6 ms·

> We did not invent democracy. We didn’t even invent modern democracy. There were parliamentary systems in England and other parts of Europe over a hundred year

> We did not invent democracy. We didn’t even invent modern democracy. There were parliamentary systems in England and other parts of Europe over a hundred years before we created government. This is a pretty foolish statement from an otherwise reasonable article. Parliament in England was not remotely representative until 1867 by the most generous measure, and more reasonably not until the early 20th century. So far as I know, the only modern government of consequence which could lay claim to being a "democracy" prior to the US is probably San Marino, and its representation is, shall we say, odd. I think that the US can indeed lay claim to being the first modern democracy: its government was absolutely radical at the time, and more importantly it stood as an example to other later movements (starting with the French).

kloncks 14y ago
Take the main point and not the details. Here's another example: women/minority voting. Not the first country or culture to allow that, either.
- protomyth 14y ago
  I'm not sure about the parent commenter, but I believe a main point should be allowed to stand if the details are not correct or well thought out. The great slogan no longer inspires me when the details and thus the follow-up are missing.
ImprovedSilence 14y ago
Let's be real, America is a Republic, and Republics came from Rome. Things America doesn't know about america: We are NOT a democracy, we are a REPUBLIC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy
- protomyth 14y ago
  A representative constitutional republic to tell the whole story. The article really lost me on this point. If you look that shallowly at what the Constitution established as a one word description, then yes, there were others before. If you look at the branches and, particularly the division between state and popular representation, the US is much different than what came before. It seems like the typical gloss job we find in high schools these days that really needs to be fixed.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    Actually, a large part of the US government system - for example, the division between federal and state governments - was copied from the Ottoman Empire.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      I may be off but I don't think the Ottoman Empire had a legislator with one house based on population and the other house appointed by the states on an equal basis.
      - saraid216 14y ago
        Since that's not what the grandparent was talking about, you must be peachy.
      - vacri 14y ago
        According to wikipedia, the concepts behind modern bicameralism hearken back to the middle ages, where one house was based on commoners (essentially population), and the other house on the aristocracy (essentially state) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism The independence of the US and its political system was a great moment in history, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. It improved on earlier systems, but also left much to be desired in itself. One clear example is that later democracies allowed plausible multiparty systems, so you're not left with a mere binary choice.
        protomyth 14y ago
        The aristocracy was not essentially states. Your missing the central innovation, one is based on population and one is based on land area division with their own non-uniform governments. Nevermind the structure and powers of the executive branch. Nothing happens in a vacuum, but if you discount everything that had roots in something before, then there is no such thing as innovation in any human endeavor.
        14y ago
- Symmetry 14y ago
  We're both a democracy and a republic. You can have oligarchic republic or theocratic republics or whatever else too. I think that hybridization is what people tend to mean when they call the US the first "modern democracy."
- gnaritas 14y ago
  Let's be real, the word democracy doesn't just mean direct democracy. Our "republic" is and always has been a representative democracy, and it's perfectly appropriate to classify the U.S. as a democracy. Republic and democracy are orthogonal concepts, we are both. The word republic just means our leaders aren't chosen by blood or inheritance. Since we elect our leaders, we are a democracy.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    It'd be interesting to track down the origins of that misconception, that "Republic" and "Democracy" are two different kinds of government. Is it possible that so many people believe this because of the government types in the original Sid Meier "Civilization" game?
- ArbitraryLimits 14y ago
  To adapt the OP's original phrase, I think the US can lay legitimate claim to being the first modern republic, except maybe for the Dutch. Yes, there were nations with a republican form of government before that, but the purpose of that form was fundamentally different. The pre-modern republics were set up to allow all the aristocracy a turn at being king, while modern republics are set up to allow the non-aristocracy to prevent there being an aristocracy. For example, the ancient republics of Athens, Rome, and even Carthage were noted by their neighbors as being especially warlike precisely because, to take Rome as an example, everyone only got six months as consul and so they had to make it by launching wars immediately, both because the plunder would form the basis of their personal and family fortunes and because glory from war was the only goal worthy of an aristocrat. Regular kings, by contrast, could take their time. In the modern world, we don't respect glory in battle or plunder like we used to, and so we use the republican form of government to prevent anyone from amassing too much power on a permanent basis at all. People often think the purpose of voting today is to select the best leader, or at least a good one, but really it's simply to ensure that the current one has to leave since no one can please the majority of an electorate indefinitely.
- bobwaycott 14y ago
