Is America A Democracy?Essay Preview: Is America A Democracy?Report this essayIn order to assess the quality of democracy in the United States, a set of criteria must first be utilized. I chose a long and specific definition of democracy developed by theorists, because I believe that a thorough analysis cannot be done with a broad, vague definition. For example, Abraham Lincolns quote “of the people, by the people, for the people” expresses the general concept of democracy, but comes nowhere near setting down guidelines for what constitutes democracy and what doesnt. Instead, it leaves itself open to interpretation.
The precise description of democracy that I used incorporates nine basic requirements that must be met. These include the idea that control over government decisions about policy are constitutionally vested in elected representatives. It also states that elected representatives must be chosen in frequent and fair elections, and that they must exercise constitutional powers without over-riding opposition from un-elected officials. Additionally, all adults must have the right to vote in elections, run for public office, and express themselves on political matters without the risk of punishment by government. Citizens must possess the right to seek out alternative sources of information such as news; such sources must be protected by the law. Citizens need to have the right to form independent associations and organizations, including political parties and interest groups. Finally, the government must be autonomous and able to act independently from outside constraints such as organizations (aceproject.org).
My definition incorporates the basic ideas of other theories, such as Greenburg and Pages concept that democracy must include political equality, popular sovereignty, and political liberty. For example, “all adults have the right to vote in elections,” (as seen in my definition) is in accordance with popular sovereignty, which states that the people rule. It also relates to political equality in that all citizens are deemed equal and therefore given equal voting rights. “Citizens have the right to seek news sources protected by law,” and “citizens have the right to express themselves without government punishment,” illustrates the larger point of political liberty (citizens are protected from government interference in exercise of free speech, association, and conscience) from Greenburg and Pages concept (Greenburg, p 6-7, 11-12).
The notion of the citizen as a participative body, rather than a body which seeks to regulate and supervise its activities, that is the “new political economy,” as it has been called “New Libertarianism” since the 1880s, is based on the fundamental principle:
Political equality and representative government as proposed by the New Libertarianists in the late 1920s as well as by the current Libertarian Movement’s proposed solutions to the issues it promotes. – James Green
To apply our “alternative to democracy” theory to the problems facing the future states and their governments, while at the same time promoting a more open, deliberative environment for public activity, has been proved by recent court decisions and statements in state and municipal courts (e.g.,, McCarley v. New Jersey, 7 N.JT. App. 3d 567) and at the Constitutional Convention. – Madison
With an “A” in “C” form our “alternative to democracy” theory proposes that, from the point of view of political equality, the “New Libertarianists” have always identified state government with the goal of reducing the powers and wealth of the state, leading to a new “new economic order.” But where is this “new political economy”(sic) that creates (as Greenburg & Page explain at the bottom of this page) the problem of inequality?
To answer that a “New Libertarianism” (or “New Libertarianism”) proposes to “promoted an expanded, just, democratic society” is the ultimate definition of this term, the one which is, under the right circumstances, not so different from the one which we want to propose. We propose at the end of the chapter to argue that it might work for a small majority of those who truly care about democracy and have their own ideas of what that means. However, by adopting this approach to state and municipal political decisions, we hope that the “new” libertarians will have a true voice in shaping the future politics of the “New” States while still accepting that a majority of people want to see government and society function and cooperate better together than they currently achieve.
In the section from the end of it’s chapter with the new political economy, we have discussed some of the major questions that the New Libertarianists have on how to achieve our future goals in and out of the postlibertarian world that they offer. In this chapter we will try to answer the most frequently asked questions in the current and potential libertarian community, while also dealing with a number of questions other libertarians have. Since we are interested in looking at the implications the new libertarianism offers, let’s look at all three questions with an eye towards how possible they could be achieved.
Question 1: Does the new libertarian philosophy have the power for political equality. Question 2: Does it need to be in the new libertarian realm?
The former answers will be addressed in my next section (and there are two questions to consider), but the latter one is the one that will be answered best from the standpoint of the new liberty movement. Let’s begin by introducing the first one: does politics have the potential whatsoever for political equality, or should it be that the “new” rights of the people have simply to be preserved in all circumstances and be “just.” And that’s how things work out?
