You are here: Home / BM / Black Americans, Asian Americans, Mexican Americans and White Americans: Revisiting the Foundations – America’s Journey from Athenian Democracy to Constitutional Republic.
Like
Like
Love
Haha
Wow
Sad
Angry
1
(ThyBlackMan.com) I am of a different age. I took science and Biology where I learned humans are mammals and that all female mammals have mammary glands to produce milk to feed their young and so on. It was a simpler age where in the 8th grade we took Tennessee History and the following year, Civics. I would have believed at the time that it was common pedagogy for the majority of US states to teach their state’s history. The lessons I learned then about the form of government practiced by the United States of America appear not to be taught today or even known.
This I find disturbing and it is only accentuated more each time someone calls America a Democracy. Especially when I keep hearing these walleyed ice-coated Rooster know-it-all’s say that President Trump is a threat to our Democracy. How can he be a threat to democracy when America is not a democracy but rather a Constitutional Republic?
Each time I hear some tongue-clucking progressive call our nation a democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic, it is to me, like hearing fingernails scratching a chalkboard. Let me try to explain why mob rule, I mean democratic systems of government are not a good thing and why our nation is not one. I am going to write this from recall so I apologize for not taking the time to look up links as I normally do to include in my writings.
Historically, the concept of democratic systems of government can be traced back to ancient Greece, particularly to the city-state of Athens, when in the 5th century BCE, Athens practiced a form of direct democracy (Athenian democracy). This system only allowed male citizens to participate directly in decision-making processes.
Plato and Aristotle wrote about this and maintained two distinctly divergent positions on democracy. In “The Republic,” Plato, conveyed a deep suspicion of democracy. He believed that democracy could lead to mob rule and the dominance of unqualified individuals in the control of government because most folk the way he saw it were driven by their want for power and emotions, over fact, making them an easy target for being controlled and exploited. He feared that in a democratic society, decisions might be driven by popular opinion rather than logic and reason, which would lead to instability and chaos.
In contrast, Aristotle, a student of Plato, favored democracy. In his work “Politics,” although he noted the potential flaws of democracy, his position was that it could still be a beneficial form of government if structured correctly. He saw democracy as a system where the people had the power to participate in decision-making, emphasizing the importance of a balanced and inclusive government. Aristotle recognized that a well-functioning democracy required institutions that protected individual rights and prevented the tyranny of the majority, contributing to a more nuanced and pragmatic approach to democratic governance compared to Plato’s idealized vision.
While Plato and Aristotle held differing perspectives on democracy, both philosophers were influenced by their teacher, Socrates. Although he did not leave behind written works and is known for his Socratic method of questioning, he did not explicitly provide a comprehensive theory of governance. But based on the historical record of his critical engagement with Athenian democracy, it is clear he was very skeptical of the Athenian democratic system, expressing concerns about the potential for the uninformed majority to make hasty and unjust decisions. He believed that individuals should be guided by reason and wisdom, emphasizing the importance of intellectual virtue and merit over popularity in decision-making. For him, individual moral development and the pursuit of knowledge were the necessary elements for a just society.
The ancient Greek government played a significant role in shaping the foundational principles and structure of the U.S. government. The framers drew upon these influences to create a system that aimed to balance power, protect individual rights, and foster active citizen participation in the democratic process. However democracy would not be the best system after fending off the colonial British Monarchy.
The Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, were instrumental in shaping the United States Constitution and providing insights into the framers’ views on democracy. In these papers, the authors articulated their concerns about the weaknesses of pure democracies and advocated for a representative republic. They argued that direct democracies could lead to the tyranny of the majority and the disregard for minority rights. The Federalist Papers highlighted the need for a system of checks and balances, advocating for a government with separate branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few and protect individual liberties. This is why you do not see the word democracy once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
The Federalist Papers underscored the importance of balancing popular will with the necessity of protecting individual rights and preventing the dangers associated with unchecked majoritarian rule. The framers’ insights laid the foundation for the U.S. Constitution, which incorporated elements of both democratic principles and mechanisms to mitigate the potential pitfalls of unrestrained democracy. The Federalist Papers (written/published anonymously) continue to be regarded as a crucial resource for understanding the framers’ nuanced approach to governance by and for the people, and their efforts to create a government that combines popular representation with safeguards against the tyranny of the majority.
Sometimes I think the left uses the term democracy to describe our governmental system intentionally because I find it hard they do not know this. The reason I suggest this is because I think that the do want mob rule and a tyranny of the majority.
Democrats do have more in common with Socialism and Marxism so it kind of makes sense given that some variations of Marxist thought propose the idea of socialist democracy, emphasizing the need for political and economic structures that serve the interests of the majority, focusing on social justice and inequality – meaning they like it if capitalism is not involved.
Yes, that’s the ticket – they want a system for them, one dominated by unqualified individuals in the control of government because they want a radical transformation of both economic and political structures to achieve a classless and stateless society.
Ben Franklin was correct: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. “Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Staff Writer; Torrance T. Stephens
Can also purchase any of his books over at; Amazon – TTS Books.
