Democracy

[vitanola]

Another of those wonderful ERPI films, produced by Encyclopedia Britannica. This one, produced in 1945 in the immediat shadow of the Second World War explains "Democracy", as it was then understood in America.

 

[Edward]

 

[scottyrocks]

Yeah, this could go in a number of wrong directions, especially with that last line in the OP.

 

[scotrace]

Skeevy topic aside, I like the poor researcher in the beginning with his printed graphs, index cards, handwritten notes. And then that barrister's bookcase, worth a bit of money now, filled with information like a tiny Google farm.

 

[vitanola]

Skeevy topic aside, I like the poor researcher in the beginning with his printed graphs, index cards, handwritten notes. And then that barrister's bookcase, worth a bit of money now, filled with information like a tiny Google farm.

"Skeevy topic"?

In their day, these pictures were uncontroversial (save in certain pockets of the Deep South due to their touching upon the subject of racial equality, an area in which today there is purported to be little controversy.)

This picture pretty well represents the Era consensus on this subject. Of course even then, in the glow of what was perceived to be the worldwide victory of Democracy there were elements of our society who dissented, but they were scattered and, for the moment, politically unimportant.

Why would this picture, which is supremely relevant to the stated purpose of this forum, one which offers so many insights into Era perceptions of Democracy, a vital part of our identity then and (I hope) now, possibly be considered the least bit controversial? Have our norms changed so very much over the past seventy-some odd years? If they have changed(this is a question upon which I choose to remain agnostic) I would think that we would be the poorer for it.

Specific modern political issues (which do not belong on this forum) aside, what find ye controversial about this bland little schoolhouse film? It is rather direct. Hardly a Nostradamus prophecy. The film pretty well reflects the teaching in most Junior High School civics classes up to the 1980s. What may have changed?

 

[LizzieMaine]

It does capture a specific moment in our national psychology, that instant when we stood on the peak of the mountain gazing into the Promised Land. And as you note, you won't find a pre-WWII civics textbook that doesn't share the perspectives expressed herein.

 

[HanauMan]

I was in junior high in the late 70s and, yes, it was similar to what we were taught to be 'good citizens'. I was taught in various DoDDS and I think they had a much higher emphasis on these things than the crappy civilian school I ended up in for my last couple of years of high school.

I recall learning more about these things in the boy scouts; it was part of our achieving the Citizens, Community Living and Family Living merit badges.

 

[Edward]

IT's not so much the film, imo, as ever - more that we simply need to be careful what it provokes in these parts....

 

[vitanola]

The very fact that such an anodyne little flicker must be treated as possibly dangerous confirms my old friend' Gerry Casale's hypothesis, I fear.

As Miss Maine so eloquently puts it: "It does capture a specific moment in our national psychology, that instant when we stood on the peak of the mountain gazing into the Promised Land."

I ask, why have we not reached that Promised Land? What has changed? Why has it changed? Most folks who ask themselves these questions will have their own answers. For the sake of comity,
we dare not speculate about such answers here, of course. Yet should we not each one at some point in our lives ask ourselves these questions: "Was this antique vision of America good and true?" "Does it accurately describe our current polity?'
"If it is not an accurate description of current conditions, would we be better off if it were?" "If that is the case how can we make it so?"

Of course, history is sometimes apt to be something of a Rorschach test, one upon we impose our own fears, desires and dogma, and so these questions are best left answered at home, rather than on this forum, where such answers, which will doubtless
be individual in the extreme, may be likened to Eris' Golden Apple. I cannot but imagine that we can profit from considering them on occasion.

 

[Fading Fast]

Films like these are great views into the period we discuss on this forum - and they are also great fun to see (love the bookcase as noted above - also, the not-tied bowtie, that's a "newspaper man").

