It did so by embracing representation, the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the protection of individual rights—all concepts that were unknown in the ancient world where democracy had earned its poor reputation. In a large and diverse society, populist passions are likely to dissipate, as no single group can easily dominate.
Yet while dependent on the people, the Constitution did not embrace simple majoritarian democracy. The states, with unequal populations, got equal representation in the Senate. The Electoral College also gave the states weight as states in selecting the president. But the centrality of states, a concession to political reality, was balanced by the House of Representatives, where the principle of representation by population prevailed, and which would make up the overwhelming number of electoral votes when selecting a president.
The American experiment, as advanced by Hamilton and Madison, sought to redeem the cause of popular government against its checkered history. Given the success of the experiment by the standards of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we would come to use the term democracy as a stand-in for representative democracy, as distinct from direct democracy.
Consider that President Abraham Lincoln, facing a civil war, which he termed the great test of popular government, used constitutional republic and democracy synonymously, eloquently casting the American experiment as government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The Fourteenth recognized that all persons born in the U. The Fifteenth secured the vote for Black men. Subsequent amendments, the Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth, granted women the right to vote, prohibited poll taxes in national elections, and lowered the voting age to Progress has been slow— and s ometimes halted, as is evident from current efforts to limit voting rights —and the country has struggled to become the democratic republic first set in motion two centuries ago.
At the same time, it has also sought to find the right republican constraints on the evolving body of citizens, so that majority rule—but not factious tempers—can prevail. For good reason, they are growing as disenchanted with democracy as the people of Oxford, Massachusetts, did. The politician who best intuited this discontent—and most loudly promised to remedy it—is Donald Trump. The claim that he would channel the voice of the people to combat a corrupt and unresponsive elite was at the very core of his candidacy.
Donald Trump won the presidency for many reasons, including racial animus, concerns over immigration, and a widening divide between urban and rural areas. But public-opinion data suggest that a deep feeling of powerlessness among voters was also important. I analyzed data from the American National Election Studies.
Trump has no real intention of devolving power back to the people. His biggest legislative success, the tax bill, has handed gifts to corporations and the donor class. A little more than a year after America rebelled against political elites by electing a self-proclaimed champion of the people, its government is more deeply in the pockets of lobbyists and billionaires than ever before.
To avoid further damage to the rule of law and the rights of the most-vulnerable Americans, traditional elites should appropriate even more power for themselves.
But that response plays into the populist narrative: The political class dislikes Trump because he threatens to take its power away. It also refuses to recognize that the people have a point. America does have a democracy problem. Two decades later, the U. Too old and weak to travel to Washington to collect the money himself, Trist hired a prominent lawyer by the name of Linus Child to act on his behalf, promising him 25 percent of his recovered earnings.
Congress finally appropriated the money to settle its debt. But now it was Trist who refused to pay up, even after his lawyer sued for his share. Extreme as this case may appear, it was far from idiosyncratic. In her book Corruption in America , the legal scholar Zephyr Teachout notes that the institutions of the United States were explicitly designed to counter the myriad ways in which people might seek to sway political decisions for their own personal gain.
Many forms of lobbying were banned throughout the 19th century. Over the course of the 20th century, lobbying gradually lost the stench of the illicit. But even once the activity became normalized, businesses remained reluctant to exert their influence.
As late as the s, major corporations did not lobby directly on their own behalf. Instead, they relied on collectives such as the U. Chamber of Commerce, which had a weaker voice in Washington than labor unions or public-interest groups. Powell Jr. All of this began to change in the early s. Determined to fight rising wages and stricter labor and environmental standards, which would bring higher costs, CEOs of companies like General Electric and General Motors banded together to expand their power on Capitol Hill.
At first, their activities were mostly defensive: The goal was to stop legislation that might harm their interests. Of the organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business. Steve Israel, a Democratic congressman from Long Island, was a consummate moneyman. Over the course of his 16 years on Capitol Hill, he arranged 1, fund-raisers for himself, averaging one every four days. Now it is beyond broken. A model schedule for freshman members of Congress prepared a few years ago by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee instructs them to spend about four hours every day cold-calling donors for cash.
