An Evolving Democracy: The United States

Democracy remains a work in progress in the United States, an evolving aspiration rather than a finished product.
~ Greenberg & Page, The Struggle for Democracy

At no other time in the 200-year history of the United States has there been a greater opportunity for people to be involved in the evolution of democracy. Political equality, political liberty, and popular sovereignty are all fundamental components of democracy that have grown tremendously since the time of the nation's Founding Fathers. Consequently, the United States has evolved and grown much more democratic in the process.

The Greek polis, or city-state, has served as an ancient model for many forms of democratic government throughout the world. However, democracy, or "rule by the people" in ancient Greece was very different from democratic governments of today. The distinction between direct and representative democracy is one of the most significant differences. Direct democracy requires that all citizens meet regularly, engage in political debate and collectively decide on the size of their government and role it should play in daily life. Although implausible due to the size of the United States, direct democracy was possible in fifth century Greece, which is roughly the size of the state of Alabama. A small population and landmass enabled male citizens to gather in one place on a regular basis. Time and energy were also seldom a problem because women and slaves accounted for the majority of labor, leaving men with "abundant leisure time" that could be spent on politics.

Representative democracy, in which the people rule through elected representatives, can be just as egalitarian as a direct democracy if it maintains the benchmarks of political equality, political liberty, and popular sovereignty. Although political equality is inherent to American democracy, the nation's understanding of who is entitled to equal status has changed greatly over the years. At its conception, the Constitution deferred voting rights to the individual states. Most states limited equal citizenship to white male landowners. A few states even excluded white males with certain religious beliefs. Property ownership and religious requirements for white males ended in most states by 1829 (Greenberg & Page p.274). The right to vote was extended to all men, regardless of race in 1870, on the heels of the Civil War. However, a long history of slavery, hatred, and prejudice in the form of Jim Crow laws prevented most African-Americans from exercising their right to vote until the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Equally important to political equality is the belief that in a democracy, every person should be awarded "equal protection" by the government. Although the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments made it illegal for the government to deny benefits or protection to anyone based on their race or ethnicity, legalized segregation continued for nearly one hundred years through "separate-but-equal" laws. Traditionally, women have also been marginalized in the United States. The Nineteenth Amendment passed in 1920, finally gave women the right to vote after a long and heated political battle lead by a strong social movement of prominent female figures. The passing of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1971 further increased political equality by giving 18 to 20-year olds the right to vote in federal, state, and local elections (Greenberg & Page p.276). As a result, some 11 million young people were added to the electorate overnight. The number of eligible voters increased from 23 percent of the adult population in 1788-1789 to nearly 100 percent in the 1970s, making the United States much more democratic than it had ever been. Increased political equality ensures that democracy remains a system of "rule by all the people," instead of a select few.

Political liberty, another essential ingredient of democracy refers to the basic freedoms guaranteed to every citizen of the United States. These liberties include the freedoms of speech, of conscience and religion, of the press, and of assembly and association, embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Greenberg & Page p.11). Political equality and popular sovereignty are both contingent upon these important personal liberties. People must feel free to argue and debate, based on their own ideas, values, and personal beliefs without fear that the government will silence unpopular viewpoints. It is interesting to note that while Americans place great value on their own personal rights, they also frequently attack minority rights by way of the police, politicians, or the popular majority. Pornography, for example, has triggered a number of communities and state legislatures to regulate or eliminate images and ideas they find offensive. Although a great deal of pornography may be distasteful to a large majority of the public, civil liberties organizations and the courts have tried to leave choices up to consumers and the market (Greenberg & Page p.456). The Communications Decency Act passed by President Clinton in 1996, made it a crime to transmit indecent materials over the Internet that could potentially be viewed by minors. Although the law may have been well intended, the Supreme Court found that it was in direct violation of the First Amendment, being overly broad and vague, and violative of free speech rights of adults to receive and send information. By preserving personal rights, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of political liberty and its central role in the evolving democracy of the United States.

Popular sovereignty, the final element in a competent democracy involves a responsive government, an active electorate, access to high-quality information and debate, and a doctrine of majority rule. The basic principle of popular sovereignty states that the source of all public authority is the people and that government must follow the wishes of the people (Greenberg & Page p.8). Although the framers of the Constitution believed popular sovereignty was an essential part of democracy, they were often divided on how much control the public should have. Many Founding Fathers of the United States were concerned that government would become too democratic, being controlled by passing fads and irrational beliefs of an "immoderate and unvirtuous" people. This negative view of the public was not universal among delegates, but many believed that government office should be left to the "better parts of society." The conduct of the public business was, in their view, the province of individuals with wisdom and experience, capacities associated mainly with people of social standing, substantial financial resources, and high levels of education. Not surprisingly, nearly all framers were part of this elite group (Greenberg & Page p.32-33).

Over time, opinion surveys and polls have shown that many of the Founders' fears of radical fluctuations in public opinion are unfounded. In fact, collective public opinion is quite stable on the majority of issues. Consequently, in recent times, the United States government has frequently aligned itself with public opinion and become more democratic in the process. The Supreme Court, for example, rendered its historic Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 after a decade-long decline in the public's opposition to abortion. Similarly, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after a period of time when public support for racial segregation was declining (Greenberg & Page p.142).

These events are dramatic examples of the power of public opinion. However, occasionally the government may act in direct opposition to the will of the public. Political analysts and scholars have determined that while dissenting government officials may upset the public, United States government policy as a whole, coincides with public opinion about 2/3 of the time. Even when government is slow to act, political scholars have found that if public opinion changes by a substantial amount and the issue is prominent, government policy has moved in the same direction 87 percent of the time within a year or so afterward (Greenberg & Page p.142).

