Bush & co. by using the phrase “democracy” at every turn have disarmed themselves morally and rhetorically when, for example, the Shias of Iraq democratically seek to impose Sharia. You end up with ridiculous things like Condy Rice praising Hezbollah and Hamas for joining the political process.

There is popular and republican government as an Anglo-American tradition. And then there is the Rousseauian tradition of “vox populi, vox dei,” the search for the government that transmits the people’s sacred general will. Bush and a lot of American liberals are truly confused about the difference and do not have much intelligent to say when the people do something illiberal. The very idea that the people as a whole may choose something evil, illiberal, or oppressive of minorities seem to be totally off of Bush and the neconservative’s radar.

So yes, I’d prefer that term, but I think that would only make me happier if it signified a sound understanding that democracy is something of a crown jewel or tertiary political accomplishment when compared to law, order, protection of property, and the rest.

It’s also about respecting the rule of law and accepting accountability. Hamas started this round of fighting to forestall a referendum in the Palestinian “authority” where they were about to get trounced 3-2, to wit, a referendum on permanently recognizing Israel with no ifs ands or hudnas. Hizb’Allah rode in ot bail them out, much to the discomfiture of the mad mullahs, who had uses for their pathetic little rockets later this month.

Would you feel better about the whole thing if we just called it “a republican form of government?”