The party encourages so many phone calls because the phone calls work. Total spending on American elections has grown to unprecedented levels. From to , reported federal campaign spending doubled. Big donors and large corporations use their largesse to sway political decisions. The people we spend time with day in and day out shape our tastes, our assumptions, and our values.
The imperative to raise so much money means that members of Congress log more time with donors and lobbyists and less time with their constituents. The problem goes even deeper than that. Democrats might have risen through the ranks of local trade unions or schoolhouses.
Republicans might have been local business or community leaders. Establishing that promoting democracy is beneficial does not, however, resolve all the questions that surround U. These questions include: Can the United States encourage the spread of democracy or must democracy always develop indigenously?
How can the United States promote democracy in other countries? Which policies work and under what circumstances do they work? Any comprehensive case for why the United States should promote democracy must address these questions. Note 3: Quoted in Henry S. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller, eds. At least some members of the Clinton administration continue to argue for promoting democracy. Note 5: Robert D. Kaplan, "Was Democracy Just a Moment?
Note 8: Philippe C. Plattner, eds. Note Samuel P. Note For discussions of the differences between ancient and modern conceptions of democracy, see M.
I am indebted to Bradley A. Thayer for reminding me of this important distinction. Note Although the term "liberal" has become an epithet hurled at those on the left of the American political spectrum, virtually all American politicians and most of those in Europe embrace the basic principles of liberalism. Liberalism is most closely associated with the political thought of John Locke and John Stuart Mill, although Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith also contributed to its development.
Note Some liberals, however, regard electoral democracy as one of the "core norms" of liberalism. See, for example, Holmes, The Anatomy of Antiliberalism, p. Note Many political and moral philosophers have addressed this issue and it would be impossible to do full justice to their arguments in this essay.
Two good places to start exploring these issues are Charles R. For a brief overview and evaluation of the contending positions in the debate over whether there are moral obligations to foreigners, see Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Note More generally, democracies are more likely to enjoy political stability.
Huntington, The Third Wave, pp. Note R. Rummel presents his definition explicitly: "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise loosely understood as including at least two-thirds of adult males ; where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights.
Note See Rudolph J. Rummel calls genocide and mass murder "democide," and distinguishes such killings from battle deaths. He reports that between and over million people died in democides, compared to about 34 million battle death in wars.
See also Rummel, Power Kills, chap. Emphasis in original. For a more detailed elaboration of Rummel's explanation, see Power Kills, especially chapter Note Kim R. Sen makes it clear that democracy may not be a necessary condition for preventing famines, it does appear to be sufficient.
Klare and Daniel C. Thomas, eds. Martin's, , p. Note Sen, "Freedoms and Needs," pp. Sen points out that the democratic political processes that prevent famines may be less effective in avoiding less urgent problems such as nonextreme hunger, illiteracy, and gender discrimination. Note Sen, "Freedoms and Needs," p. A considerable body of opinion suggests that famines and hunger are not caused by a global or country-by-country shortage of food but by the failure to distribute food to those who most need it.
See Collins, "World Hunger," pp. Many Indians have, however, suffered from hunger and malnutrition since , but the country has avoided the catastrophic famines that previously plagued it. Note Jack S. Rotberg and Theodore K. Rabb, eds. Note Michael W. Reprinted in Brown, Lynn-Jones, and Miller, eds. Note See Stuart A. Are the Freer Countries More Pacific? Note For one of the earliest statements of this finding, see Melvin Small and J. Rummel, for example, claims that libertarian states, which tend to be more democratic than others, are less likely to resort to international violence.
Such states will at least inflict fewer casualties in wars, even if they go to war as often as other types of states. Some studies find that disputes between democracies and nondemocracies are less likely to escalate to war that disputes between nondemocracies, See Zeev Maoz and Nasrin Abdolai, "Regime Types and International Conflict, ," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.
Clifton Morgan and Sally H. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. David Lake also suggests that democracies have advantages in the conduct of international politics, but concludes that this advantage makes democracies more likely to win wars.