  You are wrong. America is a democratic-aristocratic-oligarchic republic whose history has consistently pressed for greater democratic equality. Republics can be almost anything in the world because the classification is based on a single important qualification: the head of state is not a monarch. There is no one true definition of republic. The American founders created a hybrid democratic-aristocratic-oligarchic republic based quite firmly in Montesquieu's classifications, in that it created what was overwhelmingly an aristocratic-oligarchic republic, built around three administrative federal branches, and incorporated limited democracy for landed persons. For 223 years, Americans has been hammering out more of the democracy and less of the aristocracy/oligarchy since it was codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This in no way changes, nor will it ever change, the classification of America's form of government being a republican one. You do yourself and everyone else a disservice by exclaiming the US is a republic and not a democracy when a) the two are not mutually exclusive and the distinction you think exists does not, 2) nobody argues we are a pure democracy--and even if we were, you'd still be hard-pressed to not call such a thing a republic in the modern (and possibly classical) sense, and d) both classical and modern definitions of democracy and republic share intertwined concepts and throwbacks, while still being disputed by some scholars as to whether they even form a historical continuum at all. Statements like this are fodder for bumper stickers, not thoughtful discussions.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not on the same axis. "Republic" defines the origin of sovereign power (the individual citizens). The Soviet Union was also a republic, but was not democratic. "Democracy" describes how that power is exercised (through voting). Technically we're a representative democracy but that is still a type of democracy. The UK is also a representative democracy, but they are not a republic.
astine 14y ago
Actually, to expand on that: The American War for Independence precipitated a major and unprecedented shift in British politics. For the first time the Liberal party gained power in Parliament, and leaders like Edmund Burke instituted major reforms to the political system. That's not to mention the amount of inspiration the French Revolution took from the American one. Italian unification also took inspiration from the American Revolution and there are streets in Rome named after George Washington. The American Revolution, no matter the particulars, was a huge watershed moment in history. It was the first practical application of Enlightenment ideas to a political system at a great scale and it's unlikely that the world would look anything the same had it not happened. Rome or any other country from antiquity having it first does not change that.
- twelvechairs 14y ago
  Yes - the US revolution was historically important, though obviously it built on earlier and contemporaneous ideas (french revolution, etc). In the modern world though, the reality is this is all in the distant past. Most of the world doesn't see the American political system as something to be aspired to any more, which is something a lot of Americans (that I have met) have a hard time understanding.
  - jackfoxy 14y ago
    Check your timeline. The French Revolution was not even conceived of until after the American Revolution came to a conclusion.
    - bobwaycott 14y ago
      You should both read up on the history of the French Revolution, as well as the definition of the word "conceived". Yes, the parent was off in calling out the French Revolution specifically, but the actual statement made was spot-on. The American Revolution was, in fact, built on earlier and contemporaneous ideas, found in myriad writings of mostly non-American Enlightenment thinkers who had been working out various new, altered, subversive, or otherwise novel ideas, studies, and classifications in political theory (among other topics) for nearly 125 years before American founders built upon them in both the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution. A basic review of political theory in the Age of Enlightenment would both confirm for you the correctness of the parent's statements (despite the errant inclusion of the French Revolution), as well as help you see exactly where the American Revolution got the whole of its ideas. America's founders very much imbibed on the Enlightenment, particularly works of political theory. The French Revolution was not in any way "conceived of" as a result of the American Revolution. Instead, it had been growing in its own specifically French/European manner among the salons and their philosophes, and was quite in step with the march of Enlightenment across much of Western Europe. Ultimately this was brought to a head when, seeing that the Americans' disregard for English rule was something they, too, could emulate in order to bring Enlightenment ideals to practical fruition in France, shit got started in the Estates-General in May 1789 (just two months after the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, bringing the fully Montesquieu-esque political system into reality). I apologize if I seem overly pedantic, but when you call out someone to check a timeline based on two words in an otherwise sound comment that added something to the discussion, you should at least ensure you have your own timeline correct--particularly if you are going to be bandying about the idea that Historical Event X "was not even conceived of until after" Historical Event Y. History rarely works like that, especially when it is happening but a handful of years apart. Ultimately, what Abbé Sieyès said in his famous pamphlet, "What is the Third Estate?", is so applicable to both revolutions as to further indicate that a revolutionary wave was both forming and interacting on both sides of the Atlantic (trans-Atlantic intellectual and cultural history is an eye-opening field of study): "What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until now in the political order? Nothing. What does it want to be? Something." The Americans espoused the same sentiment. Neither the American founders nor the Estates-General were owners of that idea, though. They both took it from 125 years of hundreds of intellectuals hammering it out. EDIT: Formatting & a couple extraneous words.
wahsd 14y ago
Two things: One, it's so sad that this country was founded by relatively intelligent people that had radical ideas and revolution in their heart; which has now all but died as we are a dogmatic, stupid, static nation and society with a two party, default winner system. Two, calling our founding political system a modern democracy, or even really a democracy, is rather absurd considering it was a bunch of genocidal racist, sexist, drunkard, elitists that constructed it. By that measure, non-absolute monarchies are also democracies as they relied on the input and votes of their aristocratic classes. We essentially, even now, still live in a system that is far more aristocracy than democracy. Plutarchy is probably even more accurate. we are a democracy in theory, in practice, we are far from it. Maybe you express one of the earliest examples of the seemingly common American affliction to believe that something is such just based on the label. We delusionally like to call things what we want them to be rather than what they are. Probably has to do with our affinity for the superstitious and supernatural.

kloncks 14y ago

Take the main point and not the details. Here's another example: women/minority voting. Not the first country or culture to allow that, either.

protomyth 14y ago
I'm not sure about the parent commenter, but I believe a main point should be allowed to stand if the details are not correct or well thought out. The great slogan no longer inspires me when the details and thus the follow-up are missing.

