American Revolution: Republicanism and Democracy - Book Report/Review Example

American Revolution: Republicanism and Democracy Introduction In the 18th century the American population was in a phase of revolution from democracy to republicanism. Republicanism meant protection of liberty and inalienable rights for all individuals alike, making the people a sovereign whole. It claimed that people should be free in performing their civic duties and should not be forced to do so by the government such as the forceful recruitment to the military during war. They were stepping away from democratic political system whereby the majority could infringe on the rights of the minority without the minority being able to defend themselves. Democracy is based on the majority rule such as voting for political representatives. These representatives may then act against the rights of those who were opposed to them. Thus, the republicans advocated for a situation whereby the fundamental rights of the minority could not be taken away by the majority vote. This led to the Declaration of Independence (1776) as well as the formation of a constitution in 1787, both of which were meant to secure the rights of all regardless of whether they were the minority or majority and which the majority were bound to observe in carrying out their functions. Gordon’s View on Democracy and Republicanism Gordon Woods, in his work The Radicalism of the American Revolution, disagrees that the American Revolution resulted to any kind of protection for the minority. He opines that the efforts which were meant to result into conservative republican revolution was a total failure and which instead resulted into liberal democracy frustrating even the men who pioneered it such as Thomas Jefferson. He argues that from the onset both monarchical and republican values operated parallel to each other in the society and even the monarchists adopted the republican values without realizing that they, in the long-run, had adverse implications to everyone. The original idea of republicanism was so pervasive and enlightened to exhibit any signs of monarchism. Therefore, instead of existing on its own, republicanism joined with the monarchial mainstream, mingled with it and influenced it by changing its direction. Thus, during the 18th century the republicanisms did not displace monarchy but only transformed it. What Constituted the Republicanism According to Wood, the tradition of the classical republican was that man is naturally a political being and who achieved great moral satisfaction in being a part of a self-governing republic. Thus public or political liberty, now commonly known as positive liberty, was derived by participating in government. This political liberty in turn guaranteed the protection of private rights and personal liberty of the people now referred to as negative liberty. During that time, the positive and negative liberties were not clearly distinguished and were often mistakenly confused to be one and the same thing. Liberty could only be realized if the individuals were virtuous where they were ready to compromise their individual private interests for the benefit of the community such as serving in public offices without demanding any monetary pay. Of course the virtue could only be achieved where the citizens were equal, independent and active. One had to be independent from the common and ordinary interests in the market place. Any kind of dependence was perceived to be corruption. Republicanism was only concerned with public virtue. Private virtues were often disregarded as they were thought to contribute to selfishness where men only cared for themselves and no one else. They made a person pursue his/her own interests at the expense of community interests. They prevented men from performing their role in the society to advance community interests and thus civic duty. Upholding the public virtue was a way of sacrificing private desires and personal interests for the pursuit of a more worthwhile course of devoting one’s effort for the common wealth. Thus, individuals were burdened with the requirement to suppress their own needs and interests to develop a state of disinterestedness. The public virtue worked to produce very fragile polities who were extremely liable to corruption. The republicans burdened people more than the monarchists required of their subjects. Even though each man was free to follow his own desires, what he considered to be right could be retrained by threat or force or by honor or patronage in case of monarchies. In republicanism, however, there was no chance for an individual to follow his desire as they were forced to sacrifice everything for the sake of the societal good. The Republicanism at Work Woods argues that the coming of the constitution together with the two party system pitted people’s interests as against one another and the state has continued to pursue selfish interests through what they call social welfare programs. Even though it was founded with the best of intentions, it failed to achieve its objectives especially when the private virtues were comprised for public virtues in what can be properly termed as the ultimate removal of the authoritative monarchy. Gordon suggests that, perhaps, if the republicanism had been tried when the American Republic had just freed from the British government and was still subject to Crown, it would have probably proved successful (Woods, 24). As for republicanism, by putting emphasis and basing the whole system in human virtue it destroyed the very fabric of the republic that had held together the monarchial society which was based on patronage and kinship. It was mistaken in its idea of reproducing a new public by educating the citizenry to exude the civic virtue and their belief that they were capable of transforming the traditional forms of authority and completely come up with new relations that were built on republican decency. The Founders Frustrations The revolutionary leaders should have known that republicanism was just an expression of an utopian hope where the moral and social order of enlightened and virtuous men was the basis of a perfect regime. This caused disappointments like no other in the American history. Woods argues that even for Jefferson who was seen as a democrat to the greater extent than the rest was frustrated during the last years of his life in what many people today regard as embarrassing. He came to hate the new America that he saw beforehand to be emerging, the recurrence of the same old problems which he had sought to resolve. He had not adequately planned for the future leaving it to work itself. He believed in the highly developing technology and promising progress to eliminate the barriers of ignorance and superstition. He thought that in a liberal democracy people must be able to solve every problem they come across and even if it was not going to happen at the present moment, it surely would work in future. But the future did not exactly look the way Jefferson envisioned it to be. The popularity of Andrew Jackson did not work well with Jefferson who felt that he was unfit for presidency. The paper-money business culture was sweeping in to the country and he was devastated when he realized how much he had facilitated the development of its egalitarian principles. And the people whom he had so much confidence in failed to become enlightened after all. Only thanks to Madison who, through his criticism of the whole idea, led to the constitution which protected individuals from unfettered democracy. The Ultimate Result The ultimate result of all those efforts was not the envisioned America but a radical democracy. For Woods, a new generation was born of democratic Americans who lost the desire to build the revolutionaries dream that of a classical republic of enlightened virtuous men from copying and inheriting from the historical British world. The new generation was focused on creating its own greatness without having to copy the traditional states or adopting fiscal-military powers of the contemporary Europe or producing a number of geniuses and people of great mind. Rather, it would achieve its dream through the creation of a prosperous free society that belongs to diverse people without depriving them of their individual concerns and their personal pursuit of their interests. It was for the common and ordinary individuals who had personal goals to achieve and advancement needs. America definitely paid a price for its pursuit of this objective. But the final reward to the ordinary and neglected common people were immense and worth the efforts. The modern democracy that America practices today can be traced from the failed American Revolution. Work cited Woods, S. Gordon. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. First Vintage Books Edition, March 1993. Print. Read More