THE MEANING OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

Robert Y. Shapiro, Editor
July 25, 2005 · $25.50 (APS Members: $20.40) · ISBN: 1-884853-05-6

The Meaning of American Democracy examines recent events that have raised questions about the meaning of democracy, including the elections of 2000 and 2004, the terrorist attacks on September 11, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

ROBERT Y. SHAPIRO (Columbia University) sets forth the book’s framework by discussing the normative requirements of democracy in America. He provides a comprehensive overview by introducing each essay in the collection. He explains how the book, in addition to offering appraisals of democracy, institutions and rights, examines the recent U.S. presidential and congressional elections, as well as, challenges to democracy since September 11 through the subsequent war in Iraq.

ROBERT A. DAHL (Yale University) examines the political institutions necessary for a democratic country. He argues that a large-scale democracy requires the following political institutions: elected officials; free, fair, and frequent elections; freedom of expression; alternative sources of information; associational autonomy; and inclusive citizenship.

MICHAEL LIND (New America Foundation) offers prescriptions for developing a new American creed of national democracy. Lind defines national democracy as a synthesis that could counteract the trend toward the fissuring of the United States along class, ethnic, and racial lines.

ALEXANDER KEYSSAR (Harvard University) argues that the 2000 presidential election has made clear the desirability of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing to all American citizens the right to vote for president and to have those votes determine each state’s vote in the Electoral College. Tracing certain features of the history of suffrage in the United States, he maintains that such an amendment would make the Constitution consistent with the now broadly based consensus (not present at the nation’s founding) that voting is a right that inheres in all citizens.

THE PANELISTS (D. Caraley, L. Greenhouse, S. Issacharoff, R. Pildes, G. Pomper, J. Rakove, R. Shapiro, R. Smith) discuss the points raised by the Keyssar article. They end up with consensus on the need for a constitutional right to vote for president, but have some differences on additional aspects of reforming the system.

PAUL T. McCARTNEY (University of Richmond) examines how the Bush administration drew upon nationalist imagery first to interpret the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and then to frame the war against Iraq. He demonstrates how President Bush drew on both enduring elements of American identity and security concerns following September 11 to provide normative justification for the Iraq invasion. He concludes that the exceptionalist dimension of American nationalism that underpins the Bush doctrine is outdated and dangerous to current foreign policy interests.

LOUIS FISHER (Library of Congress) analyzes the performance of U.S. political institutions in authorizing the war against Iraq in October 2002. He finds that the Bush administration failed to provide correct information to Congress to justify the war and relied on tenuous claims that were discredited on many occasions. He also argues that Congress failed in its institutional duties both by voting on the Iraq resolution without sufficient evidence and by drafting the legislation in such a way that it left the power to initiate war in the hands of the President, exactly what the Framers had tried to prevent.

STEVEN KULL, CLAY RAMSAY, and EVAN LEWIS (PIPA, University of Maryland) examine the prevalence of misperceptions related to the Iraq war among the American public: that weapons of mass destruction and evidence of close links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been found and that world public opinion approved of the United States going to war with Iraq. Such misperceptions were powerful predictors of support for the war, and their prevalence varied dramatically according to respondents’ primary source of news.

Excerpts from the four opinions issued by the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES are included to display the most vital components of each opinion's rationale and judgment.

GARY C. JACOBSON (University of California, San Diego) analyzes the results of the 2004 United States House, Senate, and presidential elections, arguing that the Republicans’ gains did not reflect any shift in public sentiments in that party’s favor, but rather were the result of the Republicans’ structural advantages, reinforced by the intense partisan polarization provoked by the Bush administration.

JAMES E. CAMPBELL (University at Buffalo, SUNY) examines how pre-campaign fundamentals and the campaign affected the 2004 presidential election. Incumbency, high turnout, and concerns that Kerry would not handle the war on terrorism as well as Bush tipped the electorate toward President Bush. An electorate evenly divided in its partisanship, the economy, conflicting views about Iraq, and the debates made the election one of the closest in modern party history.

In the volume’s final section, DEMETRIOS CARALEY (Barnard College and Columbia University) discusses the major features critical to the working of our democratic institutions: free elections, separation of powers and checks and balances, and government limited by constitutional guarantees. He discusses some evidence that suggests our democracy may be shifting to an elective despotism of the majority--something that Jefferson declared "was not the government we fought for."