1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
ki77a [65]
3 years ago
7

Why was the United States worried about tyranny?

History
2 answers:
hichkok12 [17]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Explanation:

History does not repeat, but it does instruct. As the Founding Fathers debated our Constitution, they took instruction from the history they knew. Concerned that the democratic republic they envisioned would collapse, they contemplated the descent of ancient democracies and republics into oligarchy and empire. As they knew, Aristotle warned that inequality brought instability, while Plato believed that demagogues exploited free speech to install themselves as tyrants. In founding a democratic republic upon law and establishing a system of checks and balances, the Founding Fathers sought to avoid the evil that they, like the ancient philosophers, called tyranny. They had in mind the usurpation of power by a single individual or group, or the circumvention of law by rulers for their own benefit. Much of the succeeding political debate in the United States has concerned the problem of tyranny within American society: over slaves and women, for example.

It is thus a primary American tradition to consider history when our political order seems imperiled. If we worry today that the American experiment is threatened by tyranny, we can follow the example of the Founding Fathers and contemplate the history of other democracies and republics. The good news is that we can draw upon more recent and relevant examples than ancient Greece and Rome. The bad news is that the history of modern democracy is also one of decline and fall. Since the American colonies declared their independence from a British monarchy that the Founders deemed “tyrannical,” European history has seen three major democratic moments: after the First World War in 1918, after the Second World War in 1945, and after the end of communism in 1989. Many of the democracies founded at these junctures failed, in circumstances that in some important respects resemble our own.

History can familiarize, and it can warn. In the late 19th century, just as in the late 20th century, the expansion of global trade generated expectations of progress. In the early 20th century, as in the early 21st, these hopes were challenged by new visions of mass politics in which a leader or a party claimed to directly represent the will of the people. European democracies collapsed into right-wing authoritarianism and fascism in the 1920s and ‘30s. The communist Soviet Union, established in 1922, extended its model into Europe in the 1940s. The European history of the 20th century shows us that societies can break, democracies can fall, ethics can collapse, and ordinary men can find themselves standing over death pits with guns in their hands. It would serve us well today to understand why.

Both fascism and communism were responses to globalization: to the real and perceived inequalities it created, and the apparent helplessness of the democracies in addressing them. Fascists rejected reason in the name of will, denying objective truth in favor of a glorious myth articulated by leaders who claimed to give voice to the people. They put a face on globalization, arguing that its complex challenges were the result of a conspiracy against the nation. Fascists ruled for a decade or two, leaving behind an intact intellectual legacy that grows more relevant by the day. Communists ruled for longer, for nearly seven decades in the Soviet Union, and more than four decades in much of Eastern Europe. They proposed rule by a disciplined party elite with a monopoly on reason that would guide society toward a certain future according to supposedly fixed laws of history.

We might be tempted to think that our democratic heritage automatically protects us from such threats. This is a misguided reflex. In fact, the precedent set by the Founders demands that we examine history to understand the deep sources of tyranny, and to consider the proper responses to it. Americans today are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism in the 20th century. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience. Now is a good time to do so.

In my new book, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, I present 20 lessons from the 20th century, adapted to the circumstances of today. The second lesson, “defend institutions,” is especially relevant for labor unions, whose role in defending democracy is explained elsewhere in this issue.

It is institutions that help us to preserve decency. They need our help as well. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning. So choose an institution you care about—a court, a newspaper, a law, a labor union—and take its side.

tekilochka [14]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
Who stated in his leviathan that citizens must submit to a powerful absolute monarch to prevent anarchy?
Tju [1.3M]
I do not know is sorry
5 0
3 years ago
The internet is strictly censored in china north korea and cuba because of
zmey [24]

governments worries about its use as a tool for political change-apex  

6 0
3 years ago
Attempting to control colonial trade, England passed the _____, declaring that the colonies could only sell certain items, such
UkoKoshka [18]
The correct answer is B.
6 0
3 years ago
HELLPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!​
Svet_ta [14]

Im not 100% sure but i think its A

Both talk about equality in one way or another

6 0
2 years ago
after the united states declared war on germany approximately how long did it take for over a million american troops to arrive
dmitriy555 [2]

Answer:

D one year

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Based on your understanding of the purposes and levels of government, which of the following actions are tangible evidence of th
    5·1 answer
  • What policy changes did reagan make
    8·2 answers
  • Became President following Jimmy Carter
    12·1 answer
  • How did Nixon ease Cold War tensions?
    12·1 answer
  • a few months ago, i told the american people i did not trade arms for hostages. my heart and my best intentions still tell me th
    13·1 answer
  • What is the difference between primary and secondary sources?
    14·2 answers
  • Which of the following was not a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis?an easing of a)tensions in the Cold War
    9·1 answer
  • How did the American imperialism harm the people of the Philippines? HURRY
    11·1 answer
  • What technology made the colonization of Africa and Asia easier?
    15·1 answer
  • How does check and balances affect both domestic and foreign policy?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!