| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY": |
|
|
Era of Jacksonian Democracy, 1981.
This paper discusses the era of Jacksonian democracy, 1825-1835, which reorganized and redefined the values of its Whig predecessors and prepared America for the present-day polyarchical pluralist system.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 7 sources, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The purpose of this research is to show that the era of Jacksonian democracy, roughly the period 1825-1835, not only encompassed the values of its Whig predecessors but also reorganized and redefined those values in ways that directly shaped and prepared America, perhaps unwittingly, for the arrival of the present-day polyarchical pluralist system. But it was, in fact, no accident, as William Chambers explains:
The shapers of the American nation had provided lessons for a second generation of party leaders. They had shown what parties could be, and had marked the way toward a renewed American Party System which could sustain broad representation, mass participation and popular choice in a functioning political democracy.. ... "
| |
|
Jacksonian Democracy, 2002.
A look at the development of American politics and the two-party system during the Jacksonian Era.
2,787 words (approx. 11.1 pages), 12 sources, MLA, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how from the termination, in 1815, of Federalism, the political concept supporting a strong central government, to the rise of the slavery problem in the 1850s, American political history was typified by bitter partisan conflict on the part of the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson and the Whigs. It shows how the major transformation in the Jacksonian Era was the materialization of a solid two-party system. It shows how the party eventually to become known as the Republican Party has given the U.S. the basic political formation that survives to this day and how the present Republican and Democratic parties have much in common with their ancestors.
From the Paper
"A lot of Jacksonians considered themselves as strangers to the old Jeffersonian political order, which they assumed had wandered away from true republican values. Fraction of their aggression was intended at Quincy Adams, not for the reason that he diverged from the Democratic-Republican principles of 1816, but for the reason that he personified them all too well. If, as William Ward has declared, Jackson was the "symbol for an age," it was mainly alien to the old Democratic-Republicans. Jackson's America was more democratic, as well as more unrestricted than the one practiced by Jefferson and anticipated by Quincy Adams (James, 1938)."
| |
|
Jacksonian Democracy, 1999.
An analysis of the democratization of American politics under the presidency of Andrew Jackson.
783 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 6 sources, £ 14.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The rise of Andrew Jackson is commonly associated with the rise of democracy in the United States. Before Jackson's first presidential campaign in the momentous year of 1824, democracy as is commonly known in contemporary society did not exist. President James Monroe epitomized the American ruling class before the age of Jackson. A wealthy planter from Virginia, Monroe wore a powdered wig, knee-length pantaloons, and white-topped boots. Such style of dress clearly delineated the social "betters" and reflected the contemporary belief that politics was an activity which was to be conducted by the "better sort" for the rest of society. The Founding Fathers eschewed democracy as "rule by the rabble" and preferred a Republic that isolated the government from the masses, but was still accountable to some of the people. Jacksonian Democracy was a genuine phenomenon. Jacksonian democracy involved a democratization of American politics. However, democracy was not completely developed under Jackson."
| |
|
Jacksonian Democracy, 2003.
Offers differing views of historians on President Jackson.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, £ 16.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Shows how Jackson handled crises in 19th century America, such as the Bank Crisis, expansion of suffrage, and the country's transformation from an agrarian to an industrial nation.
From the Paper
"The era in American history that witnessed Jacksonian Democracy is viewed in strikingly different ways by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Bray Hammond, and Edward Pessen. In the 19th century America was transforming from..."
| |
|
Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democracies, 2007.
This paper explores how and why the American government and politics changed from the Thomas Jefferson era to the Andrew Jackson era.
2,482 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines the era and philosophy of former US President Thomas Jefferson, that included the terms of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe. The paper then looks at opponent Andrew Jackson's appeal and his strategies. The paper discusses how although three presidents established the Jeffersonian legacy, when Andrew Jackson, folk hero, man of simple messages, came along, there had been sufficient growth and yearning for change in the American electorate to allow him to win. The paper shows how this spelled defeat for Jeffersonian democracy and a victory for Jacksonian democracy.
