I have heard this very often, most recently when I stopped on CSPAN while dean was on. people constantly say america was a setup to give the people power to select their government. but 227 years ago, the only people allowed to vote were white landowning males. (that was hardly "the people") women weren't allowed to vote, blacks were considered property except under special circumstances (like serving in the revolution with the army or a militia) and native americans weren't even considered full people.

(for mor information: History: The Right to Vote

questions to debate:

though it is NOW semi-democratic (a true democracy wouldn't use an electoral college or pluralistic voting system) was america really set up to "give the power to the people"?

why is this lie taught to school children? should they not be taught the complete truth?

America was founded a Republic and Democracy was seen as 'mob rule'. Democracy (tyranny of the masses) was theoretical as the basis for the rule of law. Al Gore was not exactly wrong when he said 'the experiment of American self-government continues', that's actually what it is.



That or starting the preamble 'We the People' in the Constitution is the slickest con-job in the history of Government. Who could 'We the People' refer to I wonder.

You are targetting an issue here that has long frustrated me.

What distinguished the founder's vision for this country was not the concept of democracy. In fact, they were skeptical of democracy, and built safegaurds into the system to prevent a direct democracy.

The unique and distinguishing element of the US was the idea of creating a system of delegated, enumerated, and therefore limited federal powers.

We were founded on the concept that there were distinct limits to what the federal government was allowed to do, and these limits were explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

America was not founded as a Democracy, but as a Constitutionally Limited Republic, which chose democractic methods (as the lesser of all evils) for determining its leadership.

The answer to why this is not taught in schools is, I think, complex. But basically, we have now evolved to a point in general where society's view of government has shifted from "protector of our inherent, natural rights as human beings" to "provider of all our wishes, equalizer of all unfairness, preventer of all possible harms, etc, etc.". This view of government has permeated all of our society, including the press, the major political parties, and the educational establishment.

Should kids by taught "the truth"? The dangers of unlimited government and the original vision of a Constitutionally Limited Republic? Of course.

But don't hold your breath.

Children are taught this in schools. The woman’s suffrage movement and the civil rights era are a big part of American history in schools. Clearly children who are first learning about our government are taught a simpler, watered down version, but that is how people learn. You cannot teach the more complex until you have learned the simple. Sometimes that simple version is not exactly correct. Take economics. One must learn the basics like supply and demand, before one can tackle the complex practical models. Keynesian supply and demand isn't the whole truth, in fact it's fairly bad at making predictions, but without it, you have no base what the more complicated, 'truer' models. History is the same. Children are taught a simpler model of our history before they can understand things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Does anyone here recall being told, in a public school, that the defining concept in the creation of the US government, the thing that separated it from all past governments in human history, was the concept of limiting the power of the government via a constitution?

If so, was this "limited government" concept given even 1/100th the attention that was given to the concept of "democracy"?

Children are NOT taught this in schools from my experience....

My point is that children learn about our government, they learn that at some point women had to fight for the right to vote, and they learn about the civil rights movement in February.

If I’m wrong about this, then the public schools of our nation are failing worse than I expected. What do children possible learn if these major events are skipped?

I think we're talking about two different things, and looking back at the post that started this thread, I think I'm the only one that is talking about what I'm talking about, so I'll shut up now.

I understand they learn about womens sufferage, and civil rights, but when I was in school they never taught that POOR WHITE MEN had to fight to get a say, (though they got it sooner) and only rich white men were allowed to say who could run our government. I have heard numerous people say that our government was set up so the power of government rested mostly with the people. this is obviously not true. only rich white men could vote initially. therefore the power of government didn't rest with the average person as some seem to think (such as howard dean) but with the landowners that were white men.

phaedrus, it seems to me when the founders said "we the people" they were speaking on behalf of everyone, they were a vangaurd party. this is the same thing russia had that people seem to deplore as "evil" (an elite party overthrowing the old system (on behalf f everyone) and setting themselves up as the new rulers) yet here, it is a "good" thing?

The Founders viewed an informed electorate as the basis of good governance.

At the time of the Revolution, it was thought that only landowners were informed enough to vote. This tradition came from Great Britain, in which a similar restriction applied.

The United States was never an experiment in direct democracy. As PrismPaul says, the US was, from the outset, a Constitutionally-limited Representative Republic.

As the public became more informed, more and more groups got the right to vote.

Universal Suffrage was not attained until the 20th century.

The US is not, and has never been, a direct democracy. The term "democracy" is used as a simplification only.

