The Rise and Fall of Democracy in Early America, 1630–1789 : The Legacy for Contemporary Politics

Americans are deeply divided, among themselves and within themselves, on the subject of democracy. Democracy is sometimes taken to be America’s highest value, even its essence; but at other times, democracy is seen as America’s nightmare. Democracy is the New England town meeting; democracy is the sheriff of a small southern town. Much of what is worst in America has been imputed to direct democracy. Pure democracy, it is said, means the persecution of the minority by the majority. Democracy leads to, among other things, prayer in schools; the banning, labeling, or burning of books and records; and restrictions on alcohol, drugs, sex, and abortion. Above all, democracy has produced racial segregation and discrimination. Some people implicate democracy when the city council of Yonkers, New York, refuses to permit low-cost housing for blacks to be built in white neighborhoods. On the other hand, most Americans retain an affection for the democratic ideal, even for its more radical elements. The image of people directly taking control of their lives in a town meeting still has positive connotations for many. We hate dictators, the domination of one country, or even one social group, by another, and censorship of speech and press. It is hardly controversial to say that adults should govern themselves and that government cannot be entrusted to experts. The division over direct democracy has more than theoretical significance. Democratic themes are at the center of debates concerning abortion, affirmative action, welfare, and worker ownership and participation in decision making. In Tiananmen Square, Chinese students called for democracy, as did Solidarity in Poland and the reform movements in the Soviet Union.1 In the United States, a number of political thinkers and activists have recently advocated direct democracy as the best standard for political change... The Rise and Fall of Democracy in Early America describes and explores the emergence of a directly democratic political culture in America, the Federalists'theoretical campaign against that culture, and the legacy of the struggle over democracy for politics today. The Rise and Fall of Democracy in Early America traces the rise of democracy in America beginning with the Puritans of New England; the radicalization during the eighteenth century of Puritan notions of community, autonomy, and participation; and the Antifederalist attempt to preserve a democratic political culture in the face of Federalist efforts to centralize power and distance it from the people by the passage of the 1787 Constitution.Despite its historical concerns, this book is not a history of institutions or a history of ideas. It is a work of political theory that explores certain early American texts and debates, and discusses the theoretical questions raised by those texts and debates, emphasizing those issues most relevant to democratic thought in our own time. Among the many insights into our democratic heritage that Joshua Miller affords us in his discussion of the Puritan theory of membership and the Antifederalist theory of autonomous communities is the hitherto obscured affinity between democracy and conservatism.Whereas many treatments of early American political thought make the debate over the ratification of the Constitution appear dry and abstract, this book shows the clash of political values and ideals that were at the heart of the struggle. It illustrates how the Federalists employed a democratic-sounding vocabulary to cloak their centralizing, elitist designs.Miller introduces readers to a political theory of direct democracy that is presented as an alternative to Marxism, liberalism, and mainstream conservatism. This new democratic theory based on an early American political tradition should serve as a stimulus for rethinking the directions we are taking in politics today. The Rise and Fall of Democracy in Early America describes and explores the emergence of a directly democratic political culture in America, the Federalists' theoretical campaign against that culture, and the legacy of the struggle over democracy for politics today. Miller traces the rise of democracy in America beginning with the Puritans of New England; the radicalization during the 18th century of Puritan notions of community, autonomy, and participation; and the Antifederalist attempt to preserve a democratic political culture in the face of Federalist efforts to centralize power and distance it from the people by the passage of the 1787 Constitution. Despite its historical concerns, this book is not a history of institutions or a history of ideas. It is a work of political theory that explores certain early American texts and debates, and discusses the theoretical questions raised by those texts and debates, emphasizing those issues most relevant to democratic thought in our own time. Among the many insights into our democratic heritage that Joshua Miller affords us is the hitherto obscured affinity between democracy and conservatism. Whereas many treatments of early American political thought make the debate over the ratification of the Constitution appear dry and abstract, this book shows the clash of political values and ideals that were at the heart of the struggle. It illustrates how the Federalists employed a democratic-sounding vocabulary to cloak their centralizing, elitist designs. Miller introduces readers to a political theory of direct democracy that is presented as an alternative to Marxism, liberalism, and mainstream conservatism. This new democratic theory based on an early American political tradition should serve as a stimulus for rethinking the directions we are taking in politics today. This is a work of political theory that treats the theme of direct democracy in America from the Puritans through the Federalists. It argues that the Puritans developed seeds for direct democracy in their conception of a Congregational church. Another chapter is about radical democratic action in eighteenth century America. The Antifederalists are portrayed as democrats because they embraced ordinary people in community. Contrary to the Tea Party, they saw the Constitution as a centralizing elitist blueprint for an anti-Democratic United States. The final chapter describes the Federalists as enemies of direct democracy. This chapter studies the rhetorical moves of Madison and Hamilton. They needed to convince the American people that the Constitution was republican--although it really wasn't. Joshua Miller. Includes Bibliographical References And Index.