A republic is <i>a government of laws, and not of men</i>. The US, most decidedly, isn&#x27;t. John Adams argues the semantics much better than I ever could:<p><i>They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition be just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government’s being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy.</i> -- Novanglus, February 6, 1775<p>The opposite of republic is not monarchy, it is tyranny. The only way out of tyranny for the U.S. is, by definition, to restore the rule of law, which the GP seems to clamour for.