Thus the expression 'representative republic'. Here it is a good thing in that it leaves open the voice of protest against the elite and the vanguard. In Russia they decided what was best for the people in private then they passed laws that were brutally inforced. In America it was built from the local bodies up to the Federal level and in Russia, like most of Europe, it was from the top down. That is the difference, it is a good thing when it reflects a concensus but government has had very little luck creating a concensus. Self-government is more of an ideal then a reality, but in the America we at least believe that it is possible. Keep in mind that America was the first time that government gave preferance to the will of the people. As opposed to telling the common man what is best for him, indivudully and collectively. Here it is was built from the local bodies to the Federal level and that has made all the difference.

I was taught...
1) That the United States was a... nay, THE... Democracy in the world.
2) The United States was discovered by Christopher Columbus.
3) The United States never committed any wrongdoing.
4) No other nation in the world had concepts of equal rights.
Then, I read 'A People's History of the United States' and these preachings were smashed into the ground.
See, these schooltexts like to show -just enough- of the truth (i.e., women's rights movement) to make the USA seem all-knowing and perfect.
Was the US originally a democracy? No. It was a fascist plutocracy.
Is it a democracy now? No. It is a representative plutocracy.
Are there, or have there been, any truly democratic nations? No. Plutocracy is too often equated with democracy....

Exactly.
I can't disagree with those who claim that the US isn't a democracy, but I must point out that there is a reason we tell school children that we are. Aside from simplicity, the simple fact is that the ideals we claim to stand for are better than what we have ever achieved.
Democracy doesn't have to mean bread and circuses, pretending that an "elite" class is any less self interested than anyone else has been proven wrong time and again.

Most eloquently stated, Grendel. gg.

Shinwa, avoid using one liners in America's Debate. They do not contribute substantively to a debate.

This thread depends on a definition of democracy. If we are talking about constant direct democracy, then the United States is not a democracy. But if you are talking about a system that uses the standards of citizenship of its day and has a government that uses representatives to conduct its affairs and direct democracy to choose its executive and a combination of directly elected representative to fill out the judiciary then America is your country.

I think we are a democracy. We also are a country that is firmly committed to capitalism and the accumulation of wealth and, for better or worse, wealth gets its voice in our political system and especially in our legal system (a high cost to participate in this system). The people in this country too often abrogate their responsibility to vote their conscience in elections and we often get stuck with two mediocre choices in a given election. But as the recall in California shows, a true populist voice emerges from time to time to serve warning to the powers that be. Of course Arnold will probably become a fairly pliable figure in the hands of Pete Wilson his manager, but cest the vie, the people did speak. (even if it was only to say it would be cool to have an action film star as governor)

I also happen to think that the United States is the most successful experiment in democracy in the history of government. Even though our founding fathers did not have perfect equality running in the late 18th century, they were ahead of their time. Thomas Jefferson's eloquent words in the Declaration of Independence have successfully served as a statement of philosophy for 1776 and a call to action for subsequent generations.

I believe George Washington wasn't voted the democratic way?

There was no one that thought that there was a better qualified person to be the first president of the United States. If that's not democracy I don't know what is.

How was George Washington not voted in the democratic way? He was appointed the head of the Continental Army by the representatives of the Continental Congress. He was made the president of the constitutional convention as elected by the collected representatives of twelve states. He was unanimously elected to be the first president of the United States.

George Washington is the only President I'll agree with you on...
After that, if you were a rich, white male, you got to vote on which guy a "more important" person voted on.
Now, everyone of age can vote....
But they still vote on who someone else should vote for.
And, to make matters more disturbing, these people we place our faith in? If they think we're crackheads, they can say, hell with it, and put someone else in. The popular vote, actually means nothing.

America has never been a "democracy". We have always been a democratic-republic. It might not be what we today consider to be a big step; allowing males property owners to vote. However it's better than a tyrrant, or a legislature of tyrrants.

I would also like to point out that I think it's highly ethnocentric to stand around pointing out historical flaws that others made, who are we to say we would have acted any different in that time or place. You should be fit to judge that which you know, not that which you think you would precieve. And that's not to say that we can't point out historical flaws or that we can't say "Hitler was a bastard". It just means that some things in this world were sufferable steps in making progress. Most people today think that "an eye for an eye" is a bad idea, however it is the first written attempt to create order.

Edited to add:

Loki,
George Washington couldn't have been more democratically elected even if he hadn't been elected. He's the only president that has ever been elceted, where 99.999999999999999% of America wanted him. Don't forget, "the defender of the mothers, shall be the protector of our daughters".

