudes:

He repeatedly voted against Bush's tax cut programs. In his opinion, they were not fair and vulnerable to budgetary discipline. He rejects this from abortion, but is also against an absolute ban on abortion. He opposes the claim of the right to ban the gay marriage by law. The State must not interfere in such private relationships.

Even when dealing with around eleven million illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, he rejects the ideological course of the right - punish, track and deport. He supported a pragmatic solution: the offer of a legalization, if the person concerned taxes.
Own conservative values, but tolerant of differences: This is the typical attitude in the west of the country, including Arizona, which McCain represents more than 20 years in the U.S. Senate.

Fierce battles he has delivered with Bush, who wanted some kind of "torture light" prevail against terror suspects. McCain spoke against: America must not betray its values in the fight against extremists. Torture "confessions" were also unreliable. Each man has a grievance border, from which he say all you want to hear the tormentors.

This was particularly credible because he himself had been tortured in North Vietnamese prisoner of war five and a half years. Until today he can not lift his arms above his head.

He comes from a military family and is seen as a fighter. Several stories from captivity has moved religious and conservative Americans.

For example the story about one of his missions as pilot during the vietnam war: He was shot down and came in captivity. Initially he was treated courteously, just as his father had become Commander in Chief Pacific, the Navy and the North Vietnamese a propaganda success when they release McCain. But he refused preferential treatment. He wanted released only with his comrades.

McCain was in 2008 also known as a moderate conservative and a pragmatist, not an ideologue.

He wanted correct Bush's domestic policy, for example, taxes and budget. He wanted withdraw the restriction of civil rights in parts and seek to close the Guantanamo prison camp, because he sees how much it harms America's standing in the world.

But he wanted continue the course of a strong military in Iraq and Afghanistan. He believes that the U.S. can end both conflicts with a clever strategy still victorious - and that they also have to do all because the consequences of failure would be fatal.

McCain wanted also do more for climate protection. He has announced that climate change is a fact, but wants no principle dispute with conservatives who do not believe it. “Let us not argue about it. What's the harm if we try to leave our children the earth cleaner than we found it?” McCain was aware of the fact that he cannot win without the votes of the Right.

In 1984 McCain and his wife Cindy had their first child together, daughter Meghan. She was followed two years later by son John Sidney McCain IV (known as Jack), and in 1988 by son James (Jimmy). In 1991, Cindy McCain brought an abandoned three-month old girl needing medical treatment to the U.S. from a Bangladeshi orphanage run by Mother Teresa The McCains decided to adopt her, and named her Bridget.

American election - facts

To understand the American system of election, you might have to know, that an American president is not chosen directly by the people. Instead, an Electoral College is used. In a close election, the importance of the College grows.
So, how does the Electoral College work?
Each state has a number of electors in the Electoral College equal to the total of its US senators (always two) and its representatives, which are determined by the size of the state's population. Technically, Americans vote for the electors not the candidate.
California, the most populous state, has 55 electoral votes. A few small states and the District of Columbia have only three.
There are 538 electors in the College. In all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, the College works on a winner-takes-all basis. The winner of the popular vote in a state gets all the Electoral College votes in that state.

To become president, a candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes. The winning candidate does not need to win the national popular vote.

John Mc Cain got 173 votes and lost the presidental election of 2008. If you want to know more about him, read our next blog!

Elections and its republican faces

After we have written something concerning definition, history and typical characteristics and programm, we are going to tell you something about election and candidates

For the USA, we will look at the presidential election of 2008, for Germany at the “Bundestagswahl” in 2009.

Interesting Essays

I found some interesting Essays from the Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung e.V..

Have a look at it. What do you say about them?

http://www.hss.de/uploads/tx_ddceventsbrowser/081126_Politischer_Bericht_USA_Republikaner_01.pdf

May I introduce you to the policy of John McCain?!

I thought it would be easier to find something about the program of the Republicans in 2008 in America. But it was difficult because there is no real Republican party. It is more like a political movement which supports the candidates.

So I decided to tell you somewhat about the issues John McCain deals with in the federal state Arizona. But I am sure you can convey these issues to the entire United States, too.

That fits perfectly because Isabell is going to blog about the candidates and than you will get to know more detailed information about John McCain.

