American Democracy

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That's nice, but doesn't mean anything.

ahh but if that means nothing, then

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Articles of Confederation. I think the question of democracy is important. Are we looking at it from our view of democracy, or what democracy meant at the period of time. After all, blacks and women were not considered to be full persons at that time. So, that question is important to consider.

likewise means nothing, since as detached after the fact observers we have no reason to give a rat's arse what the non women non blacks of the time thought either.

So a meaningless response to a meaningless statment seems fitting to me.

[chequita guevara]

We didn't have universal white male sufferage until after the 1841 Dorr County War in Rhode Island.

Slavery was not abolished in 1863. It was abolished with the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1867, except as a punishment for a crime.

[Stefu]

Are we looking at it from our view of democracy, or what democracy meant at the period of time.

We kind of have to take our own viewpoint, don't we? Otherwise we'd be engaging in temporal relativism, that stunted, ugly cousin of cultural relativism, that conservatives often tend to love. You know, the kind where cannibalism and other such uncivilized vices of the third world are condemned on heavy terms but massacre and other such behavior by our ancestors is given a pass because 'they didn't know any better'. And such relativism of any kind should only be fit for, well, hippies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

since as detached after the fact observers we have no reason to give a rat's arse what the non women non blacks of the time thought either.

Doesn't follow. Considering what definition of democracy we are using doesn't lead to caring what blacks and women thought of their plight. If we look at our definition, then it wasn't because they didn't get everyone voting. If we look at theirs, it was because blacks and women weren't considered to have the right. In both cases the opinions of blacks and women at the time don't play a part.

Otherwise we'd be engaging in temporal relativism, that stunted, ugly cousin of cultural relativism

Hi, I'm a relativist .

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

since as detached after the fact observers we have no reason to give a rat's arse what the non women non blacks of the time thought either.

Doesn't follow. Considering what definition of democracy we are using doesn't lead to caring what blacks and women thought of their plight. If we look at our definition, then it wasn't because they didn't get everyone voting. If we look at theirs, it was because blacks and women weren't considered to have the right. In both cases the opinions of blacks and women at the time don't play a part.

Otherwise we'd be engaging in temporal relativism, that stunted, ugly cousin of cultural relativism

Hi, I'm a relativist .

I love this sort of discussion! I'll have to dig this thread up again when I get back.

Anyway, Why should we look at their definition as opposed to the definition that blacks or women would have given? For that matter why should we look at anybody elses's definition when we have our hands full enough as it is just looking at our own definition?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Geronimo

Anyway, Why should we look at their definition as opposed to the definition that blacks or women would have given? For that matter why should we look at anybody elses's definition when we have our hands full enough as it is just looking at our own definition?

Remember, they didn't even call their system a Democracy. In fact, they stringently denied that they were creating a Democracy, and created a governing structure that was designed to mitigate the power of popular opinion. If they didn't think that they had a Democracy, then why should we say that they did?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why should we look at their definition as opposed to the definition that blacks or women would have given?

Cause they weren't in power. They didn't set up the system. So their definition isn't important in determining what the era called such a system at the time. The 'era' is defined by those in power.

For that matter why should we look at anybody elses's definition when we have our hands full enough as it is just looking at our own definition?

Because the question, IMO, concerns whose definition to use first. That's the premier question, WHAT that definition is, is second.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Remember, they didn't even call their system a Democracy. In fact, they stringently denied that they were creating a Democracy, and created a governing structure that was designed to mitigate the power of popular opinion. If they didn't think that they had a Democracy, then why should we say that they did?

Well, do we consider a Democratic Republic to be a democracy? After all, the largest party in the first 50 years of the republic were called the "Democratic Republicans". Of course they changed their name to the "Democratic" Party with Andrew Johnson.

[Spiffor]

The meaning of the word "democracy" has eveolved since then (I don't think that a country is a "democracy" if it claims to be one). Basically, the only past experience of a democracy the world had known at the time of the Founding Fathers was the Greek city-State. It has changed since then.

There are now definitions of "democracy" (liberal democracy to be accurate) that have the extension of political and civil rights, as well as checks and balances as the core of the definition. Voting is only one component of the definition of the liberal democracy, and it's not even the most important. A liberal democracy is all about restraining the majority (politically and non-politically speaking) from abusing its powers, and the possibility to "throw the rascals out" is more a means to that effect than an end. The ideal of the liberal democracy is strongly influenced by Anglo-Saxon liberalism.

The US is a clear-cut case of a liberal democracy. I'd say it has been as such as soon as all citizens enjoyed an equality of rights, i.e. after the end of segregation*


*I know there are several issues of "equal rights" that haven't been worked out yet, making the US not exactly corresponding to the ideal of liberal democracy (gay marriage, blacks on death row...). However, the scope of these issues is pretty trifle in comparison with the way an average dictatorship treats the rights of its citizens.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The US is a clear-cut case of a liberal democracy. I'd say it has been as such as soon as all citizens enjoyed an equality of rights, i.e. after the end of segregation*

*I know there are several issues of "equal rights" that haven't been worked out yet, making the US not exactly corresponding to the ideal of liberal democracy (gay marriage, blacks on death row...). However, the scope of these issues is pretty trifle in comparison with the way an average dictatorship treats the rights of its citizens.

Yeah but I think "equal rights" are up to interpretation. There is no definitive version of equal rights as I'm sure members of PETA will argue. I think the scope of equal rights should be defined by a groups opportunity to infuence their position, not the relative position of the group.

[Zoid]

There´s democracy in the US?

Vote Banana!

[Sava]

no banana option

[Harry Tuttle]

So here's a brain bender: Is a democracy defined by the ability of a group (or person) to represent itself, or the opportunity for a group (or person) to represent itself?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo

How can you have any kind of democracy (rule with the explicit consent of the majority) when the majority can't vote?

The same reason we can talk about the ancient greek Democracies which had large slave populations and noncitizens who couldn't vote. Because it is a significant advance which was different from the way in most of the rest of humanity lived.

[Zoid]

The latter of course. If there´s no opportunity for representation there´s not any democray.