| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "KEVIN PHILLIPS WEALTH DEMOCRACY": |
|
|
Kevin Phillips's "Wealth and Democracy", 2004.
Presents a summary and review of Phillips's book on wealth in the United States.
2,069 words (approx. 8.3 pages), 0 sources, $ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is a positive review of Kevin Phillips's account of the history and evolution of wealth in the United States. The paper looks at historical figures that Phillips admires most, Phillips's ideas about income disparity and the concentration of wealth in the hands of few, the interface between politics and economics, and how Phillips handles the history of the economic development of the United States.
From the Paper
"Phillips shows his unabashed admiration for political and economic progressives, including Teddy Roosevelt and Ralph Nader. Although he asserts his Republican background early in the text, Phillips ascribes more to the classical vision of Republicans like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. These fine presidents endeavored to curb the unhealthy cancerous growth of American corporations. The seeds for economic inequality and political disenfranchisement were planted centuries ago; despite the measures proposed and enacted by progressive politicians in the past, the problems and its side-effects still remain. Remarkably, Phillips notes that many of the most outspoken and successful reformers were wealthy: Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and FDR. This does not, as some suggest, reflect class warfare, but rather an ideological one."
| |
|
Wealth and Democracy, 2008.
This paper provides a review of Kevin Phillips' book, "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich".
1,255 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that Kevin Phillips' book, "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich", examines the impact wealthy Americans have had on politics since America's colonial days in the eighteenth-century. The writer points out that the author's purpose in writing this book was to analyze the interaction between American governance and the accumulation of wealth. The writer also discusses that Phillips warns that such interaction have undermined the functioning of democracy to such an extent that our system of government resembles a plutocracy much more than it does a democracy. The writer concludes that the greatest strength of this book is its comprehensiveness and that readers should agree with Phillips' theme and conclusions despite the complex format of his book.
From the Paper
"The logic behind the topics of the chapters is based upon Phillips' intention to systematically reveal and analyze the interplay between politics, finance, and economics. For the most part, the chapters go together well to form the book, but coherence is lost at times because there is so much material to cover and the dynamics are so complex. The fit between the thesis of this book and the logic of the book's organization is not perfect by any means, but the historical, economic, political, and social scope of Wealth and Democracy is so broad that its organizational format had to be flexible in order for Phillips to support his thesis from all of these perspectives.
"Phillips places his work into the historiography of American politics and government by making a convincing case that democracy in this country has never really existed as the Founding Fathers intended it to exist."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
Compares modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
914 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discusses the major differences between Athenian democracy and modern democracy. Differences include voting and citizenship rights, gender and background bias in the Athenian social and economic system, the type of representation that each society offered and the 'participation factor' in Athens.
From the Paper
"There are several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens. Even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. These differences fall into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today?s western cultures.
For example, women were not given full rights of citizenship. They were also socially and economically kept in a subservient role to men. Women?s function was seen as primarily that of propagation and managing a household. Women were not allowed access to the marketplace of ideas that was so important to the Athenians.
These conditions set up an interactive cycle between the social and political institutions; since women were regarded as inferior and not deserving of full citizenship, they were not allowed to vote. However, without the ability to vote, it was very unlikely that any of these restrictions would be modified or lifted. The role of women in Greek society was too firmly entrenched to be easily changed."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
This paper looks at several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
864 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer shows that even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. The paper divides these differences into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
From the Paper
"One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today?s western cultures."
| |
|
"Democracy?s Discontent" vs. "Democracy in America", 2003.
A comparison of Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel's "Democracy?s Discontent".
3,845 words (approx. 15.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 105.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel in "Democracy?s Discontent" both address issues of democracy, freedom, the role of government, and the good citizen. It looks at how their viewpoints differ because they write at different times of history. De Tocqueville writes at a time when democracy is a novel ideal. Aristocracy has been the main form of government, and this, therefore, plays a major role in his writing. Sandel, on the other hand, deals with contemporary issues such as the global community and the implications of new technology and diminishing boundaries among people.
From the Paper
"De Tocqueville stresses the importance of civil equality in the achievement of true democracy. This equality implies the lack of divisions and barriers between social classes. This is the equality that he sees in American culture as opposed to European culture that still subscribes to the aristocratic means of government. The democratic ideal implies more freedom than would be possible with an aristocratic government: ?Let us suppose that all the people take a part in the government, and that each one of them has an equal right to take a part in it. As no one is different from his fellows, none can exercise a tyrannical power; men will be perfectly free because they are all entirely equal??(De Tocqueville, Book II, Chapter I)."
| |
|
Democracy and the U.S. Constitution: A Discussion of the Successes and Failures of the Founding Fathers in making an Obtainable Democracy, 2000.
After discussing the successes and failures of the founding fathers, the author of the paper concludes that they mostly did a good job, but disputes that America now has a pure democracy.
