Democracy

[Bushman]

The Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution was imperfect, which was why they left it open for amendment. Constitutional amendments seem like they used to be something of an answer to "We can't do that, the Constitution doesn't say we can" argument.

"We can't make slaves citizens!"
>Amend the Constitution

"We can't elect Senators by the popular vote!"
>Amend the Constitution.

"We can't ban booze!"
>Amend the Constitution.

"We can't give women the right to vote!"
>Amend the Constitution.

"We can't limit the number of terms the President serves!"
>Amend the Constitution.

Constitutional amendment seemed like it was a relatively agreeable and successful process that took at most a few years to complete, which by today's standards is a miraculous occurrence that anything could be done so quickly. But as @LizzieMaine points out, at some point in time, the Constitution in its present state became treated as gospel, and the notion of amending it became the idea of heretics. And, in the end, a relatively amicable process became taboo.

 

[Edward]

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.

I think that's usually the rationale in most systems designed as bi-cameral from the ground up, though here in the UK it's a bit more blurred, with having an evolved rather than specifically designed 'as is' system.

When I was in Washington in 2011, I had the chance to visit the National Archives and saw original copies of the Constitution. Absolutely fascinating. I'd have loved to have seen the Magna Carta (often credited s the beginnings of English democracy; I would dispute that, but it's certainly an important part of the story) when it was on display, but alas tickets were extremely limited and I didn't make it through the ballot. I did last year get to see a lot of original documents relating to the founding of the Irish Republic, and that was fascinating too. Always so pleased when institutions preserve this sort of thing.

 

[Fading Fast]

The Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution was imperfect, which was why they left it open for amendment. Constitutional amendments seem like they used to be something of an answer to "We can't do that, the Constitution doesn't say we can" argument.

"We can't make slaves citizens!"
>Amend the Constitution

"We can't elect Senators by the popular vote!"
>Amend the Constitution.

"We can't ban booze!"
>Amend the Constitution.

"We can't give women the right to vote!"
>Amend the Constitution.

"We can't limit the number of terms the President serves!"
>Amend the Constitution.

Constitutional amendment seemed like it was a relatively agreeable and successful process that took at most a few years to complete, which by today's standards is a miraculous occurrence that anything could be done so quickly. But as @LizzieMaine points out, at some point in time, the Constitution in its present state became treated as gospel, and the notion of amending it became the idea of heretics. And, in the end, a relatively amicable process became taboo.

But all the same requirements for an amendment are still there, so another interpretation could be that there where items (your list and the reversal of the booze ban) where we had stronger agreement on and now the contentious issues are split closer to the center so we can't garner the super majorities needed to amend. Hence, I'm not sure its the modern "gospel view" of the Constitution or that the items we are currently debating haven't won over the necessary number of converts to pass an amendment. Which is, IMHO, consistent with what the Founding Fathers built in - the ability to make major changes required a much greater than 50% acceptance (i.e., a curb on pure democracy).

 

[GHT]

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.

One of the early steps toward democracy in America was taken aboard the Mayflower by the Pilgrims in 1620. Shortly before their arrival, the colonists agreed on a set of laws that would govern their Plymouth colony in Massachusetts. These laws, which came to be known as the Mayflower Compact, in essence, stated that the government would make "just laws and equal" with the consent of the colonists.

The Mayflower Compact was the first governing document of Plymouth Colony. It was written by the colonists, later together known to history as the Pilgrims, who crossed the Atlantic aboard the Mayflower. Almost half of the colonists were part of a separatist group seeking the freedom to practice Christianity according to their own determination and not the will of the English Church. It was signed on November 11, 1620 by 41 of the ship's more than one hundred passengers.

This was the logical outcome of the Calvinist' or Puritan theory of government that influenced even non-Puritans. The only problem here is the fact the Mayflower Compact itself swore an oath of loyalty to England. The idea taken from this was a charter between God and man seems to be the main idea carried forth to the American Constitution.

