Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I began writing this at some point in 2007, unaware of the positive changes that would have spread over Iraq by the spring of 2008, the looming economic meltdown that would begin in late summer, or the historic crossroads presented by the fall election. This post is incomplete and somewhat indistinct (it looks like I might have been attempting a great treatise on American government). No matter, for lack of anything better to say right now, I am releasing it as an unfinished thought from that moment in time.
Is the United States of America a democracy?
A caller to C-SPAN's Washington Journal a few weeks back, representing himself as a lifelong Republican loyalist, wanted to know why this president seemed bound and determined to wreck "his party" by flying in the face of the overwhelming expression of the popular will on Iraq and the "children's health" bill?
A letter writer to the Waco Tribune Herald (but you may insert any town USA), disgusted with "Bush's war," proclaims:
"Politicians in this country are so disconnected from the constituents that democracy, the true definition of that word, simply does not exist here."
Resolved: The vast majority of Americans, as evidenced by public opinion polls and the last mid-term election, no longer support our presence in Iraq; therefore, the majority should rule, Congress should pass legislation to correct the President's failed policy, and instruct the military to initiate a withdrawal sequence.
Resolved: Public opinion polling indicates that the vast majority of Americans suppport the Democratic Party's proposed expansion of SCHIP; therefore, the President should accede to the will of the people.
Right? Wrong.
Is the United States of America a democracy? Or, as high school history teachers and talk radio hosts like to ask, is the United States a republic?
Yes.
The answer is both--and then some. The United States is a pluralistic, quasi-federal, constitutional representative democracy with republican roots.
The Constitution of 1787 provides for republican government. When we pledge allegiance to the flag, we pledge allegiance to the "republic for which it stands." On the other hand, the clear intent of the framers lost out to a cultural revolution, which began almost as soon as the national government came into being and democratized American politics. History texts commonly refer to the great change as Jacksonian Democracy--but it is also correctly associated with Thomas Jefferson, the first two-party system, and the so-called Republican Revolution of 1800.
Definitions:
republic: a state in which supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote, exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them, and in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system; a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
How it happened:
The Patriots of the American Revolution hoped that they were birthing an age of republican government animated by virtue. However, people like James Madison quickly surmised that Americans were no more virtuous than humanity in general, and they conceived a government necessarily more realistic about the nature of man.
Therefore, the framers devised a fairly intricate system of divided government in which three jealous departments compete against one another and sometimes internally for authority. The system of checks and balances, which has served us so well, is essentially a framework for consensus government. Most of the time, little happens without broad agreement.
No one person has ever exerted ultimate control over the system. To date, no one faction or institution has proven capable of rising to the top of the greasy pole of American government for a dangerously extended period of time. Men and women come and go. Parties are born, rise, fall, pass away completely, and, sometimes, rise again. But the system perseveres.
What of majority rule?
Here is how majority rule works under Mr. Madison's plan for government:
Many diverse constituencies and institutions exert their influence on national decision making. Instead of public policy turning on a dime, the framers designed a system resistant to "temporary enthusiasms" and "popular passions."
A Side Question: What happens when the popular will is in opposition to the public interest?
American Revolution-era republicans hoped that statesman, when presented with hard choices, would choose wise governance over popular sentiment, accepting the consequences of doing the right but unpopular thing.
However, once the optimism gave way to realization, the framers scrambled to construct a system in which popular majorities exerted due influence without facilitating a "tyranny of the majority" (a phrase Alexis de Tocqueville would coin a generation later).
???????????????????
Is the United States of America a democracy?
A caller to C-SPAN's Washington Journal a few weeks back, representing himself as a lifelong Republican loyalist, wanted to know why this president seemed bound and determined to wreck "his party" by flying in the face of the overwhelming expression of the popular will on Iraq and the "children's health" bill?
A letter writer to the Waco Tribune Herald (but you may insert any town USA), disgusted with "Bush's war," proclaims:
"Politicians in this country are so disconnected from the constituents that democracy, the true definition of that word, simply does not exist here."
Resolved: The vast majority of Americans, as evidenced by public opinion polls and the last mid-term election, no longer support our presence in Iraq; therefore, the majority should rule, Congress should pass legislation to correct the President's failed policy, and instruct the military to initiate a withdrawal sequence.
Resolved: Public opinion polling indicates that the vast majority of Americans suppport the Democratic Party's proposed expansion of SCHIP; therefore, the President should accede to the will of the people.
