This topic was really started in Topic: Clarke & the 9/11 Commission could mean the end for Bush (http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000764;p=2)

BTA thought that it was off topic, and interesting enough to be its own thread, and so it shall be! ;)

Chandos,

In regards to your post of 4/8/04 at 19:48:

I could provide a bunch of out of context quotes to back up my argument as well, but it seems simpler to just address reality here.

First off, the reference to the Texas legislative system is a red herring. State legislative procedure is mainly a states rights issue. It has little, if anything to do with the United States Federal Government (USFG).

Second, if the founding fathers were such proponents of true democracy, then why did they set up the USFG the way they did? Why don't we get to vote on new laws? For that matter why don't we even get to vote on the President?

As explanation for those not familiar with our parliamentary procedures, the people of the US do not get to vote directly for the President. We have a system by which a body, the Electoral College, casts votes representing their respective states, and the citizens of the states have an "election" to tell their respective Electoral College members who they should cast their votes. However, there is nothing that forces the Electoral College members to cast their votes as the citizens of the state voted. They can, at their discretion, vote as they see fit for the best of the people. Not very democratic is it?

Oh yeah, just as another curious point, what happens if the Electoral College vote ends in a tie? Surely then it falls back to a vote of the people, right?

Nope, then the House of Representatives would decide, and by structure a House cannot end in a tie.

Seems the founding fathers had a real issue with the citizens of the US electing our own leader and voting on our laws. Louder than any words, this demonstrates how the founding fathers felt about democracy.

If you are interested in a quick rundown of the Electoral College:
How the Electoral College Works (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm)

I am just going to say that you are delving into very murky waters here by trying to define what is and what isnt a democracy. There isnt any exact definition and trying to find one is vain. However, the US has officially most of the traits which people are able to agree on to be vital for a democracy. That is, free elections, free press, free speech and so on. Then how that is organised is really a whole other discussion.

Darkwolf - The Declaration stated in plain words that the People are sovereign. You can accuse me of taking Jefferson's statements out of context, but the words are plain enough. I suggest you take a hard look at the document for yourself.

Also, the Federal system of government was a large compromise for the states. What you don't understand about the crafting of our government is that quite a few of the Founders did not think of America as their country; they thought of their states as such. Federal power was not established as it exists now until the Civil War. In fact, we've already have discussed this on other threads. My point is that the power of the states was far greater at the time of the Founding Brothers, hence the electoral college.

You brought Thomas Jefferson into this dialogue. If you will take the time to learn about his thinking, you will discover that he was never comfortable with the Federal government at all. In fact, his thoughts on states' rights were used by the South as an argument for Secession. Jefferson would have understood my example of state government, and how it is better for true representative government than he would have understood your example of Federal power.

In answer to your question, it is neither. I had a good dialogue with Iago on another thread about how unique the American system of government is. It neither a "pure" democracy nor is it a "pure" republic. It is an ingenious system of compromises, which allows the People through both their state and ferderal governments to declare their own destinies, in large part. But even this is not "pure." To believe that the government is "pure" by a textbook definition is naive and overly simplistic.

In fact you are arguing with the Founding Brothers when you suggest that the People are not sovereign. The Founders stated in the Declaration that the People have the right to change their government as it best suits them. Our system was designed to evolve and it has - even women and blacks can now vote, which they could not at the founding.

As I'm typing this, the news from Iraq is on the TV in the background. The generals commanding the American army are speaking of bringing "democracy" to Iraq and that they are engaging "anti-democratic" forces there. What do you think they mean by that? I'm sure in their minds it's not a "pure demcracy" but it is something that most Americans understand as self-government.

[ April 20, 2004, 05:02: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

The point is Chandos, that the Founding Fathers did not intend for democracy in its purest form, aka "majority rule", as is purported by those who believe in the Carter/Clinton/Kerry types who flip and flop based upon the current polls.

English is a living language, and it evolves. Just as our "democracy" has, so as the word "democracy". In this context I am using it in its purest form. That said, the founding fathers were not if favor of "majority rule" as this tends to lead to a mob mentality. The founding fathers, as they extensively wrote, expected us to vote for people, ordinary people, to go represent our best interests, not slaves to popularism. We are supposed to elect those whose goals and morals most closely represent our.

