Communists use a different definition of democracy. They regard democracy as government on behalf of the people rather than government chosen by the people. And of course, they feel that a communist system is the government that best serves the people.
So when the Soviets promised to restore democratic governments in Eastern Europe during negotiation in WWII, they were being disingenuous but not outright lying. They did install communist governments, which according to their standards were democratic.
Democracy and republic are not opposites as you appear to believe. A democracy is a political system where the people control the government. A republic is a political system where the head of state is not a hereditary position.
So the United States is a democracy and a republic. The United Kingdom is a democracy but not a republic. China is a republic but not a democracy. Saudi Arabia is neither a democracy nor a republic.
I’m not sure what the distinction is that you’re making between a nation and a country. But the United States is a nation.
For a short period of time, about a decade, we had a single political faction. The fallout of that period lead directly to modern political parties and the two party system.
Click to show/hide
The Federalists and their doomed vision of a US-UK alliance collapsed after the British invaded and then withdrew in 1815. President Monroe aggressively snuffed out any lingering Federalists in state and federal posts. He vowed to abolish the demon of faction from the country once and for all. His presidency was marked by nationalist fervor, with everyone calling themselves a Republican (party of Jefferson). In 1820, Monroe ran for re-election unopposed.
As Monroe tried to play leader of a nation, he neglected his role as leader of the party. His domestic agenda was crippled by intra-party strife, as the Republican party cast such a big tent that its members no longer held a consensus on Jeffersonian principles. Local and state factions thrived but failed to form lasting coalitions at the national level. Monroe is best remembered for foreign policy; despite ambitious plans for constitutional amendments authorizing public works and a national bank, the most significant domestic achievement during his administration was the Missouri compromise.
By 1824 the Republican party had splintered. The constituent Republican parties of the various states nominated five candidates for president, one of which (Andrew Jackson) was not intended to win but only to steal his home state’s EC votes from another candidate. Jackson ended up winning a plurality of the popular vote and a plurality of electoral college votes (note, not everyone could vote at the time the three-fifths compromise inflated Southern states’ EC counts). A run-off election was held in the House of Representatives, where John Q. Adams was elected president. Adams subsequently appointed majority leader Clay to Secretary of State, a position all presidents at that point had previously held. These events turned Jackson into a bitter opponent of the Adams administration and the Republican party disintegrated into personal factions, i.e. “Jacksonites” and “Adams’s men”. So came to an end the “Era of Good Feelings”.
The Jacksonites spent four years cultivating a populist and agrarian movement and opposing the Adams administration. There was tension even within the Adams administration, with Vice President Calhoun endorsing Jackson in 1828 and becoming his running mate. Following Jackson’s ascendancy in 1828, “Adams’s men” became the “Anti-Jackson” or “National Republican” party of Henry Clay, which dominated Congress. Clay was defeated in 1832 and he finally agreed to formed a coalition party with other opponents of Jackson, including the new Anti-Masonic party (which invented the national convention). This became the Whig party and it ran William Henry Harrison in 1836 and 1840. Meanwhile, Van Buren organized the cult of Andrew Jackson into the Democratic party. These new coalitions, for the first time, organized not only at the national level but also injected national politics into state and local races across the country.
1824 is the only contentious election in the history of the U.S. where the electoral college operated as intended. But the shocking result - the candidate with the most electoral votes lost - lead to a wide populist and anti-elitism movement which is still felt today. Jacksonian democracy called for the popular election of local judges and resulted in numerous state constitutions being rewritten, and it lead directly to the first political parties that we would recognize as such rather than loose factions.
I disagree with his views in that post. I feel most people in the United States primarily identify themselves as Americans.
I certainly consider myself to be an American much more than I consider myself to be a New Yorker, even though I was born in New York and have lived here my entire life. I fly an American flag at my house, not a New York flag. In fact I don’t think I have ever seen a New York flag being flown anywhere other than at a state office building.
I don’t agree with Balthisar about the U.S. not being a single nation. But I regularly see many flags of Florida or, less regularly, even the Confederacy.
I don’t think that’s what he meant. We’ll, except for a few Texans.
Rather, we may all identify as Americans, but we have very different ideas of what we want America to be like.
Some like wide open land, others want large urban areas with the associated cultural venues.
Some want few government restrictions, others want the government to place checks on rampant selfish capitalism.
Some want christianity reinforced as the dominant religious and moral code, others want people to be free to choose their own code.
Some want wealth redistribution to allow the have nots a little more parity with the haves, others think people should have so to earn what they get and amass fortunes they pass to their children.
Some want elimination of racism in government services, others want preferential treatment for themselves under the guise of “cultural legacy” or “western civilization”.
Some want strong policing to keep criminals under control, others want reforms to policing and the justice system for better equity.
In a nutshell, basically a red/blue divide.
Or the risk south distinguished from the desert southwest differing from the rainy northwest, as opposed to the midwest, versus New England attitudes.
Or something. I’m not sure there really is a good way to breath up the United States into distinct regions that have internal coherence.