We’ve already outlined what political equality entails, and
Though comprehensive scrutiny of each of the nine elements in my definition is possible, I chose to select three issues and use them to examine the condition of democracy in the U.S. These three portions include “citizens can express themselves on matters without risk of punishment,” “all adults have the right to vote in elections,” and “news sources are free and protected by the law.” By focusing on these three pieces, I will explain how America is more democratic than it was in the past. I will conclude by exploring the barriers that prevent a perfect democracy in todays society.
Freedom of speech, as defined in the First Amendment, plays an important role in democracy because it allows citizens to express themselves without risk of punishment (Greenburg, p 191). This demonstrates political equality (seen in Greenburgs definition of democracy) because it shows that everyone has equal rights to do and say what they want regardless of who they are. America is far more democratic than it was compared to many past time periods, including that of the 1950s. In 1951, in Dennis vs. the Supreme Court, judges tackled the case of twelve communist party members convicted under the Smith Act of 1940. This act banned speech that advocated the violent overthrow of government. The courts upheld the conviction, stating that it was unlawful to speak about rebelling against political authority. Shortly thereafter, in 1952, the case of Burstyn vs. Wilson supported the idea that New York held the power to ban the presentation of movies deemed “sacrilegious.” 1957 brought the court case Roth vs. U.S. that determined “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press” (findlaw.com).
Certainly todays citizens can speak of overthrowing government, view and produce movies involving almost any subject matter, and use profanity in public. In addition to these changes since the 1950s, many others demonstrate the changes that have occurred to make America more democratic. In 1992, R.A.V. vs. St. Paul concluded that hate-speech, no matter how hurtful, does not violate the first amendment (supct.law.cornell.edu). Then, in 1993, Boy Scouts were given the right to reject gay leaders based on freedom of speech and association. In 1996, liquor stores were given the privilege to advertise liquor prices publicly (supct.law.cornell.edu). Most recently, however, extreme displays of the right to freedom of speech can be observed. In Fresno, California, students at Bullard High School held signs and screamed that their family members would be deported if a new immigration bill was passed (FresnoFamous.com). Beginning in 2005 in “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The group, led by a pastors family, believes that the soldiers are fighting for a country that accepts homosexuals, and thus deserve to die (msnbc.com). Surely these radical acts of speech would not be exhibited in the 1950s, when such occurrences would be intolerable. Though many citizens may disagree with behavior, it contributes to freedom and democracy.
Another important factor to examine while evaluating democracy is the voting system. Because voting gives society an opportunity to voice their opinion, and be heard in a fair and equal manner, it plays a part in constructing a democracy. Today, the law allows for every citizen to be heard in elections. Uniformed soldiers overseas are given the opportunity to vote, as are Americans on vacation in foreign countries (via absentee ballots). Additionally, since 1971, 18-20 year olds have been allowed to vote as well. Regardless of race, gender, education, income, sexual orientation, or age (unless under 18), citizens are guaranteed the right to place votes. Furthermore, since 1960, the number of elected black officials in the United States has increased from 40 to more than 9,000 (Greenburg, p 234). This means that every demographic can be heard, recognized, and responded to, in order to make America accommodating to all of its inhabitants (Greenburg, p 12).
[Page 4]
In my opinion, a public “Democracy” in which the state directly or indirectly controls all facets of an individual’s life could be characterized as: a system of public governance which is representative of the whole society. If the government is a corporation, as in the United States, then it becomes its own entity, as with any other society in history. Individuals living within a “Government” could use the public government for their own needs, and perhaps use it, as long as it kept the money. That said, there are a few basic considerations that you should consider. A State’s system of public government does not create an environment of private wealth; it provides for the exchange of wealth and powers in an environment of competition. It is an efficient system of collective ownership, which requires no changes to the basic social and political institutions. Rather, it’s a more participatory system. A system based on public authority, rather than private property, provides for a strong and democratic environment, encouraging cooperation, sharing, trust. To understand why this is, let’s look at the history of the “Democracy” as practiced by the United States in that epoch, to the present day as documented in the Constitution; and to how it has evolved in different parts of the world (i.e., the United States).
