Straw Men of Democracy! Savage and Wild!

[Aquila_Be]

In my visits to American right leaning sites, some of which treat the American Constitution as if it were some kind of paper idol, I’m struck by the number of times I encounter a long series of quotes from the so called “Founding Fathers” and other historical figures given to wearing three cornered hats. The quotes are usually delivered in one massive, worshipful barrage. This is a typical example but there are many others.

Perhaps it’s because I never experienced an American education that the quotes appear to be nothing more than a collection of unsubstantiated assertions made by a bunch of demagogues, windbags and frauds. The speakers are solely concerned with demonising a particular form of government (democracy) and make no effort to substantiate their opinions.

The quotes also reveal an astonishingly high level of contempt held by the American political elite of two centuries ago towards the common man. In their eyes the common man was a person who was ignorant, unintelligent, guided by passions and must, at all costs, be prevented from exercising political power in any meaningful way (otherwise disaster would surely follow).

I considered putting this in GQ, but It’s likely that most of the answers would be debatable rather than clear cut, so I put it in GD. Regardless, I hope this does not simply veer off into anything resembling some tedious “constitutional republic v democracy” type of discussion.

We can probably rule out “democracy” as a synonym for “anarchy”, as the tricorn hat set sometimes referred to democracy as a functioning form of government when it suited their “arguments”. The only definitions of democracy I could find on the right leaning sites I mentioned are very brief and run along the lines of: “A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules.” Alternatively: “A democracy is the rule by majority feeling.”

As far as I know, government by referendum or government by majority feeling, as an executive form of government, has never been tried at any time or place.

“to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy…” May 31,1787, Edmund Randolph on the purpose of the Constitutional Convention.

Question 1: What democracy would Randolph have had in mind and expect his audience to have in mind when he made this claim?

“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity”. June 21, 1788, Alexander Hamilton.

This is the only example I could find where a democracy, as a target of verbal abuse, is identified, if rather vaguely, as being a feature of something called: ‘the ancient democracies’. I believe he might have been alluding to those of Ancient Greece, most likely Athens.

Question 2: Did Hamilton have in mind (a) the Constitution of Solon; (b) the constitution of Cleisthenes; (c) Both constitutions; (d) Neither constitution; (e) Some other ancient democracies and, if so, which ones?

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” Samuel Adams.

Question 3: What specific example of a democracy that: ‘wasted, exhausted and murdered itself’ would S Adams have had in mind?

“. . . democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” James Madison. “Essay #10” of The Federalist Papers.

He doesn’t appear to be describing functioning governments at all but a series of civil insurrections. However, assuming that he had a few quasi functioning governments in mind:

Question 4: What specific examples of turbulent, contentious, insecure, short in life, violent in death, democracies would Madison have had in mind?

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” John Marshall, Chief Justice 1801 to 1835.

Question 5: When he made this comparison what specific example of an orderly, balanced republic and a chaotic democracy would Marshall have had in mind?

“I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” Thomas Babington Macaulay.

He did not identify any precedent. Perhaps he was making a prediction. However, if he did have some institution “purely democratic” in mind, then:

Question 6: What example of: ‘ purely democratic institutions’ that destroyed liberty and civilisation would Macaulay have had in mind?

“Democracies are prone to war, and war consumes them.” W.H. Seward.

Different in style to the others who prefer to accuse democracies of being chaotic and disorderly. Seward at least considers democracies capable of developing and maintaining organised militaries with spiffy uniforms.

Question 7: What specific examples of democracies prone to going to war and being consumed by war would Seward have had in mind?

“In democracy there are commonly tumults and disorders. Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.” Noah Webster.

We’re back to tumult, disorder, ‘very bad government’ and tyranny.

Question 8: What specific examples of democracies: ‘tumultuous’, ‘disorderly’ and ‘most tyrannical’ would Webster have had in mind?

"a simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.” Benjamin Rush.

Question 9: What great, evil, simple democracy would Rush have had in mind?

“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.” John Quincy Adams.

He refers to the experience of all former ages so it would be reasonable to infer from his statement that he had many examples from at least two separate ‘former ages’ churning around in his mind.