As others have noted above, we all just want to keep the discussion to the period. To that end, I went to grammar / high school in the late '60s /'70s and remember (overall) more of an emphasis on our Republic form of government and its constitutional protections of individual rights and that democracy was just one of several tools to that end, not the end itself. For example, I remember a high school social studies course where the teacher emphasized that democracy could turn into mob rule with 51% of the population democratically voting 49% into slavery (that made a bid impression on me). Hence, the film doesn't really align to the perspective on democracy I was given in school in the '60s/'70s

So for those who know (I don't), was (1) my education just an outlier or (2) was the emphasis already shifting (possibly) because of the social / political changes of the '60s or (3) did my education harken back to a much earlier style of education in this country with the "democracy-focused" one of the film only coming later, perhaps, as noted, after the US' success in WWII?

I think this is all proper as my questions are not about the right or wrong approach, but just what were the prevailing educational styles and how they evolved. If they are not appropriate, bartenders, please remove.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I have a 1915 high school civics textbook, widely used during the 1920s and 1930s, entitled "The Community And The Citizen," by Arthur William Dunn, which sounds very much like this film in its overall viewpoint. This was a very common point of view in the US during the early decades of the 20th Century, perhaps as a legacy of the Populist and Progressive Eras of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The "we're a republic not a democracy" idea was current in some circles in the 1930s -- it was a talking point for the National Association of Manufacturers and its chief educational/public relations front, the National Industrial Council, from the time of the 1936 election forward, and became one of the chief tenets of the John Birch Society and its fronts in the 1950s. But it wasn't a mainstream point of view in civics education during the Era.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

They were still showing those Encyclopedia Britannica films when I was a kid in school in the '70s!

 

[vitanola]

Films like these are great views into the period we discuss on this forum - and they are also great fun to see (love the bookcase as noted above - also, the not-tied bowtie, that's a "newspaper man").

As others have noted above, we all just want to keep the discussion to the period. To that end, I went to grammar / high school in the late '60s /'70s and remember (overall) more of an emphasis on our Republic form of government and its constitutional protections of individual rights and that democracy was just one of several tools to that end, not the end itself. For example, I remember a high school social studies course where the teacher emphasized that democracy could turn into mob rule with 51% of the population democratically voting 49% into slavery (that made a bid impression on me). Hence, the film doesn't really align to the perspective on democracy I was given in school in the '60s/'70s

So for those who know (I don't), was (1) my education just an outlier or (2) was the emphasis already shifting (possibly) because of the social / political changes of the '60s or (3) did my education harken back to a much earlier style of education in this country with the "democracy-focused" one of the film only coming later, perhaps, as noted, after the US' success in WWII?

I think this is all proper as my questions are not about the right or wrong approach, but just what were the prevailing educational styles and how they evolved. If they are not appropriate, bartenders, please remove.

As far as you describe, your education was very much of its period. This emphasis upon "republic" rather than "democracy" was a very new thing in the 1960's. It had not been current in mainstream thought or teaching for a very long time. Actually, the earlier texts are every bit as "democratically minded" as this picture, dating at least to the 1880's (I have no earlier text books for reference). The emphasis upon our principally being a "republic" seems to have arisen first among outlying thinkers in the 1930's and 1940's, (generally it seems, folks who periceved that their ox had been gored by "too much democracy" at that time) entering the mainstream after the expenditure of a great deal of money in its promotion only in the late 1960's. Now there is a great deal of truth in the assertion that "pure" democracy can easily devolve into mob rule. That has historically proven to be the case in a number of famous (ancient)instances. On the other hand the purest example of democracy in America, the New England Town Meeting, has seldom if ever been known to devolve into slavery.

 

[vitanola]

IT's not so much the film, imo, as ever - more that we simply need to be careful what it provokes in these parts....

We should all be adults here. The thoughtful posters on this board tend to disagree respectfully, don't they? Neither do they generally carelessly slip into modern ethics. I try to do likewise, though I occasionally may have a little "oopsie"!

 

[Edward]

We should all be adults here.

So you'd think, but believe me, all too often there are those that eludes!

 

[LizzieMaine]

The emphasis upon our principally being a "republic" seems to have arisen first among outlying thinkers in the 1930's and 1940's, (generally it seems, folks who periceved that their ox had been gored by "too much democracy" at that time) entering the mainstream after the expenditure of a great deal of money in its promotion only in the late 1960's.