ImprovedSilence 14y ago

Let's be real, America is a Republic, and Republics came from Rome. Things America doesn't know about america: We are NOT a democracy, we are a REPUBLIC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

protomyth 14y ago
A representative constitutional republic to tell the whole story. The article really lost me on this point. If you look that shallowly at what the Constitution established as a one word description, then yes, there were others before. If you look at the branches and, particularly the division between state and popular representation, the US is much different than what came before. It seems like the typical gloss job we find in high schools these days that really needs to be fixed.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Actually, a large part of the US government system - for example, the division between federal and state governments - was copied from the Ottoman Empire.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    I may be off but I don't think the Ottoman Empire had a legislator with one house based on population and the other house appointed by the states on an equal basis.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      Since that's not what the grandparent was talking about, you must be peachy.
    - vacri 14y ago
      According to wikipedia, the concepts behind modern bicameralism hearken back to the middle ages, where one house was based on commoners (essentially population), and the other house on the aristocracy (essentially state) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism The independence of the US and its political system was a great moment in history, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. It improved on earlier systems, but also left much to be desired in itself. One clear example is that later democracies allowed plausible multiparty systems, so you're not left with a mere binary choice.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        The aristocracy was not essentially states. Your missing the central innovation, one is based on population and one is based on land area division with their own non-uniform governments. Nevermind the structure and powers of the executive branch. Nothing happens in a vacuum, but if you discount everything that had roots in something before, then there is no such thing as innovation in any human endeavor.
        14y ago
Symmetry 14y ago
We're both a democracy and a republic. You can have oligarchic republic or theocratic republics or whatever else too. I think that hybridization is what people tend to mean when they call the US the first "modern democracy."
gnaritas 14y ago
Let's be real, the word democracy doesn't just mean direct democracy. Our "republic" is and always has been a representative democracy, and it's perfectly appropriate to classify the U.S. as a democracy. Republic and democracy are orthogonal concepts, we are both. The word republic just means our leaders aren't chosen by blood or inheritance. Since we elect our leaders, we are a democracy.
- tptacek 14y ago
  It'd be interesting to track down the origins of that misconception, that "Republic" and "Democracy" are two different kinds of government. Is it possible that so many people believe this because of the government types in the original Sid Meier "Civilization" game?
ArbitraryLimits 14y ago
To adapt the OP's original phrase, I think the US can lay legitimate claim to being the first modern republic, except maybe for the Dutch. Yes, there were nations with a republican form of government before that, but the purpose of that form was fundamentally different. The pre-modern republics were set up to allow all the aristocracy a turn at being king, while modern republics are set up to allow the non-aristocracy to prevent there being an aristocracy. For example, the ancient republics of Athens, Rome, and even Carthage were noted by their neighbors as being especially warlike precisely because, to take Rome as an example, everyone only got six months as consul and so they had to make it by launching wars immediately, both because the plunder would form the basis of their personal and family fortunes and because glory from war was the only goal worthy of an aristocrat. Regular kings, by contrast, could take their time. In the modern world, we don't respect glory in battle or plunder like we used to, and so we use the republican form of government to prevent anyone from amassing too much power on a permanent basis at all. People often think the purpose of voting today is to select the best leader, or at least a good one, but really it's simply to ensure that the current one has to leave since no one can please the majority of an electorate indefinitely.
bobwaycott 14y ago
You are wrong. America is a democratic-aristocratic-oligarchic republic whose history has consistently pressed for greater democratic equality. Republics can be almost anything in the world because the classification is based on a single important qualification: the head of state is not a monarch. There is no one true definition of republic. The American founders created a hybrid democratic-aristocratic-oligarchic republic based quite firmly in Montesquieu's classifications, in that it created what was overwhelmingly an aristocratic-oligarchic republic, built around three administrative federal branches, and incorporated limited democracy for landed persons. For 223 years, Americans has been hammering out more of the democracy and less of the aristocracy/oligarchy since it was codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This in no way changes, nor will it ever change, the classification of America's form of government being a republican one. You do yourself and everyone else a disservice by exclaiming the US is a republic and not a democracy when a) the two are not mutually exclusive and the distinction you think exists does not, 2) nobody argues we are a pure democracy--and even if we were, you'd still be hard-pressed to not call such a thing a republic in the modern (and possibly classical) sense, and d) both classical and modern definitions of democracy and republic share intertwined concepts and throwbacks, while still being disputed by some scholars as to whether they even form a historical continuum at all. Statements like this are fodder for bumper stickers, not thoughtful discussions.
snowwrestler 14y ago
The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not on the same axis. "Republic" defines the origin of sovereign power (the individual citizens). The Soviet Union was also a republic, but was not democratic. "Democracy" describes how that power is exercised (through voting). Technically we're a representative democracy but that is still a type of democracy. The UK is also a representative democracy, but they are not a republic.

