Democratic Ideal
1. Carver
Why did Napoleon Bonaparte turn away from his earlier embrace of “ideology” as set
forth by de Tracy, and subsequently deride it as “sinister metaphysics”? Earlier in his
Napoleon Bonaparte’s life, he very much supported Ideology and became an honorary member
of the Institute. After Napoleon seized power in 1799 many of his fellow supporters along with
their Ideologues” de Tracy believed that many of their core beliefs and “boundless faith in
reason” would spread like wildfire throughout all of France and beyond. Around 1812 Napoleon
discounted de Tracy’s work and the work of the Institute de France and saw it as “Ideology that
sinister metaphysics”. This shift in beliefs reflected a change in the political tactics of Napoleon
and could be tied to Napoleon’s thirst for power by uniting himself with the Church as well as
other “Conservative forces”.
2. Theban Messenger
The Theban Messenger concludes that the masses of common people, or the demos, are
poor judges of political matters. How might a modern defender of democracy — yourself,
perhaps — respond to such a claim? a. Although the masses of common people may be poor
judges of political matters, a Democracy is a government of the people. In the end the
government they chose will reflect the type of judges they are. The more of a say people have in
their government the more they will get involved and the better judges they will become.
Therefore, a true democracy will have masses of people who are good judges on political
matters.
b. My response to the Theban Messenger would be the same as that of Theseus', because a
democracy has laws as opposed to a tyrannical rule that has no law except the one that the tyrant
sees fit to enforce. In a democracy, these laws ensure that all people are treated equally under
them, regardless of either rich or poor. Likewise, the same laws guarantee that its entire citizenry
can voice their opinions and can be heard. A democracy allows those with good judgment an
opportunity to have their voices heard.
3.
Theban Messenger
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 stresses the rule of law in
a democracy vs. the rule of one tyrant because he views that a nation or people who govern
themselves have the ability to grow and be more prosperous. He believes that under the rule of a
tyrant the people are subject to the whims of one man. No matter how wise or foolish he may be.
They are also subject to his greed and envy. And because of this the community will not grow, in
most cases. If the one ruler is too busy fighting his enemies or making himself rich. But in a
Democracy governed by laws, the most talented individuals will give their ideas and it is up to
the people to decide if they want to follow it or not. Every opinion is voiced and every idea
considered. Theseus believes that this is the only way for a community to progress and become
strong into the future. And the laws will protect the individual rights of the citizens and prevent
the mob from taking over. This is the difference between Theseus’s democracy and anarchy. The
law lays down parameters for all citizens to practice their rights and be free within. He also
believes that within this kind of system education I central. It is important to educate our youth.
And within this system, education will flourish and be the most valued commodity in society.
1
4.
Pericles
On Pericles’s 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 the Athenians’ greater willingness to engage in courageous acts on
behalf of their city-state was related to their commitment to democracy?
He believed that anyone who did not have an interest in politics or the affairs of state had no
business in the state at all because it was by the will of the people that the state existed and the
state flourished or failed by that same will.
Why does Pericles believe that the Athenians' greater willingness to engage in courageous
acts on behalf of their city-state was related to their commitment to democracy? Pericles
understood that in order to preserve a democracy a citizen must be willing to defend it or risk its
ruin from both without and within. Engaging in courageous acts on behalf of Athens allowed it
survive and created an atmosphere where its democratic ideals could be practiced, cultivated and
flourish.
5.
Pericles
How does Pericles understand the connection between democracy and empire? As a people
they think that democracy is good and empires bad. However, Athens was both an aggressive
and oppressive imperial city and at one time the most democratic city in the world. In fact, in
Athens the more democratic you were the more imperialistic you became.
b. This society of Athens had operated on the purest form of democracy; with laws in order to
assure that no-person of Athens was above the law. This society had each member of society
participate in a role of public service. These responsibilities bounded citizens together; in turn
making them more united, which enabled them to be protected from threats, internally and
externally. This democratic process was intended to be an honor system in public service, and
not so much about authority and power. The lifestyle and politics of Athens was to prevent
corruption and self-interest groups with collective unification in order to stabilize and function as
a sovereign state.
6.
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? Pericles assertion of
women’s role is to be as strong as their gender will allow them to be, save for the stereotypical
weaknesses that were perceived to be inherent of women during this time. But this display of
strength of virtue should still be such that a woman goes unnoticed, and is neither praised nor
derided by me, only then will she be performing her role within the democracy.
7.
