STUDY QUESTIONS FROM DEMOCRATIC IDEAL FOR MIDTERM
POLITICAL THEORY
Carver
Carver suggests that a basic theoretical tension, or perhaps an outright contradiction,
confronts Marx's successors when they attempt to define Marxism as scientific and
objective. Why is this a potential problem, given Marx's own definition of "ideology"?
Marx bases his definition of ideology on economic and social structures. In his research he
continuously made it clear that ideology was a "veil" over society’s eyes when it came to a
economic base. He also said that socially it was a type of "false consciousness". Instead of being
scientific and objective, it gives off a sense of sociology and political economy.
As Carver notes, the history of the term “ideology” is deeply conflicted because the concept
has had so many different definitions; nevertheless, he thinks it is a term we should not
abandon, even if we can never arrive at a scientifically objective ideology. Why does Carver
think it is important to understand the meaning of different political ideologies even if none
of them can prove itself to be the “correct” one?
Carver states that ideology is supposed to be discussed and dissected for the purpose of gaining
knowledge. He says that understanding ideology and its history of usage can help people gain
new perspectives when contemplating today’s political and philosophical ideas and agendas.
Pericles
In an infamous aside, Pericles briefly discusses the place of women within Athenian
democracy. What does he understand as women’s role within the polis?
The Athenian democracy viewed women as inferior and did not consider them as citizens.
Women not being citizens were denied any rights and benefits of protection and equals under the
law. Citizens were restricted in that they were not able to have freedom of speech, and if they did
they were banished or punished. Women then, would have no voice or opinion in anything and
were essentially in the same status as slaves.
In Periclesʼs view, what was so special about collective citizen participation and
deliberation about the most important public matters, including war itself? Why does
Pericles believe that Atheniansʼ greater willingness to engage in courageous acts on
behalf of their city-state was related to their commitment to democracy?
The democracy that Pericles spoke about held many avant-garde ideals. He spoke about a
government that was not exclusive; even those in poverty have a place and contribution to
society. In this speech he calls upon every citizen to be involved in public affairs. He even goes
as far as calling the uninvolved, “useless characters.” Pericles argument was that informed
citizens can take greater actions. Therefore, discussion, prior to action, was pivotal to Athenian
success. In the case for war, each citizen would understand the purpose of the fight rather than
the enemies who were “courageous from ignorance.” This greatly contributed to Athens’s
strength at war, according to Pericles. Democracy provided the society purpose and
empowerment. In the “Funeral Oration,” Pericles holds the highest regard toward the soldiers
who had recently fought and gave their lives in the Peloponnesian wars. The democratic ideal
that the soldiers upheld, instilled in them honor and heroism on the battle front, according to
Pericles. In his speech, he explains that an Athenian citizen would not neglect his duty to the
government because he cares for his own household. Each citizen influences the other, and there
is an emphasis on collective, not individual, happiness within the democracy. When describing
the soldier’s attitude on the front of battle, Pericles wrote that, “these men were [not] weakened
by wealth or hesitated to forgo the pleasures of life . . . punishment of their enemies was sweeter
than any of these things.” Even while facing the Spartans, who had been trained since birth to
fight, they can hold their ground easily. Pericles attributes this to the unity that had under the
banner of democracy.
How does Pericles understand the connection between democracy and empire?
In his famous speech “Funeral Oration,” Pericles praises the men that have died in the
Peloponnesian War who had strengthened the Athenian empire while making a connection to the
Athenian democracy. He states that similar to how the war heroes recognized that it was their
duty to fight and protect the empire, Athenian citizens should never abandon their obligation to
take advantage of their democratic system. According to Pericles, democracy and empire are
connected because the people need to manage both with their “own hearts and hands” (17) and
appreciate the privileges they enjoy from the strong systems.
Theseus
Theseus argues that tyrants are especially brutal in punishing the youth in a political
society that they come to control. What reasons does he give for this?