astine 14y ago

Actually, to expand on that: The American War for Independence precipitated a major and unprecedented shift in British politics. For the first time the Liberal party gained power in Parliament, and leaders like Edmund Burke instituted major reforms to the political system. That's not to mention the amount of inspiration the French Revolution took from the American one. Italian unification also took inspiration from the American Revolution and there are streets in Rome named after George Washington. The American Revolution, no matter the particulars, was a huge watershed moment in history. It was the first practical application of Enlightenment ideas to a political system at a great scale and it's unlikely that the world would look anything the same had it not happened. Rome or any other country from antiquity having it first does not change that.

twelvechairs 14y ago
Yes - the US revolution was historically important, though obviously it built on earlier and contemporaneous ideas (french revolution, etc). In the modern world though, the reality is this is all in the distant past. Most of the world doesn't see the American political system as something to be aspired to any more, which is something a lot of Americans (that I have met) have a hard time understanding.
- jackfoxy 14y ago
  Check your timeline. The French Revolution was not even conceived of until after the American Revolution came to a conclusion.
  - bobwaycott 14y ago
    You should both read up on the history of the French Revolution, as well as the definition of the word "conceived". Yes, the parent was off in calling out the French Revolution specifically, but the actual statement made was spot-on. The American Revolution was, in fact, built on earlier and contemporaneous ideas, found in myriad writings of mostly non-American Enlightenment thinkers who had been working out various new, altered, subversive, or otherwise novel ideas, studies, and classifications in political theory (among other topics) for nearly 125 years before American founders built upon them in both the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution. A basic review of political theory in the Age of Enlightenment would both confirm for you the correctness of the parent's statements (despite the errant inclusion of the French Revolution), as well as help you see exactly where the American Revolution got the whole of its ideas. America's founders very much imbibed on the Enlightenment, particularly works of political theory. The French Revolution was not in any way "conceived of" as a result of the American Revolution. Instead, it had been growing in its own specifically French/European manner among the salons and their philosophes, and was quite in step with the march of Enlightenment across much of Western Europe. Ultimately this was brought to a head when, seeing that the Americans' disregard for English rule was something they, too, could emulate in order to bring Enlightenment ideals to practical fruition in France, shit got started in the Estates-General in May 1789 (just two months after the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, bringing the fully Montesquieu-esque political system into reality). I apologize if I seem overly pedantic, but when you call out someone to check a timeline based on two words in an otherwise sound comment that added something to the discussion, you should at least ensure you have your own timeline correct--particularly if you are going to be bandying about the idea that Historical Event X "was not even conceived of until after" Historical Event Y. History rarely works like that, especially when it is happening but a handful of years apart. Ultimately, what Abbé Sieyès said in his famous pamphlet, "What is the Third Estate?", is so applicable to both revolutions as to further indicate that a revolutionary wave was both forming and interacting on both sides of the Atlantic (trans-Atlantic intellectual and cultural history is an eye-opening field of study): "What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until now in the political order? Nothing. What does it want to be? Something." The Americans espoused the same sentiment. Neither the American founders nor the Estates-General were owners of that idea, though. They both took it from 125 years of hundreds of intellectuals hammering it out. EDIT: Formatting & a couple extraneous words.

wahsd 14y ago

Two things: One, it's so sad that this country was founded by relatively intelligent people that had radical ideas and revolution in their heart; which has now all but died as we are a dogmatic, stupid, static nation and society with a two party, default winner system. Two, calling our founding political system a modern democracy, or even really a democracy, is rather absurd considering it was a bunch of genocidal racist, sexist, drunkard, elitists that constructed it. By that measure, non-absolute monarchies are also democracies as they relied on the input and votes of their aristocratic classes. We essentially, even now, still live in a system that is far more aristocracy than democracy. Plutarchy is probably even more accurate. we are a democracy in theory, in practice, we are far from it. Maybe you express one of the earliest examples of the seemingly common American affliction to believe that something is such just based on the label. We delusionally like to call things what we want them to be rather than what they are. Probably has to do with our affinity for the superstitious and supernatural.