A government that has wild swings of policy within a relatively short time frame, based upon the whims of pop culture is counter productive in many ways. Often times, what we think is in our best interests, is simply based upon decisions made in ignorance and "in the heat of the moment". The founding fathers strove to prevent this as was evidenced by the entire structure of the Federal Gov't.

Our elected representative are supposed to be able to put the time in to research issues to a level of detail that ordinary citizens can't. They are supposed to make a decision that best represents their constituents. The constituency is periodically given the opportunity to elect someone else if they feel another could do a better job.

When you have politicians who constantly change their position based upon the latest polls, or even the audience standing in front of them, how can you expect to understand how they will represent you in the future? You have to ask yourself: what is important to them, the people they represent, or the next election? I dislike Ralph Nader personally, and I feel that his record and his stated goals are in direct contradiction to each other, but I respect him more than Carter/Clinton/Kerry, because I believe he has done what he feels is best for the people he has represented. He has stayed true to his morals, and it has probably cost him a legitimate chance at the Presidency. I would not vote for him as dog catcher in my town, (yes I have lived in towns where that is an elected position) because I don’t agree with his morals, but I still respect them.

So again the question is, democracy (borrowing from Webster "especially : rule of the majority"), or representative republic (borrowing from Webster "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law")?

That is not a question of just fact, but of belief of what should be.

The point is Chandos, that the Founding Fathers did not intend for democracy in its purest form, aka "majority rule", as is purported by those who believe in the Carter/Clinton/Kerry types who flip and flop based upon the current polls.
I should have known better, because what I mistook to be scholarly dialogue of American Studies is at its root an exercise in partisan/party politics. I guess I should not be surprised.

And no, that is not the point - hardly, in fact. Jefferson, Adams, etc., did not know any of the people you list in your post. You should take a look at the history, and acquaint yourself with the highly contentious elections of 1796/1800, in which Adams and Jefferson battled each other for the presidency. There was no real agreed upon "policy of the Founders," of which you seem to suggest there was.

A government that has wild swings of policy within a relatively short time frame, based upon the whims of pop culture is counter productive in many ways. That's interesting - can you describe the "pop culture" of 1800? I would like to hear about it.

To be honest, I don't really know where you are going with this debate. I don't know if it's about democratic/republican politics, dictionary definitions of different forms of government or if it is about how the Founding Brothers thought that "pop culture" would somehow subvert our system of government. They were, of course, suspecting that the other Founders were busy subverting our government. But I suspect this is really about how much you hate the democrats and love the Republicans, as if the titles of the parties are somehow derivative of their namesakes. BTW, the party of Jefferson and Madison was known as the Democratic Republican Party; the party of Adams, Washington and Hamilton was known as the Federalist Party.

And for dictionary definitions, I have one to:

Inflected forms: pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. That would be the American Heritage Dictionary. It really sounds subversive, doesn't it?

[ April 13, 2004, 06:12: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

I'm not going to get into this arguement except to ask is there a "true" democracy (as in the original use of the word) since the anceint Greeks? Even then, it wasn't a "true" democracy as women and slaves didn't vote. But going simply by baseboard definitions, aren't all of today's democracies really republics?

That what was I was trying to say, sadly it got lost among the larger and more impressive posts. Trying to define democracy is a half a year full time studies university course in political science and even then you dont get a proper definition but more a truckload of views and philosophies and the final answer is really that there is *no* definition, bugger the dictionaries. The word is used extremely arbitrary by everyone and can thus mean just about anything. However, there are, as I said a few concepts that all tend to agree are needed to make a democracy and that is free elections, free speech and free press. Then trying to define those three things is a whole new can of worms. In general you could say that democracy is present when the government not overtly surpresses its people, that however was just a thought I myself just came up with so dont take it as perfect truth.

As for Americans seeming to find republic and democracy to be a clash I find it rather weird. All "democratic" states are representative democracies, some of them are monarchies with a monarch stripped of power as its offical head of state and others are republics with presidents with more or less power (to me as a foreigner it seems like the president of the USA seems to have almost absolute power, he most definately have the most power of any head of state in an evolved democracy).

Well, I think today, a big part of the most democratic countries are monarchies and the biggest part of the republics are dictatorships. As example the people's republic of China and the constitutional monarchy of Sweden.

I think today, the meaning of "republic" is reduced only to differentiate between the official head of state. A formal King/Queen or a formal president. It doesn't say anything more. Like in German Democratic Republic. It surely was a republic, but not a democracy.