However let`s look at his issues:

1.) Government

McCain is of the opinion that the public should not be threatend by higher taxes. Instead of that he wants to keep spending lower. He condemns the debts America only made last year ($ 12 trillion). Especially by giving it to other countries. In this context his homepage says: “John McCain believes America’s destiny is too promising to be squandered by placing our economic wherewithal in the hands of foreign governments.”

2.) Health Care Reform

Here his motto is “lowering the cost of care while making coverage more accessible”.

McCain believes that Americas` Health Care system is one of the best ones in the world, but he also knows that it is one of the most expensive ones. McCain wants a reform which protects Americas` freedom. He does not want federal government to get new ways of controlling the state.

“He will work with members of both parties to secure access to affordable care to all Americans, without turning to a federal government designed and controlled system that will lead to rationing of care, stifling of innovation, and further compounding of our fiscal challenges.”

3.) Education

In this context his demands appear to be simple and perfunctory:

“Every public school child deserves a first-rate education. And too many of our schools are producing second-rate results.”

McCain even talks about giving bonuses “to teachers working in our most troubled schools because we need their fine minds and good hearts to help turn those schools around.”

And to be not unfair he wants to give bonuses to highest-achieving teachers, too. In this context he ensures that the money will be put where it belongs- “in the office of the school principal”.

(Obviously the education system is corruptible…)

4.) Protection of borders and homeland

Here we speak of the borders of the federal state Arizona.

“Our first priority must be to assure the integrity of our southern border while providing robust assistance to Mexico to stem the threat of drug cartel and human smuggling violence”.

Furthermore he does not support amnesty and believes that lawbreakers should not be rewarded. Moreover he thinks it is important to deal with the problem of undocumented immigrants.

“John McCain believes an essential component of any comprehensive reform to America’s immigration policy must include the implementation of temporary worker programs that reflect the labor needs of Arizona and the United States in the high-tech, low skilled, and agricultural sectors while protecting employment opportunities for US workers.”

5.) Honoring and supporting the Great American Veterans

“Since the beginning of our history as a nation the citizen soldier has been the archetypical heroic figure that all Americans greatly admire and many aspire to become. Senator McCain is no exception. The son and grandson of highly decorated admirals, he began his service to our country at age 17 when he entered the Naval Academy as a plebe in the summer of 1954.”

I think this first passage and the headline almost say everything about how McCain sees American Veterans…

McCain always stood up for enhancing and increasing the pay and benefits for fighting men or women in America.

“Senator McCain has been fighting for more than a generation to honor the contract between those who sacrifice and serve America, and those Americans who are safer for their sacrifice”.

6.) Strengthening Americas National Security

Threatenings are: violence by belligerent dictators and the terror by radical Islamic extremism and McCain does this to help:

“He will continue to work with the administration to ensure our goal to transition security operations to the Iraqi people in a safe manner, and to allow our American troops to return home in victory and with honor.

John McCain knows that our new strategy will demand close cooperation with our Pakistani partners, and that we must remain committed to assisting them in their own struggles with the forces of violent Islamic extremism that threaten their legitimate government.”

There are one or two more aspects McCain deals with but I think the issues I have presented to you, give you a quit good picture of his aims. I`m sorry if I quoted too much but I thought this passages represent perfectly what kind of policy McCain does or wants to do.

I do not want to be mean and maybe I need to concern myself more with his person, but I have the feeling that his “issues” are more praising his character than revealing something.

The homepage speaks of “McCain believes”, “McCain knows”, “he has been fighting for years” and so on and so forth. But I do not get the feeling he really gets precisevly. And I wondered the whole time why he speaks of himself in the third person or could it be that he engaged someone to write for and about him? You know assistance….

Moreover the Senator justifies his own policy by blaming the policy of the Democrats. Maybe it is common usage for the opposing party but it does not appear to be legitimate.

But perhaps I`m too negative or to dizzy because of the heat, so please feel yourself encouraged to join into the debate and tell me what you think about his issues:

http://www.johnmccain.com/issues/

Program "Die Republikaner"

If you search for their program of 2008, you find less information or just information about their program in a specific state (Bundesland). But you find the short program of 2009 which is also representative for their opinions and aims.
The program was interesting to read because I wondered whether it is radical or not.