See David A. Russett and Maoz find that the normative model is more powerful. Note David P. Note Diamond, Promoting Democracy in the s, p. For the argument that population growth is higher in authoritarian regimes, regardless of their level of wealth, see Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, "Democracy and Development," paper presented to the Nobel Symposium on Democracy's Victory and Crisis, Uppsala University, Sweden, August , , pp. Note See Robert I. Note Randolph M.
Note David E. Note Huntington, The Third Wave, p. Cambridge, Mass. Porter, "Is the Zone of Peace Stable? Waltz, "America as Model for the World? A Foreign Policy Perspective. Note An earlier criticism claimed that proponents of the democratic peace had failed to develop a theoretical explanation of the empirical finding that democracies do not fight each other.
This criticism is no longer valid, because there is no longer any shortage of explanations. Instead, proponents of the democratic peace have advanced several explanations and they continue to explicate and refine the logic of each.
Note John J. Note For this variant of realism, see Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future. See, for example, Charles L. On balance, realist theories lead to the conclusion that democracies cannot enjoy a perpetual peace, not that democracies often will be at war. Recently, some scholars have combined realist theories with elements of explanations of the democratic peace.
Note For contending perspectives on relative gains, see David A. Baldwin, ed. For a pessimistic realist view of how concern over relative gains inhibits cooperation, see John J. Note See Baldwin, ed. Note See Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future," p.
Note that proponents of the institutional-structural explanation agree that the logic of the model predicts that democracies will be less belligerent toward all types of states. Note Kant argued: "If the consent of the citizenry is required in order to determine whether or not there will be war, it is natural that they consider all its calamities before committing themselves to so risky a game. Note Layne, "Kant or Cant," p.
Note On the weaknesses of the normative explanation more generally, see Ray, Democracy and International Conflict, pp. In addition to above cases, others that are mentioned frequently include: Lebanon-Israel, ; Germany in the s; and Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Note Ibid. Note Stephen M. Spiro, "The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace," also finds that democracies have a strong tendency to ally with other democracies.
Note Edward D. See also Andrew J. Mansfield and Snyder reply in ibid. Mansfield and Snyder object to Enterline's focus on militarized international disputes MIDs instead of wars, but a strong case can be made for this choice. Wars usually come out of MIDs, which create the opportunity for leaders to play nationalist cards and to otherwise behave and Mansfield and Snyder fear. Note Marc F. Note The relationship between liberalism, democracy, and ethnic conflict is complex.
See Michael E. Brown, ed. Montville, ed. Note Historically, of course, democracy has faced ideological challenges from Marxism, Fascism, and Monarchism. None of these is a significant force in contemporary world politics, so I have focused on the challenge from proponents of "Asian Values. Note Howard W. A Debate Cambridge, Mass. Allison, Jr. Beschel, Jr. These links are posted as a courtesy. The original English version is authoritative and should be used when citing or quoting the paper.
Journal Article - Research Policy. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA Quarterly Journal: International Security. US-Russian Contention in Cyberspace. Adobe Stock. The Geopolitics of Renewable Hydrogen. What Comes After the Forever Wars. Full event video and after-event thoughts from the panelists. Author: Sean M. Lynn-Jones March Introduction After the Cold War ended, promoting the international spread of democracy seemed poised to replace containment as the guiding principle of U. Introduction In recent years, however, many writers have criticized the idea that the United States should attempt to spread democracy.
Defining Democracy and Liberalism A. Defining Democracy "Democracy" is notoriously difficult to define. Liberalism and Democracy Democracy can be defined as a set of political procedures involving participation and competition, but liberalism is a political philosophy that is based on the principle of individual freedom.
America's Goal: Liberal Democracy Given the variety of definitions of democracy and the distinction between democracy and liberalism, what type of government should the United States attempt to spread?
The Benefits of the Spread of Democracy Most Americans assume that democracy is a good thing and that the spread of democracy will be beneficial. Democracy is Good for the Citizens of New Democracies The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under democratic governments.
Democracy Leads to Liberty and Liberty is Good The first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is by promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom to own private property. Democracy Enhances Long-Run Economic Performance A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity over long periods of time.
