Was the United States more or less democratic between 1877 and World War II?
337042
Your question is a little vague so I will approach it from the perspective of type of government.\n\nThe United States has never been a democratic form of government -- it has always been a republic.\n\nThe difference is that in a democracy the people have a direct vote.  In a republic, the citizens appoint (elect) individuals to represent them in office.\n\nOn the federal level our republic includes the president and both houses of congress.  On the state level, we have the state legislature and the governor.
659564
There are more democratic nations in the world today as many countries have shifted towards democracy following the break up of the U.S.S.R and the re-unification of Germany.
1117304
You mean in the United States?\n\nThe government here has always relied on functionalism as in the 1800s and 1900s when major reform movements were carried out. Prohibition, de-segragation, quota laws.\n\nDemocratic? I'm not so sure, besides some political movements started by citizens a vast majority of "democratic" power lies in the hands of the politicians and the coporate leaders. But of course we are the ones who vote for our politicians so I guess it is democractic in some sense.\n\nHope this helps.\n\nBest WIshes, \nTony
575623
Yes. A lot of people fail to make this distinction, but socialism is a type of economy, whereas democracy is a type of government.\n\nFrance and Mexico both have Republican democracies, both very similar to the U.S.'s form of government.
759199
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of  Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:\n\n "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."\n\n "The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.  During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:\n\n 1.  From bondage to spiritual faith;\n 2.  From spiritual faith to great courage;\n 3.  From courage to liberty;\n 4.  From liberty to abundance;\n 5.  From abundance to complacency;\n 6.  From complacency to apathy;\n 7.  From apathy to dependence;\n 8.  From dependence back into bondage "\n\n Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:\n\n Population of counties won by:  Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million;\n\n Square miles of land won by:  Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000\n\n States won by:  Gore: 19; Bush: 29\n\n Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:  Gore: 13.2;  Bush: 2.1\n\n&nbs p;Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.  Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."\n\n Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. If the Senate grants Amnesty and citizenship to 20 million invaders called illegals and they vote, then goodbye USA in less than 5 years.\n\nJust something to think about........... And no, I don't have any suggestions. I don't see how we can just stop and change what is happening, as most people won't comply with the kind of radical changes it would take. Start making sure you have your own retirement savings now, before it is too late.
1109986
Lazy, uncritical thinkers make this comparison, but history will show otherwise. Many democracies have shaky starts, it just takes awhile for things to settle out. Germany was in a state of chaos for awhile after WW II - similar to what we are seeing in Iraq... Not all the Nazi sympathizers wanted to go quietly...\n\nFrom reading history, all the whining and bellyaching by liberals are just like all the anti-war, pro-slavery Democrats during the Civil War, who hated Lincoln and considered him the worst president this country ever had. They said that the war was not winnable, that we should look to make peace with the Confederacy and just leave them alone... Democrats and liberals think that being anti-war is some kind of great virtue. They would rather slink away with their tails betwixt their legs than stand up for what is right. Iraq will get it right, and will be a beacon of hope for the rest of the Middle East. \n\n2,500 soldiers killed is a steep price, and I salute their sacrifice and mourn their loss. They have not died in vain, and their sacrifices will help to build a more stable Iraq, which will lend itself to stabilizing the entire Middle East. The media and liberals (sorry, that was redundant) only want to focus on the negatives, so a lot of what has already been accomplished is being overlooked or ignored.\n\nHistory will record that George W. Bush made the right choice to invade Iraq, and the naysayers will continue to hate him regardless of the outcome.
671397
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1988-present)\n\ntry to find a answer in that site ..
380165
The U.S. is not a Democracy,It is a Representative Republic.\nIt does not matter what 100% vote for,What matters is what our elected law makers vote for.\nThis generation does not even know what kind of government they have.
796523
No, its not.  I think you give the American people too much credit.  There is not actually a very large difference between the people and the government.  Don't forget, this war began with a 70% public approval rating.  The vast majority of Americans favored starting the war.  Bush had a very high approval rating until recently, and disapproval of the war is only growing now that people realize it was a mistake.  Unfortunately its the public opinion before the war which matters more.  I am American and I find that many Americans do approve of American foreign policy.  It might be because I live in the south, but many people are further to the right than Bush is.  There are many people that would make Bush look like a moderate dove.  In a country that prides itself on democracy, you can only separate the people and the government so much.  The government is responsible to the people, and when the government does bad things, it is either through the will or the apathy of the people.  In either case, the public of a democracy share the moral responsiblity.