In addition to the NAM and its satellites, it's also worth mentioning the role Father Coughlin played in propagating the "republic not democracy" viewpoint during the late 1930s. In advocating what he called "the corporate state," an idea he picked up from Mussolini, he emphasized the "decadence of democracy" as evidence that America had "strayed from its roots." Similar readings are found in Bircher tracts twenty years later.

 

[Edward]

Imperfect or otherwise, I do wish that there had been more emphasis on civics when I was at school. Here in the UK, there's a shocking lack of understanding by all too many people of such basic things even as the importance of voting, how our parliament works, Crown Powers, civil right and duties.... It's just shocking. I don't know if things have improved any sicne I was at school, but I sure hope so.

 

[Fading Fast]

As far as you describe, your education was very much of its period. This emphasis upon "republic" rather than "democracy" was a very new thing in the 1960's. It had not been current in mainstream thought or teaching for a very long time. Actually, the earlier texts are every bit as "democratically minded" as this picture, dating at least to the 1880's (I have no earlier text books for reference). The emphasis upon our principally being a "republic" seems to have arisen first among outlying thinkers in the 1930's and 1940's, (generally it seems, folks who periceved that their ox had been gored by "too much democracy" at that time) entering the mainstream after the expenditure of a great deal of money in its promotion only in the late 1960's. Now there is a great deal of truth in the assertion that "pure" democracy can easily devolve into mob rule. That has historically proven to be the case in a number of famous (ancient)instances. On the other hand the purest example of democracy in America, the New England Town Meeting, has seldom if ever been known to devolve into slavery.

In addition to the NAM and its satellites, it's also worth mentioning the role Father Coughlin played in propagating the "republic not democracy" viewpoint during the late 1930s. In advocating what he called "the corporate state," an idea he picked up from Mussolini, he emphasized the "decadence of democracy" as evidence that America had "strayed from its roots." Similar readings are found in Bircher tracts twenty years later.

Regardless of the narrow political reasons in the '30s/'40s, I know I've read that the Founding Fathers specifically created a Republic with things like supermajority votes needed (as in the Senate), the six year terms of Senators (who were not original elected by popular vote) and other built-in structures to address the "mob rule" concerns of democracy? I'm not looking to debate the merits of those items, but the historical record - I believe, unless the things I read were all wrong - is that the Founding Fathers pro-actively discussed why they wanted a Republic form of gov't, which was, in part, to curb democracy's challenges.

Because it was such a core part of my education, I am still amazed today at how many people think we have a pure democracy in this country, but seeing films like the OP's makes me less surprised.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the Constitution and the Founders themselves tended to be viewed a lot more pragmatically during the last years of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th -- there seemed to be a much greater willingness to confront the flaws of the Constitution and the failings of the Founders than to view the Constitution as inspired Scripture and the Founders as near-gods. You can pinpoint the moment when the modern "Constitution as Sacred Immutable Text" point of view began to the debate over Supreme Court reform in 1937, with the NAM/NIC again taking the lead in opposing the Roosevelt Administration's plan to enlarge Court membership.

 

[Fading Fast]

I think the Constitution and the Founders themselves tended to be viewed a lot more pragmatically during the last years of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th -- there seemed to be a much greater willingness to confront the flaws of the Constitution and the failings of the Founders than to view the Constitution as inspired Scripture and the Founders as near-gods. You can pinpoint the moment when the modern "Constitution as Sacred Immutable Text" point of view began to the debate over Supreme Court reform in 1937, with the NAM/NIC again taking the lead in opposing the Roosevelt Administration's plan to enlarge Court membership.

All interesting history that I'm sure it is correct (I have no specific knowledge other than what you said), but were the points in my above post accurate - the Republic form of gov't and putting curbs on the "excesses" of democracy were active topics amongst the Founding Fathers when they were writing the Constitution - right?

And your post reminded me of another curb on pure democracy intentionally built in - the 3/4 of all states and 2/3 vote in Congress (both Houses) needed to approve a change to the Constitution. IMHO, that's how the flaws in the constitution are suppose to be addressed (which could argue they aren't flaws since they built in a correction mechanism - the amendment process - but that's just tautological wordsmithing).