Democracies Never Have Famines Fourth, the United States should spread democracy because the citizens of democracies do not suffer from famines. Democracy is Good for the International System In addition to improving the lives of individual citizens in new democracies, the spread of democracy will benefit the international system by reducing the likelihood of war.
The Evidence for the Democratic Peace Many studies have found that there are virtually no historical cases of democracies going to war with one another. Why there is a Democratic Peace: The Causal Logic Two types of explanations have been offered for the absence of wars between democracies.
Normative Explanations The normative explanation of the democratic peace argues that norms that democracies share preclude wars between democracies. The Spread of Democracy is Good for the United States The United States will have an interest in promoting democracy because further democratization enhances the lives of citizens of other countries and contributes to a more peaceful international system.
Democracies Produce Fewer Refugees Third, the spread of democracy will serve American interests by reducing the number of refugees who flee to the United States.
Democracies will Ally with the United States Fourth, the global spread of democracy will advance American interests by creating more potential allies for the United States. American Ideals Flourish When Others Adopt Them Fifth, the spread of democracy internationally is likely to increase Americans' psychological sense of well-being about their own democratic institutions. Democracies Make Better Economic Partners Finally, the United States will benefit from the spread of democracy because democracies will make better economic partners.
Responses to Criticisms of U. Efforts to Promote Democracy A. The Controversy Over the Democratic Peace Although many political scientists accept the proposition that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another, several critics have challenged claims of a democratic peace.
Criticisms of the Deductive Logic of the Democratic Peace Several criticisms of the democratic peace proposition fault the logic that has been advanced to explain the apparent absence of war between democracies. Absence of Consensus on what Explains the Democratic Peace The Argument: The first, and most general criticism of the deductive logic of the democratic peace proposition holds that the lack of agreement on what causes democracies to avoid war with one another calls the proposition into question.
Democracies may Revert to Autocracy The Argument: A second criticism of the logic of the democratic peace argues that democracies cannot enjoy a perpetual peace among themselves because there is always a possibility that a democratic state will become nondemocratic. Criticisms of the Structural-Institutional Explanation The Argument: Critics of the structural-institutional explanation of the democratic peace make the following arguments. Criticisms of the Normative Explanation The Argument: Scholars skeptical of the democratic peace proposition have not criticized the normative explanation for the democratic peace as much as they have argued against the structural-institutional explanation.
Empirical Criticisms a. Democracies Sometimes Fight The Argument: Critics of the democratic peace point to apparent wars between democracies as evidence that there is no democratic peace. The Absence of War is not Statistically Significant The Argument: Statistical critiques of the evidence for the democratic peace proposition generally argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that the absence of wars between democracies is statistically significant.
Other Causes Account for the Apparent Democratic Peace An additional set of arguments suggests other factors besides shared democracy have caused democracies to remain at peace with one another. Promoting Elections may be Harmful or Irrelevant The Arguments: One of the most prominent recent criticisms of attempts to promote democracy claims that democratic elections often have few positive effects, especially in countries that do not have liberal societies or other socioeconomic conditions such as a large middle class and a high level of economic development.
The Challenge from "Asian Values" The most important contemporary ideological challenge to democracy comes from East Asia and has been called "soft authoritarianism" or the "Asian values" argument.
Conclusion The recent critiques of U. Note Talbott, "Democracy and the National Interest," pp. Note Olson, "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development," p.
Note Talbott, "Democracy and the National Interest," p. Note I am indebted to Sumit Ganguly for bringing this point to my attention. Note Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future," p. Note Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace, p.
For more information on this publication: Please contact International Security. The Author. Sean M. These scholars understood representative democracy — the American variety — to be democracy all the same.
The United States is a republic because our elected representatives exercise political power. History also tells us that Rome was a republic, unlike Athens. When its monarchy was overthrown, Rome developed a republican system of government whereby citizens elected officials who were empowered to make decisions for the public. Hopefully, this post will help lower the heat in the online debate. Constitutional : Our system of government is considered constitutional , because the power exercised by the people and their representatives is bound by the constitution and the broader rule of law.
Federal : Our government is also a federal system, since power is shared between a national government, representing the entire populace, and regional and local governments.
0コメント