Hartmann: Democracy v. autocracy

He argues that governments can be roughly categorized in these two buckets. And that the Repugnacon Party falls squarely in the autocracy category while the Democratic Party falls within democracy. (The latter for the most part, though its establishment branch definitely leans heavily oligarchic.) Hartmann provides a brief history of the Repug Party to make his case.

"In a democracy, governance is conducted in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people. Typically today that will is expressed through majority-wins voting for representatives, and that governance is conducted within the constraints of a constitution and common law; what the Founders called 'a republican form of government.' Starting in the late 1600s, this form of government and its variations were also often defined as 'liberal.'

"In autocratic forms of government the will of the majority of the people is secondary to the will of those in power. That would include priests and mullahs who claim to rule by a god’s will (theocracy); a bureaucracy that purports to know what’s best for the people (communism); a puppet government elected as a result of moneyed interests controlling public opinion (oligarchy/fascism/conservatism); and a government that excludes portions of the populace because of their economic status, race or religion (fascist/Nazi/white supremacist/oligarchy/conservative)."