I have picked out a few items they are referring to and in the following I`m going to sum them up. Here we go:

1.) Taxes
They call for the abolishment of the business activity package (Konjunkturpaket) and the support of single branches and major enterprises. Instead of that they ask for a recovery of taxes for the citizens.
2.) Work has to be profitable!
They call for the abolishment of the inheritance tax (Erbschaftssteuer)
3.) Liability of banks
They call for a national, let`s say watcher or institution, which evaluates the finance business realistically. (Especially in context with the US). Moreover they are pro liability for people which are in high positions within a bank.
4.) No more Afghanistan!
They call for more presence of the police in the public, for the rejection of criminal migrants and for example for the prohibition of games which convey glorify violence.
5.) Integration means assimilation!
Who tries to assimilate will be advanced, who does not has to go. No dual citizenship.
Who is willing to assimilate should speak our language and be willing to work.
6.) School has to be whip into shape!
They call for the preservation of our trinomial school system and the abolishment of ineffective comprehensive school experiments.
7.) Respect the civil rights!
They are pro petition for a referendum and a direct election of the Federal President (Bundespräsident). Moreover they are against censorship on the internet, but do not sanction for example children pornography.
8.) Secure the electrical power supply!
They are pro continuing existing atomic power plants, but on the condition of a very high security level. Furthermore they are against building new atomic power plants. Instead of that they advocate alternative energies and the research in it.

Ok, that were some facts I found important to mention. In my opinion their demands are not too radical. In some facts I even agree with them. I am not a racist or intolerant, but I do think too, that people who are not willing to adopt and criminal, should not live in our country. Nevertheless the state should do more to integrate migrants which find assimilating difficult. If they are not cooperative than you can think of rejection.
Besides that I would guess that a lot of people are pro liability for people which are in high positions within a bank. Think of the world economic crisis.

What I find critical is their attitude towards the islam. Look at the picture below and what they write in the program. By creating those posters it is no wonder people think the party is right-winged.


Anyway the whole program does not appear too radical or far-right. Maybe that is the reason why the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution does not obey the party anymore.

But if you want to make up your own mind, look at the program on your own. Have fun with it :-) :

http://www.rep.de/upload/CMS/rep.de/Daten/Informationen/Wahlen/Bundestagswahlen/090721_rep_BTW09_wahlprogramm.pdf

The typical Republican - Germany

Well, this is quite tricky to write about. I supposed to find information that you get, when you think of German right-winged (or –extremist) parties like the NPD: the average voters come from the new German states (in the east), come from a deprived area, have very uncaring parents and so forth. But in fact that isn’t so. Despite of the fact that the average German republican voter is not too educated, there are not many demographic facts that you could use as a profile for the “typical” republican voter. The only thing that is striking, is that two thirds of the voters are male.

The party has been under the observance of the German Verfassungsschutz because of their nationalist program, but since 2005 they are not longer considered as being right extremist, so it is no relevant party for neo-Nazis to vote (even though there are certainly many voters of the German republicans that are xenophobic and anti-Semitic).

On the republican’s website a young republican candidate says, that he is member of the German republican party because it stands for democracy, freedom and patriotism.

In Bavaria, the conservative party CSU lost many voters to the republicans. Maybe that is a sign for the republican voters being discontent with the way their big conservative party acts, maybe it acts not extreme and hard enough. The “Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung” says, that German republicans are afraid of social and financial decline and so vote for a party with a more extreme party program. That thought is not too farfetched, I guess, because you can see the same trend in dissatisfied left voters, who change from the big party SPD to the more extreme and more left party “Die Linke” (and it seems to be the same in America, considering the Tea Party - check the blog out for more information).

The typical Republican - America

Well first of all, I had my difficulties with this topic because I dislike stereotyping people. But anyways, there seem to be some demographic facts about the “typical” American republican party voter.
Several sites say, that “typical” republican voters are educated and older persons, who are often supporters of military and the Christian church. Just one quarter of the gay population votes for the Republicans. Even though the party was founded on the civil rights movement, it has not many black supporters (there should be a quite representative diagram here, but somehow it does not work. I'll try again later).

70-80 % of the Jewish does not vote for the Republicans, the “Mormons” instead gave 89% of their votes for George W. Bush. On my research I found the saying “not rich enough to be Republican” – a cynic hint to the fact, that the “typical” Republican is financially well stated.The typical “red” states are in the south and the west of the USA.
An article in the German magazine Spiegel says, that a third of the republican voters prefer a candidate who “says what he thinks”.
My beloved friend Wikipedia told me (no worries, there are loads of scientific proofs for that), that Republicans mostly supported by whites from married couples with children living at home – wow, that sounds conservative!
If you want to get more information on that, I recommend to visit the website of Wikipedia, it offers many scientific essays and other sources to this topic.
To sum it up, here is a video we found on youtube, but please do not take it too seriously!