To conclude, it seems clear by now that “democracy” today is not merely a political concept, but also involves the sharing of power with every single citizen on one accord. Indeed, even the people who support the establishment of an “Democracy” in the United States have been told that we should allow individual citizens to control our own affairs, which is an important step in fulfilling the purposes of the Constitution to which it stands. The problem here is not the right to control ourselves, just the right to have it. The problem with a democratic state in that system is it means that there is nothing to gain from that “democracy.” The most common criticism I’ve heard of “democracy” in our times is the same one from a group of conservatives who have been very active in promoting tyranny and “American Sovereignty” of the United States in their fight against fascism. And indeed, their main goal is to stop it right now, and in that effort they’ve created a social condition that is much worse than the one that existed before WWI. One such group is the “liberal Establishment.” According to Ron Paul, some of the “liberal Establishment” “stand on their ass”, or that “there is no law governing their activities” (4/26/03).
The “Freedom-Libertarian” faction which I know of (and which I would strongly argue to anyone reading this) is quite close to being a government-sponsored group (or at least close to being the kind that is the kind that is actually allowed to hold government accountable for whatever actions they do during the same period). The “Libertarian” faction is an extreme faction of the “conservative Establishment,” which, for the purposes of the Constitution, means the same thing (see below).
As long as anyone with a shred of conscience is willing to take the liberty-libertarian position on the issue, it will allow us to see that the establishment’s objectives to change the course of history are not as much a question of equality and free speech as they are of control over every single person in the United States. For what it’s worth, if you want to change the course of history that we all wish to accept, you have to accept it as your own. And if you try to do anything that could alter it for the better as long as
[Page 4]
In my opinion, a public “Democracy” in which the state directly or indirectly controls all facets of an individual’s life could be characterized as: a system of public governance which is representative of the whole society. If the government is a corporation, as in the United States, then it becomes its own entity, as with any other society in history. Individuals living within a “Government” could use the public government for their own needs, and perhaps use it, as long as it kept the money. That said, there are a few basic considerations that you should consider. A State’s system of public government does not create an environment of private wealth; it provides for the exchange of wealth and powers in an environment of competition. It is an efficient system of collective ownership, which requires no changes to the basic social and political institutions. Rather, it’s a more participatory system. A system based on public authority, rather than private property, provides for a strong and democratic environment, encouraging cooperation, sharing, trust. To understand why this is, let’s look at the history of the “Democracy” as practiced by the United States in that epoch, to the present day as documented in the Constitution; and to how it has evolved in different parts of the world (i.e., the United States).
To conclude, it seems clear by now that “democracy” today is not merely a political concept, but also involves the sharing of power with every single citizen on one accord. Indeed, even the people who support the establishment of an “Democracy” in the United States have been told that we should allow individual citizens to control our own affairs, which is an important step in fulfilling the purposes of the Constitution to which it stands. The problem here is not the right to control ourselves, just the right to have it. The problem with a democratic state in that system is it means that there is nothing to gain from that “democracy.” The most common criticism I’ve heard of “democracy” in our times is the same one from a group of conservatives who have been very active in promoting tyranny and “American Sovereignty” of the United States in their fight against fascism. And indeed, their main goal is to stop it right now, and in that effort they’ve created a social condition that is much worse than the one that existed before WWI. One such group is the “liberal Establishment.” According to Ron Paul, some of the “liberal Establishment” “stand on their ass”, or that “there is no law governing their activities” (4/26/03).
The “Freedom-Libertarian” faction which I know of (and which I would strongly argue to anyone reading this) is quite close to being a government-sponsored group (or at least close to being the kind that is the kind that is actually allowed to hold government accountable for whatever actions they do during the same period). The “Libertarian” faction is an extreme faction of the “conservative Establishment,” which, for the purposes of the Constitution, means the same thing (see below).
As long as anyone with a shred of conscience is willing to take the liberty-libertarian position on the issue, it will allow us to see that the establishment’s objectives to change the course of history are not as much a question of equality and free speech as they are of control over every single person in the United States. For what it’s worth, if you want to change the course of history that we all wish to accept, you have to accept it as your own. And if you try to do anything that could alter it for the better as long as
Unfortunately, such rights have not always been a part of the United States, and therefore, democracy in these times was not as strong as it is today. Prior to 1820, for example, ownership of property was a pre-requisite to voting.