The funny part about those words is, that the word "democracy" is nearly an invention of the 20th century. If I remember correctly, the original word is ochlocracy, and means something like "rule of the mob" and there are still plenty of quotes going back to that usage. Aristotle puts ochlocracy in his goverment analys as the worst kind of goverment. In the 19th usage, democray (ochlocracy) is avoided all cost, like ****, it was vulgar. I think I do not err here, yet the greek members will be able to correct me, but the greek sources speak in their majority about "ochlocracy", "democracy" is a invention of modern times.

Democracy, now accepted as the preferred system of government in much of the world, used to be a dirty word. In the early nineteenth century most of those in power still considered democracy at best a dangerous experiment and at worst anarchy.

So, republic is used for everything. For example, going to vote in a direct democray, that is a direct democratic vote where the people gather to vote the state budget for example, is called the "republican means" in old 19th century usage.

Further, republic is latin, democracy is greek. Comparisons between the "public matter" and the "rule of the people" aren't of any real use, imo. ?

And now to a personal perception. I may be mistaken here, but I think that some Americans are confusing the federal parts of their goverment with republic features. Particularly the electoral college, which is clearly a necessary part of a federalistic structured country, as it gives the member-states the ability to partake in chosing of the federal goverment.

Darkwolf wrote:


So again the question is, democracy (borrowing from Webster "especially : rule of the majority"), or representative republic (borrowing from Webster "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law")?
What I think Darwolf is getting at, is that the USA, as the UK (and other's, yet there is a rumour about the two mentioned), weren't democractic for a long, long time. Both did traditionally restrict the right to vote to a very small number of people. That is not about including women or non-whites, it's about that only a small percentage of the male population was allowed to vote.


The next major step on the way to achieving universal suffrage took place in 1867. The Second Reform extended the franchise further enabling over two and a half million men to vote. By the time of the Third Reform Act of 1884, which equalised voting restrictions between counties and boroughs, over 50% of the adult male population were able to express their opinions through the ballot box.

With the adult population of Britain fully enfranchised by 1928 there still existed one or two quirks in the British political system that remained to be ironed out, including the unusual practice of multiple voting. One way this happened was that people who owned a business could vote in the constituency where they lived and again in the constituency of the business itself.

This is about the UK, but IIRC, the US is about the same, only about two decades earlier and the numbers a little bit higher. Indeed, I often heard that modern democracy developed in Canada, Australia and New Zealand first.


Darkwolf's post seems to make only sense, if it's about the restriction of voting rights. Or it's about the disadvantages of a majority voting system and a two party-system. Proportional voting is just more fun. And if there are only two parties, they can not do anything else but to be people's parties grouped around the least-common-denominator. But that's part of the system.

So it's about the voting-system ?

Quotes from here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/procedure/franchis.htm)

@ Aldeth:

There is a small nudist colony down the street that is an honest to goodness Democracy...but other than that...no.

@ Joacqin:

You make good points. In reference to the apparent power of the American Chief Executive...I think that it is greatly dependent upon the cabinet that he surrounds himself with, the make-up of Congress at the time, and the amount of support he enjoys from his party (sorry to use the masculine pronoun, Ladies, but as yet all American Presidents have been male...stupid to try to use inclusive language in this instance).

George W. Bush enjoyed tremendous support after 9/11 because to a large extent it seemed "un-patriotic" or "un-American" to not support the Administration.

I sometimes wonder if that overwhelming support didn't go to his head and make him play fast and loose with our Foreign Policy.

That's a HUGE admission coming from me...the most Conservative member of these boards.

That's a HUGE admission coming from me...the most Conservative member of these boards. Have you ever read any of Chevalier's or Grey Magistrate's posts? Heck, even Darkwolf is generally more conservative than a lot of your statements.

@Iago

Ancient Athenians called their system of government democracy. Pericles in his funeral speech for the first dead warriors of the Peloponnesian war says "Kai onoma men dia to mi es oligous, all'es pleionas oikein dimokratia keklitai" which is translated as "We are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few".

Edit: I just replaced the modern greek translation with the original ancient text.