1,360 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" A perfect democracy would be a democracy where everyone- the poor, the rich, the weak, the strong- get to have a say in what the government does. Wherein the supreme power ultimately rests with the people. However, this is not reality. Instead, representative democracy can be defined in two ways: the responsible model and the popular model. In the popular model, ordinary people have a great deal of freedom and ability to participate actively in government. In this type, elections express the popular will and determine policies. Examples of this model include the House of Representatives, the Virginia Plan, and citizen initiatives. In the responsible model, citizens play a more passive role. Government officials have a great deal of freedom to act on the behalf of the country as a whole. Elections here, grant popular consent and determine leaders. Examples of this model are the Senate, the New Jersey Plan, and the Supreme Court. Although the people of the United States live in a democracy that has both popular and responsible elements, democracy here has always been more denoted by the popular model. "
| |
|
Benjamin Barber's "Strong Democracy", 2005.
This paper discusses Benjamin Barber's views on "thin democracy" and "strong democracy" as expresses in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age".
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Benjamin Barber in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age" defines 'thin democracy" as a democracy in which leaders are elected but they are left to their own devices concerning the majority of issues; people have the powers, which democracy provides, but the demonstration of these powers is primarily manifested in the form of elections. The author points out that Barber is convincing in making his point that "thin democracy" has a tendency to strip citizens of their sense of purpose as manifested by the voter participation rate stagnating in the U.S. at about half of those eligible. The paper stress that Barber loves the thought of a "strong democracy" in which it is not the leaders who make a democracy great but rather an active, informed citizenry.
From the Paper
""Thin democracy" takes the stance that average citizens are not interested in political matters and are not capable or adequate enough to directly participate in the political process themselves, beyond electing officials. Benjamin Barber feels that the United States democracy is thin and poorly represents the entire population at large. Significant portions of citizens are unable to vote due to restrictions or simply choose to be complacent and abstain from voting. Citizens under the age of eighteen are restricted from voting, as are prisoners, and persons living within the borders who are not nationalized. Citizens who are active in a thin democracy mainly participate in it by electing persons and then monitoring their political decisions (if they choose to do so), allowing the elected (those seen by the majority to have the most expertise and capability to discern what best represents the will of the majority) to do the actual work."
| |
|
Quality of Democracy in Iraq, 2006.
A study on democracy in Iraq, looking at how much progress the country has made towards establishing democracy, the quality of its democracy and how well its institutions are functioning.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes three of the fourteen topics provided on the Democratic Audit web site and apply them to a study of democracy in Iran. Specifically, the paper assesses the country's progress towards democracy, the quality of its democracy, and the functioning of its institutions - all by using the following three topics as a "measuring stick". These topics are a) civil and political rights, b) economic and social rights, and c) the extent of participation in the political process by various Iranian citizens.
| |
|
"Democracy in America", 2002.
A study of freedom and democracy using Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay explores the interrelation of the concepts of equality, freedom and democracy in history as portrayed in Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".
| |
|
Socrates' Criticisms of Democracy, 2008.
A discussion of the writer's views of democracy and of Socrates' problems with democracy and the democratic man as seen in Plato's, "Republic."
2,037 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Socrates' view of democracy and the democratic man as related in Book 8 of Plato's "Republic." In particular, the paper attempts to ascertain what specific problems Socrates has with democracy and democratic man. The paper then relates Socrates' criticisms - both those that the writer agrees with and those that he does not - to the state of affairs within the United States.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Criticisms of Democracy and Democratic Man
Freedom in Democracy
Equality in Democracy
Freedom and Equality in Democratic Man
Afterthought: The Democratic Ruler(s)
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Although it is clear that Socrates holds an uncomplimentary view of democracy, to say the least, it is equally clear to me that, conversely, in today's world democracy is largely respected and admired; countries strive to be "democratic" because of the positive connotations attached to the concept. What I have difficulty understanding is not the fact that countries today manipulate the definition of democracy to fit their own agenda, but rather why the concept, democracy, was chosen as the emulative term. Why isn't "socialism" seen as the "good" form of government? After all, in our country we are lacking a lot of the basic qualities that are supposedly essential to democracy. Yet at the same time the U.S. is arguably the most powerful, most economically well-off country in the world. There are many more questions like these that need to be explored, and I hope that throughout the course of this essay, through an examination of Plato's thought in the Republic, I have shed some light on some of the possible answers."
| |
|
Democracy and the Libertarian Ideal of Self-Ownership, 2002.
This is an argument for the libertarian conception of self-ownership as the foundation for democracy, as opposed to other values such as republican non-domination and deliberative democracy, with treatment of empirical work on the phenomenon of voter igno
4,060 words (approx. 16.2 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 109.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the notion of western democracy, and how by its very definition, impinges on our everyday lives. The author defines democracy, and looks at what democracy was intended to be, and how, as government expanded, and its influence expanded that democracy has had the opposite affect, and is not limiting our freedoms. The author also suggest ways in which we can regain the benefits that democracy was designed to provide.