Aristotle
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? He explains how democracy can be either good or bad depending on
what the person’s motives are. If someone uses democracy for the good of the whole community,
than it’s true. On the other hand if someone uses it for self benefit, it is bad. This develops his
2
point because he’s saying that democracy can be utilize for both good and bad so if it’s used in a
bad way it’s the person, not democracy itself.
b. Aristotle believes that democracy in the truest intent to be undesirable for the entirety of the
people. From the creator’s perspective, democracy is the best form of representation because it
represents the people, and most of all, the common people. However, as Aristotle notes, the
common people (“demos”) tends to be shortsighted and selfish. He further expresses the
inevitability of the common people recklessly pursuing power for the intent to benefit oneself.
Ultimately, the unity of the people will not endure the test of time due to the general lack of
regards for stability, and one another.
8.
Machiavelli
What does this extract say about Machiavelli’s view of human nature, and why does this
make the rule of law particularly important to his conception of politics? Machiavelli
considers Princes without some form of law, and people by extension, to be “madmen.” Human
choices by nature, without law are, therefore, at best random and at worst deluded or deranged.
Machiavelli seems to think there is something in our nature that responds specially to law, that in
all historical situations where we find law we find “good qualities” in both Kings and peoples;
especially, in Machiavelli’s view, in peoples. Machiavelli does not explicitly say by what means
in our nature, but peoples in this extract are purported to be “more prudent and stable, with better
judgment than a prince.” By either necessity or nature, they are less self-interested, less easily
influenced and better predictors of the future.
b. Machiavelli's view on human nature was that as a whole, humans were selfish and could end
up being corrupt. He believed the people (citizens) cared more for their own money and luxury
than common wealth of the people, along with an indifference to public affairs were to him,
corruption. Viewing human nature as corrupt made the rule of law important to his conception of
politics because laws to him were greater in fairness as well as more consistent that any person
could or would be. He believed free government would be destroyed by corruption within and
for that reason should not be ruled by people of majority of citizens but by laws. Laws to
Machiavelli were impersonal and could therefore be depended on without losing one’s
independence and freedom.
c. Machiavelli’s view of human nature is that man possesses both benign and threatening
qualities, but nonetheless will focus towards his own self-interest. From this he stems on to say
that man is fickle and does not keep his promise so a Prince, or any ruling body of government,
does not have to uphold his word. The condition of man is so treacherous that Machiavelli
believes that man will do anything within their own power and motivated by self-interest to
benefit themselves. This makes the rule of law particularly important to his conception of politics
because of his believe of the power held by the Prince, or a governing body. Machiavelli believes
that the Prince has the right to do anything in his power to stay in power. For example
Machiavelli believes that since the Prince is also a man that he should put on display only his
good characteristics and to hide his immoral failings from his subjects and his people. He also
advocates an appearance of virtue in which he argues that this is far more important than true
virtue. This is also pertinent to the rule of law, because politics is about image about what should
3
be instead of what is. Machiavelli’s advice often disregards moral and ethical law, making the
Prince above the law or making the Prince the law.
9. Machiavelli
In his conclusion (on p. 29), 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? The chief difference between excesses of the people and the
excesses of the prince that make rule by the former preferable to rule by the latter is the liberty of
the people. The excesses of the people are only directed against those whom they suspect of
being corrupted and seem to not have very good intensions for the public. Where as the excesses
of the prince are against any interference or opposition of their individual interests.
10.
Machiavelli
Some scholars have argued that the link between The Prince and The Discourses lies
precisely in the role played by the prince when the republic becomes corrupt and requires
the renewal of its 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? I
believe that the prince plays a crucial role in the restoration of the republic in a corrupt systems.
However the people should influence the decision of the prince through collective effort. The
role of the prince can vary. Good or evil, his choice is final in the midst of corruption. A prince
unbounded by law is a tyrant. Therefore, the people must step in using violence to remedy the
follies.
11.
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 emphasizes on annual elections in Republican self-rule because it is deemed necessary
for a stable civilian government. Annual elections allow the people to choose their country’s
leader and form of government. It allows the power to the people to determine their own lives
and their countries future. Another important reason is elections prevent one man or government
from monopolizing power. If there was no annual elections the people or the one man in
government can monopolize power to determine how the country runs and take away the right
for the people their own future and the right to choose their own government. Without annual
elections a government or one man can determine the countries future whether it may be
beneficial or harmful to the people. Overall elections allow the people to choose their own lives
and chose their own government that will protect their rights and individual freedoms.
b. Adam believes that the Republican Party should be fair. He states that if there was only one
leader making all the decisions and that possessed all of the powers of the government, that it
would make “arbitrary laws for their own interest, execute all laws for their own interest, and
adjudge all controversies in their own favor.” Since the legislative and executive would “oppose
and encroach upon each other” and the judicial not being able to “hold the balance between the
4
two contending powers (legislative and executive)”, there needs to be a type of mediator between
all of them. Thus annual elections keeps the system in balance and in virtue.