[ April 13, 2004, 22:44: Message edited by: BOC ]

As for Athen I read some interesting stuff a while back, it seems that Athens had basically two parties: the democrats and the "aristocrats" (I am not sure if that is the correct name for them, I dont remember but they were an anti-democratic party who thought Athens should be ruled by one or a few strong men and none of that voting silliness) and they switched back and forth in power for centuries and those switches came about by use of force, not any voting. When the democrats were in power Athens was ruled as we generally think of ancient Athens but when the aristocratic party was in power which was more or less as often as the democrates Athens was a good old fashioned despotism.

HS, all presidents I can remember have had neigh on absolute power, from Reagan to Bush II. Clinton none the least. I base this mostly on that the president seems to have sole command of the military and can order forces into combat without consulting any other instance of power. True Bush II probably have/had even more power than usual due to 9/11 but all presidents are given immense power, while still being leaders of a decent show of a democracy (I dont think there exist a good show of a democracy so that last comment was not degrading towards the US).

Joacqin

This is off topic but anyway. Ancient Athens was a democracy since the fall of the sons of Peisistratus and the establishment of a democratic system of government by Cleisthenes (iirc around 6th century BC)and until the coming of romans, with a small exception in 404-403 BC when the city was ruled by the 30 tyrants. The two parties, that you are mentioning, Democrats and Aristocrats, can be better described like liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans if we use the modern american terminology and as far as I can remember there was never a violent administration change between them. Many famous Athenians belonged to the Aristocrats and one of them was Thucydides, and judging from his texts he was a great supporter of the Athenian Democracy. Also according to him the most despotic administration of Athens during the classical age was the administration of Pericles who was a member of the Democrats. I don't remember his exact quote but it was something like "In theory it was democracy but in reality it was one man's authority".

Nope.

I'm the most Conservative.

I just make it seem more reasonable and am not blinded by Party line. Look at the other likely suspects...

Chev...we are very similar as to our degree of Conservatism on religious or moral issues, but politically I'm more conservative than he.

Grey Magistrate...bless him...one of the most eloquent voices of conservatism on these boards, but we've talked and I'm a little further to the right on religous and political issues.

DarkWolf...I don't really know...he was here before me and just came back recently, but from his posts I would have to assume that he is politically as conservative as I, but somewhat less so on religous or social standards.

Now Shralp was another story...

About the point that Joacqin has raised...it would be interesting for some of our students of history to speak out on how the relative power of the Executive office compares to say...George Washington...Andrew Jackson...Teddy Roosevelt...LBJ. Has there been a shift in power within our Representative Republic of Democratic Principles (notice how I suck up to both sides ;) ) away from the peoples branch (Congress) to the Executive branch? Good question. Could a true Democracy even have an Executive branch?

OK, Chandos, I've set the stage for you...

What I think Darwolf is getting at, is that the USA, as the UK (and other's, yet there is a rumour about the two mentioned), weren't democractic for a long, long time. Both did traditionally restrict the right to vote to a very small number of people. That is not about including women or non-whites, it's about that only a small percentage of the male population was allowed to vote.
Well, Darkwolf and I are in agreement on that point. In fact, I agree with him more than I am letting on. I supoose I let my disappointment show too much that the dialogue was becoming partisan. Still, it's something we are all guilty of at times. But the Founders had different viewpoints on this issue and that really was my main point and the thrust of my argument; that it was not realistic to generalize about what the Founders intended.

Jefferson was way more on the side of one-man-one-vote principle than the most. That of course is a contradiction because he kept slaves in his household, and even had children with a slave he owned, Sally Hemmings. It was a gigantic scandal in his time, but fortunately for Jefferson, and unlike what happened to Bill Clinton, it could never be proven at that time. He denied it, and most everyone who mattered believed him. Plus, he never freed her. At least George Washington had put into his will that after he and Martha died, all his slaves were to be freed.

But I think Adams would have really agreed with Darkwolf. Both he and his good friend, Benjamin Rush were never fans of democracy in a pure definition of the word. Adams had always been fearful of the "Passions" and what could only be described as "mob mentality." Jefferson on the other hand thought that every generation had the right to express its desire for a government that was better suited to themselves, regardless of what the previous generation had accomplished or would have desired. I think this is exactly what Darkwolf is arguing against - maybe.

Stangely, Adams never had any slaves, completely opposed it, and, in his private letters with his wife, Abigail, discussed seriously the idea of a Woman's right to vote. And he was, for the most part, the staunch authoritarian who was most afraid of "pure" democratic principles, which he was often accused of during his later politcal career, when some believed that he was "betraying the ideals of the Revolution."