Which things - private citizens flying flags? Not usual in much of Europe outside major international sporting events, and occasionally among political (relative) extremists/nationalists.
A divide over what citizens value, including something that has some regional component but not simple enough that it could be simply broken up into distinct regions.
Is it? Are there regions where there is a broad consensus calling for a different form of government? Because I doubt that. As far as I know, there are no states, or other regions, that are calling for the establishment of a kingdom or a theocracy or even a unitary parliament.
On the one occasion when a section of the country got serious about splitting off, it held a convention and adopted a political system that was nearly identical to the United States.
It seems to me when most Americans are complaining about the government, they’re just complaining about the people they didn’t vote for getting elected.
I have a book recommendation for you: Colin Woodard’s American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. If you’re not up for a reading assignment, here is Business Insider’s summary of the book.
Written back in 2012, we can quibble with how things have drifted somewhat over the past decade and change, or how these “nations” aren’t as homogenous as the topline would suggest. BUT, Woodard does gives excellent historical background for how these distinct national characters have developed from the earliest days.
I feel Joel Garreau did a better job back in 1982 with The Nine Nations of North America. But while both books are interesting in describing regional cultures that exist in North America, I don’t feel either author made the case that these regional cultures rise to the level of nationhood (with the possible exception of Quebec).
By my way of thinking, the political polarization we see has revealed that we have several “identities” crammed into a single geographical area. And while I’d love to redesign America to be something akin to a social democracy; but what about all the Americans who don’t share my lefty values? I don’t want to have to live in a Conservative’s America, but it would be equally unfair to make a conservative live in my America.
The United States: a set of Northern States essentially politically moderate that would be freed from the more radically political elements that would have their respective “homelands” in the west and south. The depolarized government wouldn’t be yanked left and right from one administration to the next, with legislation being ground to a halt by performative brinksmanship.
Kéyah: A social democracy subscribing to many tenets of the Nordic Model, Kéyah has a strong central government that provides a universalist social safety net in exchange for higher rates of taxation. These benefits include free education, universal healthcare (which includes mental health) and public pension plans.
Dixie: Home a variety of of conservatives ranging from neocons to paleoconservatives governed by a set of traditional values guided by both the original United States’ Constitution as well as the Christian faith.
Liberterra: A “night-watchman” state comprised of virtually-autonomous cantons that are free to pursue any school of libertarianism ideology. The government of Liberterra cedes nearly all responsibility to the individual cantons, requiring only that their laws guarantee liberty in both personal an economic matters to its denizens and provide the framework to protect them from coercion and violence.
I have greater descriptions of the nations as well as some alt-future lore that tells the story of how these nations could come to be if anyone is interested.
If we’re starting from where we are now, an awful lot of people would have to move.
The current United States isn’t laid out physically like that; there are enclaves of people who would prefer each of those scattered all over the place, as well as a lot of individual people who are living within enclaves of those who disagree with them.
Disclaimer: after posting, I realized that while I have done a bunch of research regarding real-world redesigning of the government, the stuff I actually posted was mostly hypothetical alt-future stuff. I’d avoid digressing further, but I do want to provide some food for thought regarding your comment about a lot of people having to move.
Yes. Of course.
Again, while this is a hypothetical thought experiment, I have in my research found a lot of precedent for mass migration. Setting aside the nationwide migration westward as the US acquired land, the US has experienced several waves of migration. But more to the point, migration based on political affiliation has already been happening for some time. I already mentioned The Big Sort, but its worth noting that this dynamic seems to be ramping up. I am merely wondering to what degree this real-world ad-hoc dynamic could be more directed and purposeful.
Again, not the point of this thread, but I wanted to share some food for thought worth tasting.
A lot of it’s within the same general area, though. Yes, some people are moving to somewhere multiple states away; but a lot of them are moving only to different neighborhoods within the same state.
That’s a big part of it, yes, but people are trying to sort out the system. There are vocal complaints about the republican advantage in the House and especially the Electoral College. There are complaints that gridlock has become the goal of some. I’ve now heard complaints that the Senate should be done away with. Is that widespread? Probably not, but it’s fascinating that it’s there at all.
Other complaints are that new Constututional Amendments are impossible - such as any attempt to enshrine the rights of Roe v. Wade. That might not be a system failure given the national disagreement over abortion.
I think a lot of the reason we don’t see calls for radical change to government structure is political inertia and a lack of imagination about how things could be different.
I’m not sold the country needs to be restructured, I just offered that as an opportunity for people to really break free from historical legacy and imagine big. I’m also open to smaller reforms that operate within the current framework, but alter the elements that are most frustrating.
Like perpetual deficits, ballooning debt, and frequent government shutdowns to hash out budget agreements. Closing government operations is madness.
Political partisanship has reached levels of hostility that I wouldn’t be surprised to see a motion to make dueling legal in Congress.
Here’s a thought: parliamentary systems are able to declare no confidence, then immediately throw an election. Whereas here in the US we require over a year of hashing out options and series of votes to figure out who the players will be for the big election, and then the decision itself can take weeks. And then the old President is still in charge for 2 months past the election. CRAZY.