Historical Aspects - USA

Jefferson created the political party to oppose the economic and foreign policies of the Federalists, a party created a year or so earlier by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. The republican party opposed the Jay Treaty of 1794 with Britain (then at war with France) and supported good relations with France before 1801. The party insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution, and denounced many of Hamilton's proposals (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional. The party favored states' rights and the primacy of the yeoman farmer over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and other monied interests. There was always a range of opinion within the party on issues of commerce, public works, and industrialization, which were more warmly received by Madison and the Democrats than by Jefferson and the Republicans; but this was a preference, not a firm ideology on either side. Jefferson signed a bill funding a canal for the Potomac in 1805; Madison ended his term in office vetoing a public works bill.

Jeffersonian purists, or "Old Republican" wing of the party, led by Jefferson, John Randolph of Roanoke, William H. Crawford, and Nathaniel Macon, favored low tariffs, states' rights, strict construction of the Constitution, and reduced spending. It opposed a standing army. The "National Republicans," led by Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun, eventually favored higher tariffs, a stronger national defense, and "internal improvements" (public works projects).
After the Federalist Party broke up in 1815, many former members joined the nationalist faction of the party.

In order to be able to make a difference between Jefferson's republican party and the Republican Party of our days, some have begun to retro-actively apply the name Democratic-Republicans to the party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792.
However, they and their supporters identified themselves as republicans. In the political climate of Jefferson's day, "democrat" was actually considered a pejorative.
So, while the term "Democratic Republican" was also used by contemporaries, it was used mostly by the party's opponents.

If you want some more information, take a look at this chronology
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/repub_policy/pdf/03Chro.pdf

Historical Aspects - Germany

The German republican party was founded by the CSU- members of the “Bundestag” Franz Handlos und Ekkehard Voigt in 1983 in Munich. At the beginning its founders thought the party foundation as some kind of protest. As a protest against the CSU and Franz Josef Strauß. The Right wing populist Franz Schönhuber became the head of the party in 1985. His version of the first republican party program was politically right-disposed. His great charisma can be seen as one of the main reasons for the success of the party during the election of the “Berliner Landesparlament” in 1989.
In June 1989 the party got 7,1 percent during the “Europawahl”. This was the first highlight in the history of the party. They made clear that they are not an extreme right-disposed party.
The number of party members grew very fast, until 1993 there were 25.000 members. Schönhuber announced that his party has nothing to do with radicalism.


However, anti-Semitism was imputed to the German Republican Party again and again. For example because of an provocation against the head of the Central Jewish Council, who was at that time Ignatz Bubis.

Schönhuber criticized that the Republican Party was as persecuted as the Jewish people in the Third Empire. This comparison is really striking because Schönhuber belonged to the SS.
He touted members for the party by propagandizing fear, xenophobia and nationalism and even accused foreigners to mulct the German citizens of their jobs. Furthermore, he held negative speeches against asylum seekers.

Analysing the voters of the German Republican Party in these days has shown that they were not only unemployed people, but also people who are afraid to lose their status.

After several conflicts in the inner circle of the party, Schönhuber was not elected again.

In 1994 Rolf Schlierer became the new head of the party. As he was really and even accused foreigners to mulct the German citizens of their jobs.
about the fact that he lost the chairmanship of the party, Schönhuber left the Republicans in 1995. From then on, he has emphasized his sympathies for the NPD in public. In November 2005 he died from pulmonary embolism.

Since then the new head of the party, Rolf Schlierer, emphasises that his party is not a second NPD. Because of the fact, that there is no success during elections anymore, several members of the party think about joining a pact between NPD and DVU. But Schlierer did not want to support that course. In spite of the fact that the party loses more and more members, Schlierer did not change his course.

Since 2007 the German Republicans act less aggressive. Due to that only single members are observed by the German protection of the constitution nowadays; not the whole party.

Source: http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/hintergrundpolitik/883190/

Blog prospects

In our last three entries we tried to give you a definition for the word „Republican“. One definition was in general, one of the American perspective and one of the German. Maybe you have realized that it is not easy to find a concrete and overarching definition for the term.
We also included historical aspects in our considerations or information which were typical for both America and Germany.
In the next blog entries we want to follow up these aspects, go more into detail.
So if you hear something for a second time, see it as an aid to memory ;-).