HS - To discuss the Presidency in such a general way, also has its pitfalls. But it would be interesting to look closley at how different presidents had a lasting impact on the office itself. If you want to create a thread for such a discussion, I would certainly contribute. It might be interesting (even in a partisan sort of way).

[ April 20, 2004, 05:06: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

I will gladly accept the mantle, although I'm curious as to what issues I'm more conservative on than the aforementioned gentlemen.

On the topic, it's good to see people acknowledging that "the Founders" didn't have a unified voice on the best form of government.

They did, however, leave us a document that seems to reflect the general consensus (or at least a compromise among the schools of thought). The Constitution balances the rule of the majority with several safeguards against what several commentators call the "tyranny" of the majority. In recent years, that balance has been skewed simultaneaously toward majority rule (as we switch to direct election of Senators) and against it (through the tyranny of a Federally enforced two-party system that doesn't allow a full field of choice in candidates).

I beg to differ with those who state that "democraacy" is an ever-changing word. Democracy in its purest form is "one person=one vote." Such a government has never existed to knowledge on the face of the earth and would be an unmitigated disaster if it did.

Grey Magistrate...bless him...one of the most eloquent voices of conservatism on these boards, but we've talked and I'm a little further to the right on religous and political issues.WHAT?!? I defy anyone on these boards to take, or even identify, a rational position to my right.

Anyway, per the actual thread - I'm with John Adams.

Ancient Athenians called their system of government democracy. Pericles in his funeral speech for the first dead warriors of the Peloponnesian war says "Kai onoma men dia to mi es oligous, all'es pleionas oikein dimokratia keklitai" which is translated as "We are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few".
He, he, well, thanks for the correction. In this case, I'd say that only the greek sources that speak about ochlocracy and see democracy as a very bad form of goverment survived into the academic fashion of the late middle ages and early modern time.

Come to think about it, I think that democracy in it's worst form showed itself in the French revoulution. Where the old principle holds, that a ochlocracy will turn into a monarchy. Which non the less means, that the French revolution in content and impact is way more important then the American one. And the French revolution propably gave the opponents of democracy/republic in the US, i.e. some of the founding fathers, more wind in their back, leaving more quotes against democracy and in favour of the rule of the corrupt few.

So, coming back to topic, I want to stress again, that there is no difference between republic and democracy in their meaning, only in a formal sense when it's about determing the head of state. So represantive republic is nothign else then a represantitive democracy, as a republic is nothing else then a democracy, when it's about stating who's the sovereign. As the republic of all republics was a direct-democracy mixed. As some people think, and rightly so to some degree, that the opitimal goverment needs a king, an aristorcacy and a direct-democracy. Which ends in the Montesquieu plan for the US constitution. A mix out of king, senate and represantitive democracy. Indeed, I think of the US-president as a monarch. Yet not a function which is inherited , it's an elective monarchy.

Yet having a king-like powerful goverment is always a bad choice, in my view. Countries without that fare better. But if you like powerful, "energetic" goverments and are ready to pay for it with letting political rights go, your view may differ.

So, if this is about restriction of voting rights of an as not suitable deemed population-strata. What then would be the benefit of the rule of the corrupt few ? What's good about aristocracy/oligarchy ? There are not many of that kind of countries that survived and past the test of time to my knowledge.

[ April 17, 2004, 15:20: Message edited by: Iago ]

Indeed, I think of the US-president as a monarch. Yet not a function which is inherited , it's an elective monarchy.
Well, that was never what the Founders intended. But that is an interesting point, because only twice has the Presidency been passed to a father and son: John Adams/John Quincy Adams, and yes, the Bush clan. Now they are having the nerve to talk up Jeb Bush if Shrub gets another 4 years. With that kind of aristocracy-like progression Jefferson & company would have blown their wigs. The Founders were fearful of just what you suggetest - that the presidency would become a sort of monarchy. When John Adams suggested to the Sentate that George Washington, as first president, should be addressed as "his Highness," he was literally laughed off the podium of the Senate, and was scornfully rebuked by many of his revolutionary compatriots. The notion of a monarchy/aristocracy was completely repugnant to most of the Founders.

Without his father's influence though, Shrub would probably have been just another underachiever. But the Bushes are now what the Kennedies were in the 60s. They are the most politcally connected family in the country. Shrub is living proof that "it isn't what you know, it's who you know." So, there may be something to what you suggest after all.