Question 10: What specific examples of unstable, fluctuating and short-lived democracies would JQ Adams have had in mind?
The following is usually attributed to Alexander Tytler or Tyler but was actually made up by some unknown. However, it’s been quoted so often and with such a high level of approval that for the purpose of this exercise we might as well award Tytler/Tyler an honorary existence.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Question 11: What specific example of a democracy where the voters ‘voted themselves largesse’ then ‘collapsed’ then ‘was followed by a dictatorship’ did the person who concocted this quote most likely have had in mind?
I could have put in many more similar quotes from Fisher Ames, Zephaniah Smith, Alexander Hamilton, John Witherspoon, Samuel Adams and Gouverneur Morris (“We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to the level of folly and guilt.” :rolleyes: ), but that would have made the post twice as long. The sites I referred to previously have no hesitation in using the whole damn lot.

[Odesio]

A lot of these answers might be Athens.

Prone to going to war? Check.

Wasted itself and committed suicide? Arguably a check.

Disorderly and tyrannical? Sometimes, check.

Voted themselves largess? Check.
A straight democracy has a lot of serious problems. A lot of people are swayed by sudden emotions and in a stressful time may vote for some seriously bad laws.
Marc

[magellan01]

The founders were afraid of a pure democracy (one man, one vote, and nothing more) as it might create great swings and fluctuations. At its worst it, as the previous poster said, is prone to emotional desires and decisions. There can be a fine line between a simple majority and mob rule. Thus, they decided on a representative democracy and federalism.

[Aquila_Be]

@MGibson

A lot of these answers might be Athens.

Prone to going to war? Check.

Wasted itself and committed suicide? Arguably a check.

Disorderly and tyrannical? Sometimes, check.

Voted themselves largess? Check.
A straight democracy has a lot of serious problems. A lot of people are swayed by sudden emotions and in a stressful time may vote for some seriously bad laws.
Marc

If Athens was in the minds of even some of the persons quoted then that city state is getting a horrendous amount of mostly unjustified abuse based on a distorted view of the various political periods experienced in Athens. I’m not at all convinced of this. Hamilton is the only one who was vaguely up front about it. Ancient Athens went through different forms of government over a period of several hundred years.

I think it’s more likely that the ‘founding fathers’ might have had a less than honest agenda of their own, hence the demonisation of a concept that they might have seen as a hindrance to their own political ambitions.

Re your comment:

A straight democracy has a lot of serious problems. A lot of people are swayed by sudden emotions and in a stressful time may vote for some seriously bad laws.

Please identify one straight democracy.

[Aquila_Be]

@magellan01

The founders were afraid of a pure democracy (one man, one vote, and nothing more) as it might create great swings and fluctuations. At its worst it, as the previous poster said, is prone to emotional desires and decisions. There can be a fine line between a simple majority and mob rule. Thus, they decided on a representative democracy and federalism.

They could not possibly have had any experience of ‘one man one vote’ outside a committee framework.

Look at the eleven quotes and questions above.

They all discuss this evil thing called ‘democracy’ or ‘democracies’ as if that form of government was simultaneously an anarchy, a tyranny, a chaotic, evil, tumultuous, short-lived, unjust ‘very bad’ form of government, yet nowhere can I find a single one of them - perhaps Hamilton excepted - who actually describes what the hell they’re referring to.

The above quotes sometimes refer to ‘democracy’ and sometimes to ‘democracies’ and I cannot ascertain what example or examples in history they had in mind.

Is it possible that not one of those persons I quoted really had an actual government in mind at all. Perhaps it was simply a scarecrow they made up to justify leaving the people as a whole with an amount of political power so small as to be essentially useless.

[Odesio]

@Aquila Be

If Athens was in the minds of even some of the persons quoted then that city state is getting a horrendous amount of mostly unjustified abuse based on a distorted view of the various political periods experienced in Athens. I’m not at all convinced of this.

That’s fine. If you’ve got a better idea of what he might have been talking about then I’m all ears. I can’t think of another ancient democracy other than Athens that they might have been talking about back then.

I think it’s more likely that the ‘founding fathers’ might have had a less than honest agenda of their own, hence the demonisation of a concept that they might have seen as a hindrance to their own political ambitions.

The idea that they might have been talking about Athens or that they had their own agendas are not mutually exclusive.

Please identify one straight democracy.

To what end? I don’t have to identify one to see the inherent flaws in such a system. Athens had a democratic system and they were quite prone to making poorly thought out and rash decisions. Why would I believe a straight democracy would be even better?