Right? Wrong.
Is the United States of America a democracy? Or, as high school history teachers and talk radio hosts like to ask, is the United States a republic?
Yes.
The answer is both--and then some. The United States is a pluralistic, quasi-federal, constitutional representative democracy with republican roots.
The Constitution of 1787 provides for republican government. When we pledge allegiance to the flag, we pledge allegiance to the "republic for which it stands." On the other hand, the clear intent of the framers lost out to a cultural revolution, which began almost as soon as the national government came into being and democratized American politics. History texts commonly refer to the great change as Jacksonian Democracy--but it is also correctly associated with Thomas Jefferson, the first two-party system, and the so-called Republican Revolution of 1800.
Definitions:
republic: a state in which supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote, exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them, and in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system; a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
How it happened:
The Patriots of the American Revolution hoped that they were birthing an age of republican government animated by virtue. However, people like James Madison quickly surmised that Americans were no more virtuous than humanity in general, and they conceived a government necessarily more realistic about the nature of man.
Therefore, the framers devised a fairly intricate system of divided government in which three jealous departments compete against one another and sometimes internally for authority. The system of checks and balances, which has served us so well, is essentially a framework for consensus government. Most of the time, little happens without broad agreement.
No one person has ever exerted ultimate control over the system. To date, no one faction or institution has proven capable of rising to the top of the greasy pole of American government for a dangerously extended period of time. Men and women come and go. Parties are born, rise, fall, pass away completely, and, sometimes, rise again. But the system perseveres.
What of majority rule?
Here is how majority rule works under Mr. Madison's plan for government:
Many diverse constituencies and institutions exert their influence on national decision making. Instead of public policy turning on a dime, the framers designed a system resistant to "temporary enthusiasms" and "popular passions."
A Side Question: What happens when the popular will is in opposition to the public interest?
American Revolution-era republicans hoped that statesman, when presented with hard choices, would choose wise governance over popular sentiment, accepting the consequences of doing the right but unpopular thing.
However, once the optimism gave way to realization, the framers scrambled to construct a system in which popular majorities exerted due influence without facilitating a "tyranny of the majority" (a phrase Alexis de Tocqueville would coin a generation later).
???????????????????
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Six Agencies Searched for Data on Joe the Plumber
Democrats in power = violation of the civil rights of their enemies.
From Powerline. The blogosphere continues to do the work the heritage media formerly did. May the MSM be haunted by the angry ghost of Fred Friendly.
Democrats in power = violation of the civil rights of their enemies.
From Powerline. The blogosphere continues to do the work the heritage media formerly did. May the MSM be haunted by the angry ghost of Fred Friendly.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Bill Ayers Comes Clean-- Corrects Obama: "We Are Family Friends"
From Gateway Pundit. The blogosphere continues to do the work the heritage media formerly did. May the MSM be haunted by the angry ghost of Fred Friendly.
From Gateway Pundit. The blogosphere continues to do the work the heritage media formerly did. May the MSM be haunted by the angry ghost of Fred Friendly.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Confirmed: It Looks Like Obama Just Got Away With Largest Election Donations Fraud in History
From Gateway Pundit. The blogosphere continues to do the work the heritage media formerly did. May the MSM be haunted by the angry ghost of Fred Friendly.
From Gateway Pundit. The blogosphere continues to do the work the heritage media formerly did. May the MSM be haunted by the angry ghost of Fred Friendly.
05/11: The Religious Vote
The Pew Forum has this breakdown of religious voters in McCain v Obama.
President-elect Barack Obama made a concerted effort to reach out to people of faith during the 2008 presidential campaign, and early exit polls show that this outreach may have paid off on Election Day. Among nearly every religious group, the Democratic candidate received equal or higher levels of support compared with the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry. Still, a sizeable gap persists between the support Obama received from white evangelical Protestants and his support among the religiously unaffiliated. Similarly, a sizeable gap exists between those who attend religious services regularly and those who attend less often.
Religious affiliation has been a good predictor of voting behavior throughout American history. New England Congegationalist = Adams supporter and Jefferson opponent; evangelical protestant = Whig Clay supporter, non-evangelical protestant = Democrat Andrew Jackson supporter. Roman Catholic almost always Democrat. Etc.