1126203
There's not exactly complete control by the Republican party.  And we've had long runs with the Dems at other points in history... in fact, the Democrats had twenty years (1933-1953) of executive control with F.D.R. and then Truman.  And we did alright.  ;)  In any case, these are elected officials, so if things go sour for a considerable amount of time, the American people will demand a change.  That is a check in and of itself.
612553
I looked on a couple of websites to refresh my memory and most websites said that 1877 is when Reconstruction ended.
376772
If we believe Tyler, the average age of a democracy is 200 years, then we should be close to the end!!! \n\nBut the theory is flawed, what about the ability to self-correct. Most democracies are driven by not just policies set 200 years ago but also by changes made to it over time. In fact, I would argue that these chain of events would more likely be valid for a dictatorship than a democracy. \n\nAs long as the democracy is willing to change and improve it will remain robust. \n\nAs for statistics for the Bush-Gore elections, they just state the obvious ...majority of the poor voted for democrats while rich voted for republicans.
875259
America's role in WWI was not as large as it was in WWII (although in both wars the U.S. entered the war late - for more information I would compare the information between the two wars check here for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states_of_america#World_War_I_and_II\n\nGood Luck!!!
1133616
No to the theocracy in the US - but, in the same sense, I don't think we should push democracy on countries that will seriously be thrown into chaos as soon as it is introduced (USSR, China, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). I think it's very arrogant of us Americans to think our way is the best way for everyone - the only way democracy truly works is if it evolves on its own when people get tired of the way things are being run.
244362
The Iron Curtain as we knew it is gone.\n\nAnd yes, there still are large differences between North and South in the USA.
995536
USA is not a democracy. It is a republic.
707697
Americans' sense of civic virtue was shocked by the scandals associated with the Reconstruction era, including corrupt state governments, massive fraud in cities controlled by machines, political payoffs to secure government contracts (especially the Crédit Mobilier of America scandal regarding the financing of the transcontinental railroad), and widespread evidence of government corruption during the Ulysses S. Grant administration (see Whiskey Ring). Led by the Bourbon Democrats, especially Samuel J. Tilden and Grover Cleveland, there was a call for reform, such as Civil Service Reform. More generally there was a sense that government intervention in the economy resulted in favoritism, bribery, kickbacks, inefficiency, waste and corruption. The Bourbon Democrats led the call for a free market, low tariffs, low taxes, less spending and, in general, a Laissez-Faire (hands-off) government. They also denounced imperialism and overseas expansion. Many business and professional people supported this approach, although most Republicans continued to argue for a high protective tariff to encourage rapid growth of industry and protect America's high wages against the low wage system in Europe. Labor activists and agrarians expressed the same spirit but focused their attacks on monopolies and railroads as unfair to the little man.\n\nIn politics the two parties engaged in very elaborate get-out-the vote campaigns that succeeded in pushing turnout to 80%, 90% and even higher. It was financed by the "spoils system" whereby the winning party distributed most local, state and national government jobs, and many government contracts, to its loyal supporters. Large cities were dominated by political machines, in which constituents supported a candidate in exchange for anticipated patronage—favors back from the government, once that candidate was elected—and candidates were selected based on their willingness to play along. Presidential elections between the two major parties (the Republicans and Democrats), were closely contested, and Congress was marked by political stalemate. Mudslinging became an increasingly popular way of gaining advantage at the polls, and Republicans employed an election tactic known as "waving the bloody shirt". Candidates, especially when combating corruption charges, would remind voters that the Republican Party had saved the nation in the Civil War. During the 1870s voters were repeatedly reminded that the Democrats had been responsible for the bloody upheaval, an appeal that attracted many Union veterans to the Republican camp. The Republicans consistently carried the North in presidential elections. The South, on the other hand, became the Solid South, nearly always voting Democratic. The political humiliations of Reconstruction were still fresh in many minds. Conversely, the Democrats invoked images of the "lost cause" and the glorious "stars and bars" in much the same way Republicans "waved the bloody shirt". Overall, Republican and Democratic political platforms remained remarkably constant during the years before 1900. The negativity and ambiguity of politics began a shift in the press to yellow journalism, in which sensationalism and sentimental stories took as prominent a role as factual news.\n\nGreat question.  Thanks...I learned something too.