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
Sedbober [7]
2 years ago
6

Why was the United States worried about tyranny?

History
1 answer:
julsineya [31]2 years ago
5 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.

You might be interested in
This is an excerpt from Secretary of State Marshall’s speech explaining his plan for European recovery,
givi [52]

Secretary of State Marshall suggested his plan to help rebuild European economies after World War as a way of staving off political instability and poverty conditions, which would become breeding grounds for governments that would go against freedom.

Explanation/context:

The "Marshall Plan" was named after the man who then was US Secretary of State, George C. Marshall.  Officially the plan was called the European Recovery Program.  Marshall announced the plan in 1947, and it went into effect in 1948.  The intent was to provide aid and rebuilding to European economies after the damaging effects of World War II.  

In his speech introducing the plan, Secretary Marshall presented the plan as aid for any and all nations, saying :  "Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the United States. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist."  <em>[I provided more context for the quote you had shown, to see more of his intent in the remarks.]</em>

The view in the communist-controlled Eastern bloc was that the US was trying to use such a policy to spread its influence and threaten their patterns of government under communism.  So the plan ended up building allies for the US in Western Europe, while the Eastern European countries sided with the Soviet Union.  So it was an example of Cold War tactics of competition between the US and the USSR, apart from the use of military force.

6 0
3 years ago
What are the basic units of each party at each level? Select all that apply.
Free_Kalibri [48]

Answer:

mass meeting

committee

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
At the national level, the United States has often been described as which type of state?
VMariaS [17]

Answer:

Federal republic

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
I want an answer not a link.
sineoko [7]

Answer: The correct answer would be C.

Explanation: Hope this helps plz mark brainliest.

3 0
3 years ago
What was the jersey number of the center-fielder who led the Phillies to their fifth National League pennant in 1993?
lawyer [7]

The correct answer for above statement is:

4 is the number of the jersey

Explanation:

After ending in end place the preceding year, the Phillies took the lead in the National League East Division on occasion day and never abandoned it, as they decided the group title on September 28 in Pittsburgh. The 1993 Phillies were led by stars Darren Daulton, John Kruk, Lenny Dykstra, and Curt Schilling.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • The beliefs of which ancient Egyptian are most similar to Abraham's beliefs?
    12·2 answers
  • What were the core differences in the methods and agendas of the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor?
    13·1 answer
  • Which of the following is NOT a true statement about the Opium Wars?
    9·2 answers
  • How did the Catholic Church respond to the Scientific Revolution?
    6·2 answers
  • Which three factors transformed industry during the Gilded Age?
    13·2 answers
  • What was the result if gibbions v ogeden​
    7·1 answer
  • How did this persons (Francis Lubbock) actions affect Texas history over the next four years?
    8·1 answer
  • Which of the following helps explain the trend in life expectancy in America
    12·2 answers
  • What are the major professions prevalent in nepal?
    8·1 answer
  • Based on his New Deal plan, which of the following statements would Roosevelt MOST likely to agree with?
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!