Marc

[Odesio]

@Aquila Be

They could not possibly have had any experience of ‘one man one vote’ outside a committee framework.

Have you never heard of a New England town meeting?

Marc

[Aquila_Be]

@MGibson

I can’t think of another ancient democracy other than Athens that they might have been talking about back then.

So your suggested answer to each of the questions one through to eleven is ancient Athens in each case.

I’m not at all convinced. I don’t believe ancient Athens deserved that kind of over the top abuse, but thanks.

Any other suggestions from the SD?

[Aquila_Be]

@MGibson

Have you never heard of a New England town meeting?

Marc

Town and village meetings are not exclusive to America and I find it hard to believe that the people responsible for the eleven quotes in the OP had that in mind.

[Odesio]

@Aquila Be

Town and village meetings are not exclusive to America and I find it hard to believe that the people responsible for the eleven quotes in the OP had that in mind.

As do I but that wasn’t what I was addressing.

@Aquila Be

They could not possibly have had any experience of ‘one man one vote’ outside a committee framework.

@Me

Have you never heard of a New England town meeting?

I daresay that some of them did in fact have some experience with one man one vote in the form of New England town meetings.

Marc

[mswas]

@Aquila Be

Town and village meetings are not exclusive to America and I find it hard to believe that the people responsible for the eleven quotes in the OP had that in mind.

Except that a lot of them were probably referring directly to their experience with New England town meetings. Why do you discount their own direct experience as being influential upon their later writings? Certainly they sought an erudite approach toward elucidating their feelings on the matter, and for that they looked to antiquity, but I imagine the unruly mob nature of the early formation of this nation probably influenced them a lot.

Hamilton was quite obviously enamoured with central authority.

[Aquila_Be]

@MGibson

As do I but that wasn’t what I was addressing.

I daresay that some of them did in fact have some experience with one man one vote in the form of New England town meetings.

Marc

And a committee could be regarded as a mini town meeting. It’s not relevant to the quotes.

[Aquila_Be]

@mswas

Except that a lot of them were probably referring directly to their experience with New England town meetings. Why do you discount their own direct experience as being influential upon their later writings? Certainly they sought an erudite approach toward elucidating their feelings on the matter, and for that they looked to antiquity, but I imagine the unruly mob nature of the early formation of this nation probably influenced them a lot.

Hamilton was quite obviously enamoured with central authority.

Okay.

[magellan01]

@Aquila Be

They could not possibly have had any experience of ‘one man one vote’ outside a committee framework.

Look at the eleven quotes and questions above.

They all discuss this evil thing called ‘democracy’ or ‘democracies’ as if that form of government was simultaneously an anarchy, a tyranny, a chaotic, evil, tumultuous, short-lived, unjust ‘very bad’ form of government, yet nowhere can I find a single one of them - perhaps Hamilton excepted - who actually describes what the hell they’re referring to.

The above quotes sometimes refer to ‘democracy’ and sometimes to ‘democracies’ and I cannot ascertain what example or examples in history they had in mind.

Is it possible that not one of those persons I quoted really had an actual government in mind at all. Perhaps it was simply a scarecrow they made up to justify leaving the people as a whole with an amount of political power so small as to be essentially useless.

I think mwas summed things up pretty well. But I think that your last paragraph misses the mark. They were trying to create an enduring government. One where the will of the people could affect change, but not at whim. For it to be enduring, they had to make sure that the very engine that could produce change wouldn’t produce drastic change overnight and jeopardize the whole idea.

[Aquila_Be]

@magellan01

I think mwas summed things up pretty well. But I think that your last paragraph misses the mark. They were trying to create an enduring government. One where the will of the people could affect change, but not at whim. For it to be enduring, they had to make sure that the very engine that could produce change wouldn’t produce drastic change overnight and jeopardize the whole idea.

They were trying to create an enduring government.

Then why did they need to drag in this scary thing they called ‘democracy’ or ‘democracies’ and all the dreadful things that are supposed to have happened (where? when?) or would inevitably happen under such system?

one where the will of the people could effect change, but not at whim.

Has never happened, nowhere, notime, no planet.

For it to be enduring, they had to make sure that the very engine that could produce change wouldn’t produce drastic change overnight and jeopardize the whole idea.