Theseus explains that tyrants do not listen to the voice of the people. His city is ran by the people
and argues that there is no balance with tyrants. He specifically acknowledges that tyrants would
take away te people's sense of freedom in the city. This would make the youth doubtful and the
whole system would collapse because the system wouldn't work. Tyrants would take the voice of
the people and simply ignore it. The growth and progress created by and for the youth would be
in vain.
Why does Theseus put so much emphasis on the rule of law in his response to the
Theban Messenger? Why is it so vitally important in a democracy?
Theseus emphasizes the importance of the rule of law to the Theban messenger because he wants
to make a clear distinction between the way Thebes is ruled, where the Theban messenger
resides, and how Athens governs its people. Theseus makes a clear distinction between the
tyrannical government ruled by Creon and the democracy achieved in Athens. In order to stress
his point, evidently emphasizing the importance of democracy, Theseus proclaims that as
consequence to their system of government, the people of Athens all have a fair say, making all
the rich, poor, powerful, and weak equal before the law enabling their voices to be heard without
fear of repercussions as opposed to being silenced under the rule of a tyrannical oppressor.
Aristotle
In addition to the metaphor of many people becoming one, Aristotle also compares
democratic deliberation and judgment to a “feast” (p.22). What does he mean by this
comparison?
Aristotle makes this comparison because he states that although the judgment of the people is
right or wrong it is better to work together to come to an agreement rather than just the judgment
of the individual. He makes the comparison with a “feast” because he states that it is better to
work together as a group on a feast for a better outcome rather than just one person working
alone to make dinner for just one outcome. The judgment of multiple people will be a better
outcome because they will come to an agreement on what benefits or is right for the community
as a whole. As oppose to just one individuals judgment, which they will just look out for their
own interest rather than the communities or the group as a whole.
Aristotle gives a number of reasons why middle-class rule is so profoundly important.
What are they?
In his own words, Aristotle believed that, in a democracy, there will always be poor and rich
people. The rich will always try to stay rich, and likewise the poor will try to gain economic
status through any means necessary. Aristotle believed in middle class rule because he thinks
that they have the best grounds to rule people on; they are neither rich nor poor, they are simply
in the middle of the economic status. While the rich and poor would govern in terms of money
and taxes, the middle class would rule without the thought of money in their head, and would
avoid thinking in the ways of the jealous poor and the aloof rich. Middle-class rule, in Aristotle’s
mind, would work to maintain a constant flow of stability, unlike the rich and the poor.
On pp.22-23, Aristotle notes that some works of art are not best judged by those who create
them, but by those who utilize them. How does he develop this point into a defense of
democratic judgment?
Aristotle developed the “republic” idea where powers are distributed among the people, the
wealthy (aristocrats), a single person. To make sure that no one goes on a power trip, there would
be checks and balances to ensure that the people have more of a voice and keep it that way. To
Aristotle, the many would be guided by the (wealthy) few.
Machiavelli
In his conclusion, what does Machiavelli claim is the chief difference between the excesses
of the people and the excesses of the prince that make rule by the former preferable to rule
by the latter?
Machiavelli’s Conclusion: People vs Prince
In his excerpt from The Discourses, Machiavelli competes the success of a country ruled by the
people versus a country ruled by a prince. Although he states that both powers without law or
restriction are sure to abuse authority he believes that even left to their own will the people are a
lesser evil than a prince. He states that the people would have less excesses than a prince in
power and that those excesses would be more easily resolved because they would be less
important. Machiavelli explains that a prince with great power could do much more harm due to
his own self-interests and could only be stopped with violence, whereas the people could be
saved and brought back to “good conduct” if they once again came under the influence of a good
leader. Machiavelli concludes that a rule by the people is more preferable because their mistakes
would be more easily corrected but a prince with enormous influence could do irreversible
damage.
Some scholars have argued that the link between The Prince and The Discourses lies
precisely in the role played by prince when the republic becomes corrupt and requires the
renewal of ties republican origins. Is there any evidence in this extract for that argument,
which stresses the important role that one human being can play in history?