From the Paper
"Indeed, if we did otherwise, we would be treating people not as full members of the community among equals, but as sheep unto a shepherd, or a child unto a parent. While such relationships are certainly appropriate between the incompetent and the competent, they can hardly be countenanced for the competent, who are entitled to their own private sphere in which they can determine the meaning of their experiences and define their own ends. After all, since people are different, and even individuals change through time, no one can better know his own conception of the good and his unique set of ends better than the individual himself. The state, far removed from the individual, is in no position to make that determination, and therefore, must be neutral to conceptions of the good. The state's disallowing one to choose for himself the sort of life he leads is, in fact, a principal criterion by which we can judge its goodness."
| |
|
Mill, de Toqueville and Schmitt: Problems of Democracy, 2008.
A comparison of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", and Carl Schmitt's "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy".
1,000 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the problems of democracy as cited in three major works on the subject: John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", and Carl Schmitt's "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy". The paper elaborates upon the views of Mill and de Tocqueville, who both believed that the tyranny of the majority was particularly worrisome in democracies, compared to other political systems. The paper also outlines the major features of Carl Schmitt's critiques of parliamentary democracy, in which he contrasts between how parliamentary government is designed to function and how it actually functions. The paper further discusses Schmitt's argument that democratic institutions function through corrupt political deal-making and that rational political debate and election results have little impact on government decision-making. The paper concludes that Mill and de Tocqueville realized that the solutions for these problems actually lay within the democratic system.
From the Paper
"Schmitt was also critical of parliamentary systems because he believed that the nature of democracy itself is based upon meaningless abstractions such as equality and liberty. To him, these high-sounding concepts were little more than a sham, for most people care very little about equal rights and liberty and most political leaders care even less. Leaders deliver grand speeches in parliaments and legislatures about democracy, but behind the scenes, they act in their own self-interest. And in society, the average citizen is just as hypocritical, for they resent any action by the government or other citizens that is detrimental to their self-interest, while paying lip service to democracy and equal rights for all."
| |
|
Economics and Democracy, 2002.
A study of the compatibility and implementation of economics and democracy using the definitions of socialism, capitalism and democracy of Marx and Friedman.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is about the incompatibility of democracy and capitalism. The writer argues, using many classic political economics texts, that socialism would complement democracy's goals better than capitalism, which was developed in a monarchist paradigm of government. Capitalism results in the concentration of power in isolated locations, whereas both socialism and democracy distribute power evenly through a population. The paper cites Marx as well as Friedman, and opens with clear definitions of socialism, capitalism, and democracy drawn from the works of these authors.
| |
|
The Flaws of Democracy, 2008.
A persuasive argument that democracy is a system of inequality, ineffective policies and unfair practices.
2,449 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 8 sources, APA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer asserts there are major defects in a democracy, including the retardation of innovation, economic unfairness and ineffectiveness of the electoral process. The writer believes that in a democracy it is actually the wealthy elite who rule, that democracies are capable of committing human rights violations and that there is widespread corruption. The paper maintains that a non-democracy would select candidates based on past work performance, and capability, as opposed to superficial looks or personal charms. The writer contends that the best form of government is an enlightened dictatorship which has a nation's best interests at heart.
Outline:
Abstract
Introduction
Oppression of Minorities in a Democracy
Retardation of Innovation in a Democracy
Economic Unfairness in a Democracy
Ineffectiveness of the Electoral Process
Spreading Democracy around the World
Alternatives to Democracy
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In a utopian world, democracy would be the most flawless form of government that could bring equality, peace, and prosperity to the masses. Unfortunately, reality does not work that way and democracy (like dictatorships) has its flaws and drawbacks. Democracy has been accused by some as being inefficient, unfair, and ineffective due to a lack of a clear insight on the issues when voters have a hard time agreeing on the same objective. This can especially be true if the electorate is polarized during election debates on very passionate issues that often arouse public debate. Ignorance and apathy on the part of the electorate have been cited as the major reason why issues during election time don't receive the proper discussion that they deserve."
| |
|
The Facade of Democracy, 2002.
Explores the negative aspects of the political struture of democracy, including the power of capitalism on the individual.
2,525 words (approx. 10.1 pages), 4 sources, $ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Democracy is intended to be a system of government which recognizes the right of all members of society to influence political decisions, either directly or indirectly. The Western type of democracy has appeared to reach many of its objectives in allowing freedom. Yet in many respects, this type of freedom is a facade, since it leaves many citizens incapable of fully empowering themselves. Capitalism plays a central role in this failure, since it ends up negating the freedom and choice of the individuals inside a democracy. Democracy, in other words, is hurt by the very system that simultaneously supports it. Political equality can exist with political inequality in democracy and this is exactly why modern democracy does not really epitomize freedom in the true sense of the word.
|
|
|