12. Adams
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? Men should be supplied with arms and ammunition as
well as trained in the defense of their home counties. He also notes that a public stock of
ammunition and entrenching tools in addition to established plans to supply soldiers with
provisions are necessary given the present circumstances of the country (Rev. War). He
maintained that militia law would inspire bravery and entrepreneurship. Adams’ mentions that
laws for “the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class” should be considered
humane and useful and that “no expense for this purpose would be extravagant” (p. 34). He
believed that knowledge among the people creates dignity, good humor, sociability, and good
manners and good morals. Adams holds that “sumptuary laws” or laws that tax on or place a
prohibition on luxury goods, while not popular, are wise as well as helpful towards saving
revenue for the war. He states that the frugality will not only cure the people of vanity but would
be real antidotes to continuing war like virtues (p. 34). He believed that such laws would create
solidarity, politeness and civility.
13.
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 of the people to bear arms so crucial? The right of people to bear arms, from a
republican perspective, is very crucial because it is inner connected with the overall safety of the
country. According to the republican ideology all men, with a few exceptions, should be
provided with weapons and ammunition and also trained at specific times so they can be ready to
defend their country in case of a sudden invasion.
14.
Bill of Rights
The Tenth Amendment has been regarded as one of the Antifederalists’ great victories.
How might we read it as helping to 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? By vesting those powers not expressly reserved to federal government via The
Constitution in the states and their people, the 10th amendment helped to assuage fears that all the
power would be coalesced in the newly formed central government. This decentralization of
power allowed for a more democratic form of government overall. Unfortunately, the vague
wording of certain clauses of The Constitution poorly defined exactly what powers were
reserved to the federal government and broad interpretations of the 10th amendment allowed state
governments with already anti-federalist tendencies to have justification for ignoring federal
laws with which they disagreed. This came to head in the battle of slavery with both sides citing
constitutional authority to justify their positions and a lack of constitutional clarity leading to a
schism of the Union.
5
15.
De Tocqueville
In the early pages of this piece, Tocqueville describes the various factors at work within
history that he believes have combined to make “equality of conditions,” and thus
democracy, inevitable. What factors does he isolate as central to this process? How does he
say they functioned, and with what specific consequences? De Tocqueville isolates the
discovery of a new land as a central process to the equality of conditions in America. He believes
that this new land offers infinite ways to fortune by those who go out and seek for it. The way
that this functions in America is by giving the opportunity to the commoner to climb up the
social ladder while the noble is being pushed down. The consequences to this is that the divisions
that once served mankind lower, property is divided, the commoners have access to power, the
light of intelligence is spread and the capacities of all classes are cultivated equally. When all of
this is introduced to the state it then becomes democratic. De Tocqueville believes that when this
happens, the nation become less brilliant, glorious and strong in one way or another. Although
De Tocqueville states the negative consequences for the nation he also that it is not entirely bad
for the everyone because the vast majority of the citizens will be able to enjoy a greater degree of
prosperity.
16.
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? Mill prefers active because they will be the
ones “struggling against evil”, they still stand up to what they feel is not right, rather than the
passive types who will just sit and “endures them”. An active person will not “bend to
circumstances” like a passive type would, but rather will strive to make the state of affairs bend
to the will of the people, rather than the ruler.
b. Mill believes that if a society fails to put in place the means for citizens to participate in the
process of democratic self-governance, then the citizens are denied the right to voice their
opinions and are forced into a passive lifestyle in which their existence is dictated by the rules,
laws, and regulations imposed by an absolute power. Mill believes that citizens are more
educated if they participate in the democratic process because of the interactive nature of
democracy, but if a democratic government is not in place citizens are deprived of the ability to
self-govern and protect their self-interest. Mill’s perspective on what the best form of
government does have relevance to this day. The most oppressive nations tend to not have any
democratic principles in their government, while democratic nations tend to focus on civil
liberties and human rights. For example in the United States citizens have the right to vote and
decide who is going to represent them and their interest, according to the constitution. Thus,
American citizens have the ability to self-govern because they have the right to vote on their
representative, just as Mill’s advocated as a representative government.
6