The office of the president, in particular, has become more dependent on public opinion to determine its course of action. Presidential approval rating has become the yardstick by which the popularity and performance of the president is determined. A president's chances for reelection, his effectiveness in Congress, and his ability to persuade the public all hinge on his approval rating which is determined by the people. Therefore, the office of president is more democratic than it ever has been or was ever intended to be by the nation's Founders. Another striking example of the public's influence on the presidency came prior to the 2000 election. After a series of comedic skits, one-liners, and unabashed mockery from late night talk shows in regard to their first debate, both George W. Bush and Al Gore revamped their debate styles to appear more presidential and less ridiculous. The results of "new look" strategy were inconclusive, but the media and the laughter of the American people directly affected the actions of both major party politicians.

Another key to achieving popular sovereignty is an active public who participates in the political process. The most important form of public involvement is the selection of government officials through general elections. Elections ensure that responsive representatives will be chosen and that they will have continuous incentives to pay attention to the people (Greenberg & Page p.9). Like many other facets of American democracy, elections have become much more democratic over time. As early as 1800, many states began allowing the popular vote to determine representatives in the Electoral College rather than the state legislatures. Although the system of electors is still odd and cumbersome, it ensures that American citizens choose their president more or less directly. A more democratic election process for the presidency continued to take shape as political parties began to allow voters to elect convention delegates directly, in primaries, instead of having party activists choose them through state caucuses or conventions (Greenberg & Page p.267-277).

Public participation in congressional races has also been increased since 1913 when election of U.S. senators was turned over to a popular vote. Before this time, senators were elected by state legislatures. This was another measure by the Founding Fathers to insulate government from the will of the public. Besides voting, many Americans participate in the political system through political parties, interest groups, and progressive social movements. For example, people use the party label to help organize their thinking about politics: to guide them in voting and judging new policy proposals (Greenberg & Page p.127). Participation in political parties and interest groups can very greatly depending on the individual, and his or her commitment to the cause. Some supporters choose to give money while others may elect to work directly for an organization devoting their time and skills.

Access to high quality information and debate is also vital to popular sovereignty. These are the responsibility of government officials, opposition parties, opinion leaders, and the mass media. The media in particular play an enormous role in acting as a government watchdog, clarifying electoral choices, and providing important policy information. For the most part, expanding technologies and increased social awareness have helped transform an unorganized public into networks of individuals with common interests and goals. Print, television, radio, and the Internet are able to provide citizens with overwhelming amounts of information about the United States government. If this information is accurate and insightful, democracy is improved.
For example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hosts the Freedom Network that can connect anyone to an index of prominent political issues, as well as congressional voting records from every state with a click of a mouse. Rock the Vote/Choose or Lose, a non-partisan, non-profit organization sponsored by MTV, has made considerable efforts to protect first amendment rights and empower young people since 1990. The organization's annual crusades combine television, Internet, and numerous "campus invasion" promotions that aim to register as many voters as possible and inform young people about the issues affecting their country.

Popular sovereignty is also dependent on majority rule. This idea may seem simple, but it helps distinguish democracy from other forms of government such aristocracy, dictatorship, or communism. Majority rule also ensures the political equality of citizens. If a minority faction rules a nation, people in the minority group have more power than other citizens. This completely discredits the idea of "one person, one vote" that is so valued in modern democracies. Majority rule also maximizes the number of people involved in decision-making, enhancing participation, which is important to popular sovereignty (Greenberg & Page p.10). When people play a part in determining their government, whether through elections or some other type of action, they are more likely to accept the decisions of government and value the system of democracy.

Although more people now have greater access to information, certain barriers to democracy still exist. Again, democracy in the United States remains a work in progress, an evolving system rather than a completed goal. The current problem with American democracy does not seem to be lack of opportunity, but rather that few citizens have the time, money, or energy to actively pursue democracy. As previously mentioned, widespread participation is essential to popular sovereignty. Although more citizens may have the right to vote in 2006 than in 1906, fewer and fewer eligible voters are actually exercising that right. Some causes of low voter turnout are: lack of attractive candidate choices, changes in eligibility rules, lack of party organization, alienation of American voters, as well as other traditional voting barriers. As the United States becomes more democratic, many of these obstacles should continue to brake down. A change in the number of eligible voters also magnified the problem of voter turnout throughout the years. Even though nearly 100 percent of Americans (excluding those who are incarcerated or mentally insane) now have the right to vote, many people still do not use that right. Often the most newly enfranchised groups (African-Americans, women and 18-year-olds) did not seize their initial opportunity to vote, even when given the right.

The earlier example of the ACLU presents another barrier to democracy. Even though the ACLU's website is quite comprehensive, easy to use, and free to the public, the information it contains remains restricted to those who can not afford a computer and Internet connection. Internet connections at public libraries and universities help alleviate the problem of cost for some people, but time and energy remain scarce for most Americans. Many people work full-time jobs and are not afforded the leisure time to devote to politics that the ancient Greeks enjoyed. Consequently, many people have only a basic understanding of the issues fundamental to American politics.

These problems are very real and remain very important to the evolution of democracy in America. However, the United States is still much more democratic than it ever has been at any time in its history. As the United States changes in the coming decades, it will be interesting to see how American citizens and the government upholds the democratic pillars of political equality, political liberty, and popular sovereignty. Expanding global economies, environmental concerns, and the threat of terrorism will all have a tremendous impact on the United States in the near future, but if the trend continues the nation will adjust and evolve to produce an even greater democracy.