Is it true that America had a democracy for a short time?

[karlschneider]

Okay, sorry folks...saw a similar subject and it made me think about how things are going "here" (betraying my own tendency to Americentricize this forum)...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=256899

And I'll stipulate that "we" have generally embraced a democratic republic (funny how those words have diverged, politically)...but I think my question is still valid given what has happened the last 2.5 years under the quasi-leadership of G.W. Shrub & Cabal.

I've never heard this short phrase, so perhaps I'm coining it..."We deserve what we allow."

[xJlM]

1. It didn't work

Corporate interests and the military/industrial complex weren't making enough money, so changes were made (starting back in 1963). I wish we had a little icon for sarcasm...

[IndianaGreen]

2. America never had a democracy, nor was it intended to have one

If you go to the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, people of color were not citizens, and neither were poor whites that had no property. There was no popular vote for the Senate, having the state legislatures elect the Senators. Presidents were never to be elected by the people, and still aren't!

We are a fine example preaching freedom and democracy to the world when we are neither!

[gristy]

4. Those are very interesting historical points, IG.

But is it possible then that democracy in America peaked, say in the early 60's, with the civil rights act and (unfortunately) the rise in corporatism at the same time?

[Ein]

8. I would say the early 1900's

The "progressive era".

[izzie]

6. Women, do recall that they were not recalled at all.

We also did try church states and they also did not work.

[DBoon]

11. maybe way back

You talk about the Constitution. What about the 10 years or so that the US was under the Articles of Confederation?


See:


http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

[Junkdrawer]

3. The twin threats of a changing racial demographic and a demanding...

aging population made it "impractical." Unfortunately, the alternative is proving far more disastrous than democracy would have been.

[villager]

5. per your phrase...

... I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said "democracy means people get the government they deserve."

He may have had a pithier word or two in there than my version, but I think I have the gist...

[Ein]

7. Capitalism done the wrong way.

It could've worked. Reading Zinn's rather cynical review of the founding of this nation leaves me with questions on what was really intended for this country.

Powerful interests can legally bribe every politician in this country, that is undeniable. The government, by and large, cares little about the majority.

Capitalism definately went wrong somewhere in this case. The most striking example I can see as of recent is the internationalization of our labor, which leaves the populous open to third world conditions, if such trends continue.

It's a scary world.

[realFedUp]

9. probably the purest democracy was when Indians lived freely

in this country...before the white man brought disease,
guns, greed for land.

I don't know that we've had a pure democracy since.
Anyone?

[bowens43]

12. We wouldn't want to live in a pure democracy.

Democracy is tyranny. Majority rule is tyranny. A Constitutional republic protects the minority from the majority. Would YOU want the majority telling you how to live? I wouldn't. The founders got it right for the most part. We have a constitution that can't easily be changed by the majority and therefor protects those who are 'different'.

Pure democracy? No thanks.

[MMT]

16. Isn't that rather elitist?

What makes you think a plutocracy is better?

[ma4t]

10. actually, the framers did not try to extablish a democracy

Any reasonable reading of history will show that those who were the leaders of the revolution and framers of the Constitution were interested primarily in preserving liberty. They viewed a true democracy as a system that would be unlikely to preserve liberty. Most all felt that a democracy would easily become a "tyranny of the majority" with the rights of the minority being trampled.

A fair reading of history shows that their concerns were well founded. From the Alien and Sedition Acts to the era of Jim Crow one can find plenty of examples where a majority has sought to deny basic Constitutional rights to some minority. The Constitution is thankfully one of the most anti-democratic documents around. It is a long list of thing that the majority is not allowed to do.

Think about it, does anyone here doubt what the outcome would be if Alabamians could vote on whether to leave the 10 Commandments monument in the Ala. Supreme Court building? Frankly, I share the founders distrust of direct democracy. A representative republic with severe constraints is much more likely not to intrude on my personal life and liberty.

[sandnsea]

14. Good stuff to remember

People are really getting carried away with majority rule today. The rights of the minority is being lost, the very thing that creates equal rights and our understanding of a 'democracy' in the first place.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi ma4t!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MMT]

17. Really?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't all the cruel laws been created and passed by a minority? I don't seem to recall from history that any of them were submitted to the people for approval. Were they?

Meg

[JohnOneillsMemory]

13. No. Simply. No. Sadly. No. n/t