Outline:
The First Party System
The Second Party System
The Jeffersonian Era
The Jackson Era
How Have Political Parties Stayed True to a Jacksonian Style
Why Did Jeffersonian Democracy Not Prevail
From the Paper
"The Federalists were interested in "...increasing the authority of the central government," Flanigan writes, hence the Federalists received the firm backing of commercial and financial sectors of the American society at that time. But the Jeffersonian Republicans "...distrusted the centralizing and, in their view, aristocratic tenancies of their rivals," Flanigan continues. The two parties actually were launched as factions in the U.S. Congress, but as time passed the two parties' influence spread to the state and local level, and down to the voting public. These two parties helped develop form and fine-tune their opinions about issues that were important to the country."
| |
|
"Democracy's Discontent" vs. "Democracy in America", 2003.
A comparison of Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel's "Democracy's Discontent".
3,845 words (approx. 15.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, £ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel in "Democracy's Discontent" both address issues of democracy, freedom, the role of government, and the good citizen. It looks at how their viewpoints differ because they write at different times of history. De Tocqueville writes at a time when democracy is a novel ideal. Aristocracy has been the main form of government, and this, therefore, plays a major role in his writing. Sandel, on the other hand, deals with contemporary issues such as the global community and the implications of new technology and diminishing boundaries among people.
From the Paper
"De Tocqueville stresses the importance of civil equality in the achievement of true democracy. This equality implies the lack of divisions and barriers between social classes. This is the equality that he sees in American culture as opposed to European culture that still subscribes to the aristocratic means of government. The democratic ideal implies more freedom than would be possible with an aristocratic government: "Let us suppose that all the people take a part in the government, and that each one of them has an equal right to take a part in it. As no one is different from his fellows, none can exercise a tyrannical power; men will be perfectly free because they are all entirely equal..."(De Tocqueville, Book II, Chapter I)."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
Compares modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
914 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 16.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discusses the major differences between Athenian democracy and modern democracy. Differences include voting and citizenship rights, gender and background bias in the Athenian social and economic system, the type of representation that each society offered and the 'participation factor' in Athens.
From the Paper
"There are several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens. Even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. These differences fall into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today's western cultures.
For example, women were not given full rights of citizenship. They were also socially and economically kept in a subservient role to men. Women's function was seen as primarily that of propagation and managing a household. Women were not allowed access to the marketplace of ideas that was so important to the Athenians.
These conditions set up an interactive cycle between the social and political institutions; since women were regarded as inferior and not deserving of full citizenship, they were not allowed to vote. However, without the ability to vote, it was very unlikely that any of these restrictions would be modified or lifted. The role of women in Greek society was too firmly entrenched to be easily changed."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
This paper looks at several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
864 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 15.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer shows that even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. The paper divides these differences into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
From the Paper
"One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today's western cultures."
| |
|
Democracy and the U.S. Constitution: A Discussion of the Successes and Failures of the Founding Fathers in making an Obtainable Democracy, 2000.
After discussing the successes and failures of the founding fathers, the author of the paper concludes that they mostly did a good job, but disputes that America now has a pure democracy.
1,360 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, £ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" A perfect democracy would be a democracy where everyone- the poor, the rich, the weak, the strong- get to have a say in what the government does. Wherein the supreme power ultimately rests with the people. However, this is not reality. Instead, representative democracy can be defined in two ways: the responsible model and the popular model. In the popular model, ordinary people have a great deal of freedom and ability to participate actively in government. In this type, elections express the popular will and determine policies. Examples of this model include the House of Representatives, the Virginia Plan, and citizen initiatives. In the responsible model, citizens play a more passive role. Government officials have a great deal of freedom to act on the behalf of the country as a whole. Elections here, grant popular consent and determine leaders. Examples of this model are the Senate, the New Jersey Plan, and the Supreme Court. Although the people of the United States live in a democracy that has both popular and responsible elements, democracy here has always been more denoted by the popular model. "
| |
|
Benjamin Barber's "Strong Democracy", 2005.
This paper discusses Benjamin Barber's views on "thin democracy" and "strong democracy" as expresses in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age".
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Benjamin Barber in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age" defines 'thin democracy" as a democracy in which leaders are elected but they are left to their own devices concerning the majority of issues; people have the powers, which democracy provides, but the demonstration of these powers is primarily manifested in the form of elections. The author points out that Barber is convincing in making his point that "thin democracy" has a tendency to strip citizens of their sense of purpose as manifested by the voter participation rate stagnating in the U.S. at about half of those eligible. The paper stress that Barber loves the thought of a "strong democracy" in which it is not the leaders who make a democracy great but rather an active, informed citizenry.