No system of government in history (excluding those experiencing a civil insurrection or those ruled by a dictator) ever experienced overnight changes that would jeapordise the government system.

So, do the eleven questions in the OP have valid answers?

I’m beginning to believe they don’t.

[smiling_bandit]

They were talking about Athens, and also some other lesser states IIRC. A big second was Rome. The Roman Republic was a huge influence on America. But at the same time, they recognized that the democratic elements were often the very worst. It amounted at times to near-mob rule, with the powerful whipping the public into a frenzy aimed at their enemies. This was to be avoided. They may also have had in mind Poland, which IIRC had recently been dismembered by Prussia, Austria, and Russia in large part due to the fact that its more-or-less democracy of nobles couldn’t agree on anything and thus had a crippled central government in times of danger. On a more positive note, they probably saw that the nearby Amerindians used a variable semi-democratic system to keep power from concentrating easily but permitting organization, and could easily guess at the reasons.

In short, and I’m sure you mean well Aquila Be, these were very educated men who had a vastly more broad array of classical history than I suspect anyone on this board can imagine, and

[Sage_Rat]

The Federalist papers, where probably most if not all of the quotes come from, spend hundreds of pages giving complex arguments, history, and reasoning for the constitution as it was written. A handful of paragraphs taken out of context–probably most coming from the introduction of a new chapter, before getting to the meat that supports the assertion–doesn’t tell you much of anything at all about the foundation for the proposals, and could perfectly well be nothing more than a particular selection chosen to say what the author of the website wants it to say.

Overall, you’re better off to just read the Federalist.

[Aquila_Be]

@smiling bandit

They were talking about Athens, and also some other lesser states IIRC. A big second was Rome. The Roman Republic was a huge influence on America.

So the answer to all eleven questions was Ancient Athens followed closely by Ancient Rome.

Thank you.

But at the same time, they recognized that the democratic elements were often the very worst. It amounted at times to near-mob rule, with the powerful whipping the public into a frenzy aimed at their enemies. This was to be avoided.

Demagogues who provoke and inspire mobs to riot work outside any political process, no matter what its form or what name you choose to call it. All governments aim to reduce the risk of insurrection. There’s was no need for those I quoted to verbally assail some scary creature called ‘democracy’ while trying to develop a government framework.

They may also have had in mind Poland, which IIRC had recently been dismembered by Prussia, Austria, and Russia in large part due to the fact that its more-or-less democracy of nobles couldn’t agree on anything and thus had a crippled central government in times of danger.

I’m reasonably familiar with both the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers. I cannot recall any reference to this in any context.

On a more positive note, they probably saw that the nearby Amerindians used a variable semi-democratic system to keep power from concentrating easily but permitting organization, and could easily guess at the reasons.

Same answer as immediately above.

I’m sure you mean well Aquila Be

You likewise smiling bandit

[Odesio]

@Aquila Be

Then why did they need to drag in this scary thing they called ‘democracy’ or ‘democracies’ and all the dreadful things that are supposed to have happened (where? when?) or would inevitably happen under such system?

Start with Nine Greek Lives by Plutarch, move on to History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, and then The Histories by Herodotus and you’ll see plenty of examples that might worry some of the Founding Fathers.

No system of government in history (excluding those experiencing a civil insurrection or those ruled by a dictator) ever experienced overnight changes that would jeapordise the government system.

If you read Nine Greek Lives pay special attention to the biography of Alcibiades. The Athenian’s actions in regards to Alcibiades played a significant role in the reason they lost the Peloponnesian War.

I’m beginning to believe they don’t.

You’ve been provided answers but they just don’t seem to satisfy you.

Marc

[Lust4Life]

I think that Republican Rome is a good candidate,their democracy suicided by firstly appointing a life dictator(J Caeser))after who.s murder and the subsequent civil wars heir became First Citizen ie. a nice name for Emperor (Augustus) and so on.

But the Republic lasted five hundred years so it didn’t die off quickly.

Switzerlands form of democracy is still running so it isn’t that and apart from the obvious I can only think of some Norse societies that had communal decision making gatherings called a Thing or AllThing in amongst other places Iceland and the Isle of Man but they are maybe a bit too obscure to be used as a reference in those times.

So I’ll go for ancient Athens.