Comments on: The Paradox of Elections in Democracy http://breakingthought.com/uncategorized/democracy-revealed-why-elections-arent-even-an-aspect-of-democracy All roads lead to Rome Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:55:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: amicus http://breakingthought.com/uncategorized/democracy-revealed-why-elections-arent-even-an-aspect-of-democracy/comment-page-1#comment-2 amicus Thu, 31 May 2007 23:11:27 +0000 http://zlrstavis.net/respublica/theory/politics/democracy-revealed-why-elections-arent-even-an-aspect-of-democracy#comment-2 Your point that the US is a republic more on the model of Rome than a democracy more on the model of Athens is well taken. But this was not the case at the inception of the revolution in 1775 nor at the promulgation of independence a year later. The original United States was more liken to Greece than to Rome. The diverse communities that fought the revolution had formed a confederation in order to foster a cohesive struggle against the Crown. It was not, I believe, their original intention to submerge their sovereignty under a unitary authority to replace the Crown, though it was undoubtedly the intention of some of the citizenry. The long war against the British ended in 1781; a treaty of peace was signed in 1783; The constitution was not ratified until 1787; the government operating under that constitution, did not sit until 1789 and the last of the original colonies did not ratify it until more than a year later. George Washington, who was not the first president of the United States but was first president of the American republic, did not take office until 1789, 13 years after independence was declared. For well over a decade, the country had been governed under the Articles of Confederation, a plan of governance that gave more power to the states than to a central authority. The struggle between the federalists, who supported a strong central government, and the anti-federalists, who supported strong local governments can be looked at as a struggle between those who wanted a Roman model and those who wanted a Greek one. The Roman model won out. The upper branch of the new legislature was called the senate. Senators under the original constitution were not elected by the citizenry but appointed; a system that stayed in place until the early twentieth century. The official seal of the US Senate bears a pair of crossed fasces lictoriae, symbols of Roman Imperium. Those are indications that it was the Roman Republic and not Athenian democracy that the formers of the new government saw as their historical antecedent. I believe that with the advent of the US Constitution, the US became a republic and any talk of democracy entered the realm of platitude to be rolled out like its gaudy national banner at pompous patriotic events. Thomas Paine, theoretician of the American revolution whose inflammatory pamphlet, Common Sense sold 120,000 copies in the colonies, said of George Washington, “I do not know whether you have lost your principles or that you never had any” when he realized that the American revolution had been hijacked by an elite. Parallels between Rome and the US are not new. From early days through nineteenth century territorial expansion into the current time, I believe you will find more academic discussion about a Rome-like republic devolving into an empire than you will about the US as an Athenian-like democracy. And those discussions often seem to revolve about the romanticization of New England town meetings. And even more ominous for the future, with the rise of the christian right, the US may be doomed to follow the Roman model even further. As it dissolved from an empire into the roman catholic church, will the US become a theocracy spreading its gospel by the sword as it attempts to subjugate the heretics? Your point that the US is a republic more on the model of Rome than a democracy more on the model of Athens is well taken. But this was not the case at the inception of the revolution in 1775 nor at the promulgation of independence a year later. The original United States was more liken to Greece than to Rome. The diverse communities that fought the revolution had formed a confederation in order to foster a cohesive struggle against the Crown. It was not, I believe, their original intention to submerge their sovereignty under a unitary authority to replace the Crown, though it was undoubtedly the intention of some of the citizenry.

The long war against the British ended in 1781; a treaty of peace was signed in 1783; The constitution was not ratified until 1787; the government operating under that constitution, did not sit until 1789 and the last of the original colonies did not ratify it until more than a year later. George Washington, who was not the first president of the United States but was first president of the American republic, did not take office until 1789, 13 years after independence was declared.

For well over a decade, the country had been governed under the Articles of Confederation, a plan of governance that gave more power to the states than to a central authority. The struggle between the federalists, who supported a strong central government, and the anti-federalists, who supported strong local governments can be looked at as a struggle between those who wanted a Roman model and those who wanted a Greek one.

The Roman model won out. The upper branch of the new legislature was called the senate. Senators under the original constitution were not elected by the citizenry but appointed; a system that stayed in place until the early twentieth century. The official seal of the US Senate bears a pair of crossed fasces lictoriae, symbols of Roman Imperium. Those are indications that it was the Roman Republic and not Athenian democracy that the formers of the new government saw as their historical antecedent.

I believe that with the advent of the US Constitution, the US became a republic and any talk of democracy entered the realm of platitude to be rolled out like its gaudy national banner at pompous patriotic events. Thomas Paine, theoretician of the American revolution whose inflammatory pamphlet, Common Sense sold 120,000 copies in the colonies, said of George Washington, “I do not know whether you have lost your principles or that you never had any” when he realized that the American revolution had been hijacked by an elite.

Parallels between Rome and the US are not new. From early days through nineteenth century territorial expansion into the current time, I believe you will find more academic discussion about a Rome-like republic devolving into an empire than you will about the US as an Athenian-like democracy. And those discussions often seem to revolve about the romanticization of New England town meetings.

And even more ominous for the future, with the rise of the christian right, the US may be doomed to follow the Roman model even further. As it dissolved from an empire into the roman catholic church, will the US become a theocracy spreading its gospel by the sword as it attempts to subjugate the heretics?

]]>