Machiavelli’s political advice in The Prince focuses on strategies that would benefit a
monarchical ruler in Medici and is designed to keep that ruler in power. His final objective in
The Prince was in helping the monarchy maintain power; rather than to serve the wellbeing of
the citizens. Machiavelli’s advice in The Prince is that a leader should be the sole authority who
determines every aspect of the state and is justified in implementing policies that serve only his
best interest. Whether or not this despot attitude functions or not under a monarchy, it is
Machiavelli’s recommendation that in the end “it is better to be feared than to be loved”.
Whether or not absolute power corrupts absolutely, it is Machiavelli’s view that the prince is
justified in this exercise of political power, if in the end it is for the common good of the citizens.
Since Machivelli’s advice discourages individualism and mass political activism, the prince’s
method to preserve power over his citizens is by using violence carefully and strategically while
respecting the persons, property and traditions of his subjects. By choosing to rule wisely rather
than authoritatively, he can condescendingly deceive citizens and gain their trust. The Prince’s
role as a leader and human being is to be directive, efficiently and to be authoritative when
needed without being accused of being too controlling or autocratic.
In The Discourses, Machiavelli’s political theory is primarily focused on a republic and which
fosters a spirit of citizenry if it is to survive. Although Machiavelli’s argues that there are six
types of Republic’s, the best formula is a mixed democratic republic government, such as the one
used in ancient Rome. Although the Roman form of government was not perfect, the pursuit of
liberty by citizens could be attained easier through a republic than a monarchy. Machiavelli
states that although the masses desire liberty, they are more concerned with protecting
themselves against oppression and consider themselves “free” when they are not abused by the
powerful. However, this powerful sense of individualism reinforces the theme that under a
Republic you can accomplish anything, because a non-republican regime rests upon coercive
domination and by violent means.
Adams
Adams puts a great deal of emphasis throughout the piece on the importance of annual
elections within republics, arguing that there is no more “infallible maxim” in all of the
sciences than the claim that ‘where annual elections end, there slavery begins’ (p. 31). Why
does Adams think that annual elections are so important for republican self-rule?
John Adams believed that annual elections were vital because they kept the elected officials
honest and representative of the peoples will. He said it taught them “humility, patience, and
moderation, without which every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey”(p. 33).
Elected officials without the risk of losing their power each year would eventually attempt to
consolidate that power and keep it. They would also pass laws that benefited them and their
colleagues, rather than those they were elected to represent. A republic relies on its citizens to
vote, ensuring that the people most of the power in the system.
At the end of the piece, Adams maintains that three additional types of laws are very
important for maintaining republican self-rule. These are: a militia law, laws which make
provision for “the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people,” and
“sumptuary laws” (p.34). What does Adams mean by these laws, and why does he think
they are so important in a republic?
Militia laws are laws designed to keep and maintain a militia made of by the men of the
country. Sumptuary laws are laws of that govern taxes. Laws for the education of youth, are
made precisely that, laws to encourage education. Adams believes each of these laws to be
important to a republic because what he believes the purpose of a republic is: an political system
designed to lift people up. Each of these laws promote agency in the lives of the people. Militia
laws encourage people to protect themselves and their property. Laws for education encourage
the ability of the public to analyze information which leads to making better choices regarding
their country’s future. And taxes are necessary because they “promote happiness” (34) raising
funds for other programs that the country needs. Each of the suggestions Adams has emboldens
the people to take care of themselves and control of their destinies.
Bill of Rights
The issue of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” (Amendment 2) continues to
be one of ongoing controversy in the United States. From a Republican perspective, why is
the right to bear arms so crucial?
The right to bear arms is crucial for the Republican party for numerous different reasons. Since
Republicans believe that the United States should be less government regulations and more of a
free business, it is only natural that they believe every law abiding citizen should have the right
to own firearms with very little government regulation. This includes no federal licensing of
guns, and the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. Some people also believe
that the right to bear arms is important to Republicans because it will enable citizens to rebel
against their own government if needed.