 

[LizzieMaine]

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?

Indeed. Although you can also argue that those brakes were put there specifically to ensure that the real power remained in the hands of the mercantile aristocracy rather than any desire to preserve the purity of the republic. Such arguments were quite common during the latter half of the nineteenth century, when the idea of America As Democracy was reaching its full force -- hence, especially,the movement for popular election of the Senate, which had come to be viewed as the American equivalent of the House of Lords.

 

[Fading Fast]

Indeed. Although you can also argue that those brakes were put there specifically to ensure that the real power remained in the hands of the mercantile aristocracy rather than any desire to preserve the purity of the republic. Such arguments were quite common during the latter half of the nineteenth century, when the idea of America As Democracy was reaching its full force -- hence, especially,the movement for popular election of the Senate, which had come to be viewed as the American equivalent of the House of Lords.

Thank you. Now that we've discussed the nuances of the foundation of our gov't, I believe there is a more fundamentally important issue that needs your attention over in the "Vintage Items that Will Not Disappear In Your Lifetime" thread about M&M's in WWII.

 

[Harp]

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?

Madison was a strong proponent of this view.

 

[scotrace]

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.

Your American Cousins are often in the same boat.

I apologize if I leapt to the "oh no, here we go..." point of view. It's a great film and I remember seeing things like it in grade school. It fits perfectly here. We'll expect everyone to stay off the moderne.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here's an interesting radio discussion of the meaning of Democracy from the perspective of 1938. "America's Town Meeting Of The Air" was the most popular broadcast forum of its kind on the air, and though the audience question portion of the broadcasts was sometimes tampered with thru the use of shills and plants, the discussions themselves incorporated a diverse and energetic range of opinion.

 

[vitanola]

Thank you. Now that we've discussed the nuances of the foundation of our gov't, I believe there is a more fundamentally important issue that needs your attention over in the "Vintage Items that Will Not Disappear In Your Lifetime" thread about M&M's in WWII.

I'm suprised to see you trivialize this in such a flip fashion.

That said, keep in mind that the Federalist opinion was pretty well balanced by anti-federalist opinion during the foundational period of our nation. Many things which today are held as commonplace were considered quite radical during the Era which we study, and which, hoary old reactionary that I am, I believe to be the finest flowering of the great American experiment. Proponents of these modern ideal would find themselves amongst som pretty d*rned disreputable company if the travelled back in time eighty or eighty-five years.

 

[BlueTrain]

It doesn't require 51% for them to declare the other 49% to be slaves, apparently, since a few states in 1860 had a majority slave population. The real indignity is in assuming that only black people could be slaves. But that's all in the past now.

I think people misread the object of the so-called founding fathers. They were trying to create a workable national government, not solve all the social ills that they were assuredly aware of. After all, it was the second attempt. It was in some ways relatively conservative, possibly because Jefferson was not there. The previous arrangement resulted in a weak central government, the biggest thing they wanted to correct. What we got wasn't perfect but I don't know of any that works better--so far. I've read that some people believe that some of the amendments are unconstitutional but I don't know which ones they had in mind.

Ironically, many critics of the federal government, and there are many, never seem to mention state and local governments, all of which have a greater impact on our everyday lives than the federal government usually has. And it shouldn't be forgotten that all the colonies had functioning state governments, albeit with royal governors, well before the revolution. That meant, among other things, that basically the same people were running things both before the revolution and afterwards. And they're always going to be people who want to run things, too. That was before corporations became as powerful as they did much later, although there were very powerful (and rich) individuals that were just as influential quite early on.

 

[Harp]

Read Samarth Desai's sophomoric screed, An Imperfect Union: The Case for a Second Constitutional Convention, featured in this month's Harvard Political Review
on the train last night, and aside from the disquisition of his mindset, Desai evidences a radical perspective divorced from any historical, legal, or pragmatic basis.
I was surprised that the HPR accepted such rubbish.