I realize that america is a repubilc, and perhaps I should have named the thread something else. the fact that america is a democracy or not isn't the topic of debate.

my specific questions were:

was america really set up to "give the power to the people"?
(as has been asserted time and time again)

and

why is this lie taught to school children? should they not be taught the complete truth? (I never learned that only landowners could vote until I was into my late teens)

perhaps the adminitrators could change the title to "was america set up to give the people power"?

Maybe this does not answer your question but I am trying to address it.

The government gets its sovereignty from the people. The people of the United States not god not a hereditary monarch, and not a corporation, and not a bureaucracy.

Legitimacy stems from the voting booth in the United States.

We have evolved, inspired by the words of Thomas Jefferson, from limited male caucasian suffrage to universal adult suffrage.

So, yes the power is in the hands of the people and our founding fathers were visionary when they implemented their system. And it has worked exceedingly well with a loose interpretation of the constitution in adapting and thriving with the changing eras of history.

The United States was never a democracy. It was a constitutional republic.

It's interesting to note that many of the indigenous native - American Cultures that existed before the coming of the supposedly more 'advanced' Europeans, were actually engaged in an infinitely more representative way of life than the people of the Empires which committed their genocide.

And America today is in the middle of a death spiral, as it's individual states give up more and more of their freedom and resources to a federal government that is just to powerful to be benign. Absolute power and all that.

...to complete the thought. Those Native Americans also fought hundreds if not thousands of years of bloody wars. Actually I think I'm begining to side with the land owners ONLY getting a vote like it used to be. I think the founders saw the dangerousness of giving people the power of voting without having any stake in the American dream. IE..some people have no qualms about raising property taxes because they don't own property. Chicago and the Daily machine, if you wanna look at a monarch in America, pretty much does what he wants when he wants. Pretty sick huh?

Simple way to get states rights back is to get stricter judges on the bench enforcing law rather than making law.

cusbilla

I would argue that we are a republic with democratic tendencies. We are a republic in that we do choose our elected leaders to carry out decisions on our behalf. We are more democrtic though, because we have near universal suffrage, as well as items like the recall, petition, and initiative processes. I think that we have a healthy medium between a republic and democracy. At the same time, I would like to see other reforms such as instant runoff voting, full inclusion of candidates at debates(my criteria?-make it onto the ballot in all fifty states) as well as significant campaign finance reform.

Thanks for the revised debate question. Now it makes sense to me, whereas in the original I could only have replied by giving my "This is a republic, not a democracy" speech.

Yes, I do think America was set up to give the power to the people. It did this by carefully delineating and limiting the role of government, thus leaving the people free to live their own lives, free of government interference. That it was set up as a limited constitutional republic rather than a democracy was fundamental to that, since a democracy allows majorities to trample minority rights. Thus the idea was to empower individuals, not to empower the collective. You can have one or the other, but not both. If you want to empower the collective, that will necessarily come at the expense of individual rights. Our founders opposed that idea, as do I.

In short, not at all.


You see, James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, can sum up the political views of most of the founders in a single statement. He claimed the purpose of government was to "protect the minority of the opulent from the majority." He most famously said this phase during the Constitutional Convention; the same Constitutional Convention in which Alexander Hamilton, the father of our modern government economic policy, argued for 9 hours that we should have a king. Virtually no one disagreed. The only person that might have disagreed was Thomas Jefferson, and he was over in France at the time.

What did Madison mean when he said this? Well, you see, quite a few of the founders had what is really a childish view of human nature. You see, at the time, the Enlightenment, which was a great influence on the founders, tended to believe that the people could not govern themselves, and instead must be governed by kind, just, enlightened individuals. So, James Madison set up our government in a way that would protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. He figured that everyone would work together "enlightened statesmen" and "benevolent philosophers" to create the best possible America. He didn't think the people could do it, be he figured smart, rich people could do it. Now, when you look at history, you see that this didn't happen, and Madison himself saw it. I mean, very, very quickly, he saw that it just wasn't working, as soon as 1892. He thought the Republican system was failing and condemned the "daring depravity of the times" as he put. The minority of the opulent did not use the power they had been given to become "benevolent philosophers," but in his words rather to become the "tools and tyrants of government" that "overwhelm government with their powers and combinations and are bribed by its largesses."

So no, it was not a democracy. It was designed to be the opposite of a democracy. It was designed the keep the people out of government while the enlightened "minority of the opulent" would take care of them. We really didn't get away from that at all until the Jackson administration, and thank God we did, or we'd have very few rights at all today.

Thanks Rattlesnake, I havent been Chomskied in a while, that was refreshing!

Heh, I do believe Rattlesnake said essentially the same thing I did, just with opposite spin.