President-elect Barack Obama made a concerted effort to reach out to people of faith during the 2008 presidential campaign, and early exit polls show that this outreach may have paid off on Election Day. Among nearly every religious group, the Democratic candidate received equal or higher levels of support compared with the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry. Still, a sizeable gap persists between the support Obama received from white evangelical Protestants and his support among the religiously unaffiliated. Similarly, a sizeable gap exists between those who attend religious services regularly and those who attend less often.
Religious affiliation has been a good predictor of voting behavior throughout American history. New England Congegationalist = Adams supporter and Jefferson opponent; evangelical protestant = Whig Clay supporter, non-evangelical protestant = Democrat Andrew Jackson supporter. Roman Catholic almost always Democrat. Etc.
I was depressed already this morning; this audio clip from The Howard Stern Show did not help. His crew did man-in-the-street interviews of Obama supporters. Obviously they had no clue what their candidate stood for.
Ironically, the triumph of Jacksonian Democracy enabled Obama to win. I wonder what the slave-owning Old Hickory thinks about all this.
btw, in case it is not on your screen, be sure to scroll down for Martian Mariner's post-election post. In a double irony, the triumph of Hamilton's economic ideas over Jefferson's enabled this urban triumph.
Ironically, the triumph of Jacksonian Democracy enabled Obama to win. I wonder what the slave-owning Old Hickory thinks about all this.
btw, in case it is not on your screen, be sure to scroll down for Martian Mariner's post-election post. In a double irony, the triumph of Hamilton's economic ideas over Jefferson's enabled this urban triumph.
05/11: I Was Wrong
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
I owe Farmer a steak dinner in Ft. Worth.
I picked McCain to win, based on Obama's performance against Hillary in which the polls were higher than his actual results, the larger-than-usual number of refusals to pollsters that I assumed came more from McCain supporters than Obama supporters, the increased support and enthusiasm of evangelicals after the Palin pick, and my assumption that when in the voting booth the gut of many voters would prompt them not to vote for a candidate with ties to Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and corrupt organizations like ACORN. I was wrong
Obama won, and did so getting over 50% of the popular vote, something that Clinton did not achieve in two elections.
What enabled Obama to win? The definitive book on this election is a generation away, but I offer a few non-original thoughts in no particular order.
*The Economy, specifically the crash on Wall Street, the mortage mess, and fears for the future.
*Popular Dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration.
*Obama's Race and the chance it gave millions of voters to help put the first black man into the White House.
*The image Obama created on television--handsome, thoughtful, articulate.
*The desire of an increasingly large number of Americans that their government take care of their basic needs: health care, employment security, retirement, etc.
*The success of the Bush Administration in the War Against Islamic Terrorists.
*And, while we now may never know the extent, vote fraud in Democrat-controlled urban areas such as Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Milwaukee.
*The Work of the Established Media in protecting Obama from serious investigation and discussion.
*Obama's Tremendous Financial Advantage because he refused public financing, and ran a contribution system that invited fraud.
Farmer, I'll email you to set up time and place.
I picked McCain to win, based on Obama's performance against Hillary in which the polls were higher than his actual results, the larger-than-usual number of refusals to pollsters that I assumed came more from McCain supporters than Obama supporters, the increased support and enthusiasm of evangelicals after the Palin pick, and my assumption that when in the voting booth the gut of many voters would prompt them not to vote for a candidate with ties to Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and corrupt organizations like ACORN. I was wrong
Obama won, and did so getting over 50% of the popular vote, something that Clinton did not achieve in two elections.
What enabled Obama to win? The definitive book on this election is a generation away, but I offer a few non-original thoughts in no particular order.
*The Economy, specifically the crash on Wall Street, the mortage mess, and fears for the future.
*Popular Dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration.
*Obama's Race and the chance it gave millions of voters to help put the first black man into the White House.
*The image Obama created on television--handsome, thoughtful, articulate.
*The desire of an increasingly large number of Americans that their government take care of their basic needs: health care, employment security, retirement, etc.
*The success of the Bush Administration in the War Against Islamic Terrorists.
*And, while we now may never know the extent, vote fraud in Democrat-controlled urban areas such as Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Milwaukee.
*The Work of the Established Media in protecting Obama from serious investigation and discussion.
*Obama's Tremendous Financial Advantage because he refused public financing, and ran a contribution system that invited fraud.
Farmer, I'll email you to set up time and place.
Sidebar