 

[MisterCairo]

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.

Probably a universal complaint. I teach my daughters basic issues they can absorb at their respective ages (the role of the Crown, PM, provincial premier, local municipal roles, etc.). As they get older (currently 11 and about to turn 9), I will ramp up the detail.

A basic understanding of how the "system" works will help them judge how well the system is working...

 

[LizzieMaine]

That meant, among other things, that basically the same people were running things both before the revolution and afterwards. And they're always going to be people who want to run things, too. That was before corporations became as powerful as they did much later, although there were very powerful (and rich) individuals that were just as influential quite early on.

An interesting fact to consider is that in the first Presidential election after the adoption of the Constitution, only about 6 percent of the total population was even eligible to vote. Some democracy.

 

[BlueTrain]

One of the points of the new republic was that those who governed did not govern by right of succession. That is, the son did not inherit his father's position. But such a thing happened almost right away, with the Adams. Of course, he didn't exactly inherit it, no more than George Bush did. But it suggests that there is such a thing as a ruling class. We don't seem to be any worse off for it.

If only six percent of the population could vote, I wonder what percentage actually did. It was, of course, a real working democracy, there being no better word to describe it, except, I guess, limited. In a sense, most governments are democracies, the only differences being in who gets to vote. In some countries, even the kings were elected. Of course, only a few people got to vote (and they were called electors). In at least one case, the position came to be filled by a certain family and it evolved into a hereditary office, even though the office itself was not especially powerful.

 

[Fading Fast]

I see it as the ideals led the practice. Eventually, many of the ideals of the Constitution came to pass - a robust electorate directly voting for their representatives - but based on the conventions and norms of the time, we started far from the ideas and, even now, are still working our way there.

 

[vitanola]

Read Samarth Desai's sophomoric screed, An Imperfect Union: The Case for a Second Constitutional Convention, featured in this month's Harvard Political Review
on the train last night, and aside from the disquisition of his mindset, Desai evidences a radical perspective divorced from any historical, legal, or pragmatic basis.
I was surprised that the HPR accepted such rubbish.

I shudder when I think of what rank and noisome weeds might grow in the manure of a second Constitutional Convention well watered by unlimited amounts of so-called "dark money".

 

[Stanley Doble]

It occurred to me the other day that one of the critical differences in systems of government is this. Do they put the rights of the individual first, or do the masses, the proletariat, the master race, the chosen people or some other group count for everything and the individual for nothing?

In systems where the group is everything and the individual is nothing you can count on mass murder and even genocide, and more likely sooner than later.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, that's happened here. But you left out the corporation, the singular modern institution that might even have more influence than nationalism, itself not that ancient. Will Rogers said, supposedly, that in Russia, the government tells the corporations what to do. In the United States, however, the corporations tell the government what to do. That's the difference between the United States and Russia. And he said that a long time ago.

It also seems to me there are ideas that come out of nowhere that influence what a people, as a whole, does or wants to do. In this country, it was called manifest destiny. If someone else does it somewhere else, however, we call it imperialism. A long time ago, it might have been called a crusade. That's how Prussia came to be German. It's all about land ownership. Who actually owns the land is a different question and how they came to have title to a certain piece of property varied from place to place. The large landowners in much of the world were simply given their land. But that doesn't happen so much anymore.

After Manifest Destiny (It was meant to be!), the nicest idea I've ever heard about land ownership was "God gave this land to me."

You realize of course that this is all very complicated and won't fit on a bumper sticker and it has nothing to do with democracy.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Rugged Individualists Built The West," after being given federal funding and huge grants of land by the U. S. Government. "Visionary Industrialists United America By Rail," after being given federal funding and huge grants of land by the U. S. Government. And so on. You get the idea.

A lot of this propaganda owes itself to the efforts of the National Association of Manufacturers over the decades -- not an individual, but a banded-together coalition of corporations. I guess even the most rugged of individualists is nothing without the power of collective action.