"Republicanism": German definition

If you want to write something about the German definition for the word „Republican“ or „republicanism“ you find less information about that. In this connection you will only find something about the party in Germany which is called “Die Republikaner” or in english “The Republicans”.
Maybe that has something to do with our history. Remember, Germany was first called an “Einheitsstaat” in 1871 under Bismarck and up to 1917 we still had established a monarchy. In general the monarchy had a long tradition in Germany. One leader administrated the country. In Germany the will to be guided was in high gear.
If you would ask someone in the streets of Germany what he or she would define as “republican”, most would look at you in astonishment. Intuitively they maybe would say that “republicanism” has something to do with being conservative, perhaps even as far-right or radical.
In our next blog entries we will see if that is the truth. How the party sees itself like. Hopefully we are than able to give a definition for German “republicanism”.

"Republicanism": American definition

Besides the democratic way of thinking in America, “republicanism” plays a great role in America since the American Revolution. Just due to the values of “republicanism” American Revolution was enabled. You know, during that time (18. century) America, to be precise thirteen colonies of North America, got together to break the rule of the British Empire. Out of that arose the United States of America. As the word “united” implicates.

Founded was the American “republicanism” by the founding fathers in the 18.century. The ground for it, is based in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In contrast to democracy, republicanism assumes that human beings have certain God-given unalienable rights which cannot be abolished by a majority of people. As a result from this idea the Republican party was formed in America.

The party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. (To all of you who may have forgotten it. Jefferson was Americas` third president and main writer of the Declaration of Independence). They simply wanted to spread their ideas of the doctrine. Later the party was called the Democratic-Republican Party which split in the 1820s into different streams. One of these was the Democratic Party.
In this context we should establish a new term: “republican motherhood”.
“Republican motherhood” appeared under the new government after the American Revolution. It was the idea that women teach their children the values of “republicanism”. They should create the basis for republic thinking. Moreover you can say that this “national task” was a huge step towards the emancipation of women.

So one can see that “Republicanism” has a great tradition in America. It is well-grounded in Americas´ history and justifies itself by that.

http://www.answers.com/topic/republican

"Republicanism" in general

“Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, where the head of state is appointed by means other than heredity, often elections. The exact meaning of republicanism varies depending on the cultural and historical context. The sometimes contrary definitions are all covered in this article.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism)

That is a definition one finds on the internet, when you search for the term “Republican” in general. Obviously there is no consensus about the word “republicanism”, because you have different forms of “Republicanism”. It depends on the country you look at.
Okay, so far so good. To find out more about that general definition, we should think about what a republican stands for: A republican is someone “who favours a republic as the best form of government” (http://www.answers.com/topic/republican). But what is a republic?

We should begin by using the help of good old Latin. The word “republic” is deduced from the Latin word “res publica” which means “public affair”.
Nowadays you can say that most of the republic states have in common that they have no monarch as the head of the state but president.
Important for the understanding of a republic state are values like civic virtue and political participation. But the major republican value is political liberty. These values imply that the citizens of a country are under no pressure of a leader who lords over them and by doing that suppresses their requirements.
To sum it up a republic state “(it) provides a ground on which to elaborate both a substantive and a constitutional theory of the state.” It deals as well with safekeeping the citizen’s freedom as well as with its own government tasks.
You could write so much more about “republicanism” or republic in general, but for now that should have given you a first impression of it.
Nevertheless when talking about “republicanism” you do not get by the American term of “republicanism”, because “the first republic to adopt the title was the United States of America” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic)”.
So let’s see in our next blog entry what American “republicanism” is.

___________________________________________________________________
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2003/entries/republicanism/

Welcome to our Project Republicans!

Talking about politics, we deal with many different terms that appear in our everyday life all the time. But do talk Americans and Germans about the same, when they use expressions like "liberal" or "conservative"? Do they mean the same? What we found the most striking in this context is the term "republican".
What does it mean to be republican in cultural, historical and mental means? How can it be that in the US the republicans are one of the two major parties and in Germany the Republikaner are considered to be a Nazi-party? What do the two concepts share and how do they differ?

You see that there are loads of questions coming up when you think of this issue. In this Blog, we want to take a closer look on both, the American and the German concept of being republican and we really hope to get some answers.