10-21-2012, 09:42 AM
Tim Donovan wrote:
A key difference is that in the past democratic government wasn't directly to blame, hence wasn't vulnerable.
One could argue that the Civil war was, in fact, the result of a democratic governmental tradition. The issue in this case wasn't one of replacing representative government with an autocracy. Rather, the war provided a bloody answer to the question of state sovereignty vs. federal authority. The logic behind the case for secession was that individual states had voted (democratically) to ratify the constitution some 80 years prior, and so naturally retained the right to vote themselves out of it if their self-interests weren't being served.
In the case of the Civil War, I think you have a point in that democracy itself wasn't threatened. No matter the outcome, the traditions of representative government for both sides were likely too entrenched for anyone to seriously consider changing. My point is that democracies (I dislike calling the United States a democracy, since we are technically a republic, but I understand your meaning) can be fractious and internally unstable. So, in a sense, we are both correct: democracy was to blame, but paradoxically was in no danger.
A key difference is that in the past democratic government wasn't directly to blame, hence wasn't vulnerable.
One could argue that the Civil war was, in fact, the result of a democratic governmental tradition. The issue in this case wasn't one of replacing representative government with an autocracy. Rather, the war provided a bloody answer to the question of state sovereignty vs. federal authority. The logic behind the case for secession was that individual states had voted (democratically) to ratify the constitution some 80 years prior, and so naturally retained the right to vote themselves out of it if their self-interests weren't being served.
In the case of the Civil War, I think you have a point in that democracy itself wasn't threatened. No matter the outcome, the traditions of representative government for both sides were likely too entrenched for anyone to seriously consider changing. My point is that democracies (I dislike calling the United States a democracy, since we are technically a republic, but I understand your meaning) can be fractious and internally unstable. So, in a sense, we are both correct: democracy was to blame, but paradoxically was in no danger.
Take what you want, and pay for it
-Spanish proverb
-Spanish proverb