The Tenth Amendment has been regarded as one of the Anti-federalists great victories.
How might we read it as helping assuage Patrick Henry's fear that the Constitution was
insufficiently democratic? How might it be seen as setting the stage for the American Civil
War?
Patrick Henry had fears that the central government would begin to pull in so much power that
the states would not have enough freedom to rule themselves. The tenth amendment ensured that
any powers not expressly granted to the federal government in the constitution would remain
with the states, and the feared over-empowerment of the central government would not occur.
This allowed the states greater freedom in ruling themselves, which is inherently more
democratic. However, the Tenth amendment did not do a great job of defining what powers
belonged to the federal government, and states challenged federal laws that they didn't like by
ignoring them and claiming that those powers rested with the state. This came to a head over the
issue of slavery, and then we had the civil war.
The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law depriving people of
freedom of speech and assembly. These freedoms were long-standing keys to republican
arguments. Given what republican theorists feared, why would these two features of the
First Amendment, in particular, be so important?
In Ideals and Ideologies, it is stated, “The republican idea was that the forms of government must
be mixed in such a way that some power is in the hands of the common people, some in the
hands of the aristocratic few, and some in the hands of a single person” (12). The book also
states that the populous would have a significant voice under a government that ruled in the
common interest. Without the freedoms of speech and assembly, the voice of the people would
be limited and can even be silenced, leading to the possibility that the decision making of the
government was not impacted by what the populous believes.
DeTocqueville
Conversely, what does Tocqueville laud about aristocracy? What does he think has been
lost in the replacement of aristocracy by democracy?
Tocqueville who seemed to be a casual fan of democracy still had some reservations about it and
felt that there is some benefits to having an aristocracy. For one he seemed to feel that the chain
of social classes helped man be able to understand his purpose and duties when it came to the
world. There was no social ladder to climb and everyone had their own duty to fulfill. They
knew who was above or below them and who was responsible for dealing with the problems
associated with their class rather than it being vague and spread out amongst the people. Also
having a surmountable social ladder in democracy gave rise to the belief that any man can rise
from rags to riches rather than the firm social standings of aristocracy. This in the case of
democracy creates what he feels is unnecessary social and economic competition that could
eventually lead to a chaotic rather than a cohesive government. Also Tocqueville was afraid that
equality could potentially lead to tyranny through the pressure to conform from those of the
popular opinion. This pressure, he feared, could eliminate the individual's will to act out for their
own interests.
Mill
Underlying Mill’s argument is a clear commitment to “active” over “passive” sorts of
human character (p. 49). What reasons does he give for preferring the former over the
latter, especially since, as he points out, most moral philosophers prefer people to be
precisely the opposite of what Mill is advocating?
The “general sympathies of mankind” prefer the passive, docile individual for his “acquiescent
and submissive” nature. These characteristics provide an increased sense of security for those
around such an individual – in essence, the passive type is not one to stir anything. Philosophers
of morality prefer this passivity because it seemingly promotes stability and peace. Mill argues
just the opposite, asserting that the active type – those who struggle against their complaints –
are more valuable for the general progress of humanity. Mill claims that history was made not by
those who compromised with the wrongs of their time, but rather by the unhappy few who
decided to struggle and vanquish what they saw as evil. Moving civilization forward, Mill
teaches, is impossible without the active few.
What does Mill believe will be the consequences for society of the failure to put in place
means for citizens to participate in the process of democratic self-governance?
Mill believes the consequences for society of the failure to put in place means for citizens to
participate in the process of democratic self-governance will be the loss of basic political
liberties in the Bill of Rights. Failure to put in place means for citizens to participate in the
process of democratic self-governance removes the voices of the citizens which in turn result in
the failure to uphold the wants and needs of the government’s citizens and begin to control
aspects more suitable to the wants and needs of those in political power.