From the Paper
""Thin democracy" takes the stance that average citizens are not interested in political matters and are not capable or adequate enough to directly participate in the political process themselves, beyond electing officials. Benjamin Barber feels that the United States democracy is thin and poorly represents the entire population at large. Significant portions of citizens are unable to vote due to restrictions or simply choose to be complacent and abstain from voting. Citizens under the age of eighteen are restricted from voting, as are prisoners, and persons living within the borders who are not nationalized. Citizens who are active in a thin democracy mainly participate in it by electing persons and then monitoring their political decisions (if they choose to do so), allowing the elected (those seen by the majority to have the most expertise and capability to discern what best represents the will of the majority) to do the actual work."
| |
|
Quality of Democracy in Iraq, 2006.
A study on democracy in Iraq, looking at how much progress the country has made towards establishing democracy, the quality of its democracy and how well its institutions are functioning.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, £ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes three of the fourteen topics provided on the Democratic Audit web site and apply them to a study of democracy in Iran. Specifically, the paper assesses the country's progress towards democracy, the quality of its democracy, and the functioning of its institutions - all by using the following three topics as a "measuring stick". These topics are a) civil and political rights, b) economic and social rights, and c) the extent of participation in the political process by various Iranian citizens.
| |
|
"Democracy in America", 2002.
A study of freedom and democracy using Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 3 sources, £ 13.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay explores the interrelation of the concepts of equality, freedom and democracy in history as portrayed in Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".
| |
|
Democracy and the Libertarian Ideal of Self-Ownership, 2002.
This is an argument for the libertarian conception of self-ownership as the foundation for democracy, as opposed to other values such as republican non-domination and deliberative democracy, with treatment of empirical work on the phenomenon of voter igno
4,060 words (approx. 16.2 pages), 4 sources, APA, £ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the notion of western democracy, and how by its very definition, impinges on our everyday lives. The author defines democracy, and looks at what democracy was intended to be, and how, as government expanded, and its influence expanded that democracy has had the opposite affect, and is not limiting our freedoms. The author also suggest ways in which we can regain the benefits that democracy was designed to provide.
From the Paper
"Indeed, if we did otherwise, we would be treating people not as full members of the community among equals, but as sheep unto a shepherd, or a child unto a parent. While such relationships are certainly appropriate between the incompetent and the competent, they can hardly be countenanced for the competent, who are entitled to their own private sphere in which they can determine the meaning of their experiences and define their own ends. After all, since people are different, and even individuals change through time, no one can better know his own conception of the good and his unique set of ends better than the individual himself. The state, far removed from the individual, is in no position to make that determination, and therefore, must be neutral to conceptions of the good. The state's disallowing one to choose for himself the sort of life he leads is, in fact, a principal criterion by which we can judge its goodness."
| |
|
Mill, de Toqueville and Schmitt: Problems of Democracy, 2008.
A comparison of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", and Carl Schmitt's "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy".
1,000 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the problems of democracy as cited in three major works on the subject: John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", and Carl Schmitt's "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy". The paper elaborates upon the views of Mill and de Tocqueville, who both believed that the tyranny of the majority was particularly worrisome in democracies, compared to other political systems. The paper also outlines the major features of Carl Schmitt's critiques of parliamentary democracy, in which he contrasts between how parliamentary government is designed to function and how it actually functions. The paper further discusses Schmitt's argument that democratic institutions function through corrupt political deal-making and that rational political debate and election results have little impact on government decision-making. The paper concludes that Mill and de Tocqueville realized that the solutions for these problems actually lay within the democratic system.
From the Paper
"Schmitt was also critical of parliamentary systems because he believed that the nature of democracy itself is based upon meaningless abstractions such as equality and liberty. To him, these high-sounding concepts were little more than a sham, for most people care very little about equal rights and liberty and most political leaders care even less. Leaders deliver grand speeches in parliaments and legislatures about democracy, but behind the scenes, they act in their own self-interest. And in society, the average citizen is just as hypocritical, for they resent any action by the government or other citizens that is detrimental to their self-interest, while paying lip service to democracy and equal rights for all."
|
|
|
