Political Warfare During World War I

From the early 1840s to the present day, a democracy can be described as a flawed establishment which has been shaped by the power of wealth and control, complex social relations, and most importantly the people’s desire to live a fulfilling life. Throughout this time period the principles of democracy, such as equality, protection of the people’s interest, and promotion of human rights were shifting in order to increase the democracy efficiency. Therefore the continued importance of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution remain significant since, in American today, democracy is a system that is continuously being shaped by the people within it.

It is observed through many generations democracy has provided equality, freedom, representation, and many other factors to contribute to the United States. We can see that the initial posterity that the founding fathers were hoping, have been achieved by the father’s enforcement through democracy. Generations are now taking advantage of their democratic right, and are influence on how the government is being ran as for the people and by the

World War I was caused by several issues between European powers, the first being militarism, or the huge emphasis placed on having large and strong armies and navies. Germany is an example of militarism in WWI because Germany began competing with the British for having the largest navy in the world, as well as developing new weapons like poison gas and submarines, the latter being a great tool in surprise attacks. Militarism was also associated with the Romanticism of war; Europeans wished to fight so that they could become heros. The constant military build ups in several European countries left countries looking for alliances with other strong countries, in the event that war was to break out. Germany, Italy, and Austria created the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente was comprised of Great Britain, France, and

World War 2, famously known as the most devastating war, had causes dating back to WWI as well as,pre . Some people refereed it because of the Treaty of Versailles which most of the people agreed one that it was too unfair for Germany and that their anger was going to appear sooner or later. The people thought it will create fascism. Some historians saw that the failure of The League of Nations was also another factor.

Despite the many crises that the United States has faced historically, democracy has persisted. However, this is not to say that the system is secure or deeply rooted. In fact, based on the events of recent decades, it has been weakening. In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt provide examples of how American democracy has exemplified the positive and negative aspects of other global democracies of the past and present. Although the US is exceptional in some ways, with its longstanding democratic institutions and diverse population, it is more similar to others than different. Thus, the idea that few parallels can be drawn to other nations is disproven. The process of comparing each state is analogous to that of differentiating between

Despite being one of the oldest and most consistently stable democracies in the Western world, the American government, and American democracy as a whole, has frequently come under fire in recent years. Whether it is political parties, pundits, bloggers or citizens, Americans and non-Americans are all lining up to take shots at what they diagnose as a storied democracy crumbling before their eyes. Two of Robert Dahl’s criteria for a healthy democracy are enlightened understanding: are citizens able to acquire the political information necessary to participate in their own democracy, and control of the agenda: do the American senators and members of congress have exclusive and

America’s form of representative democracy came as a result of the transgressions Britain committed against their colonies. Several hundred years of salutary neglect served well for those living an

During the twentieth century, the United States government increased its reach on society thanks to many successes it had during the Progressive Era. However, they were unable to control every aspect of society, especially the political machines, and become the ideal direct democracy they hoped of being. Nevertheless, the United States government became a powerful direct democracy that eliminated many problems of the preceding

From the Civil War to the Great Depression, American society underwent many changes, including, political and social, but mostly democratic changes. During the time between the Civil War and the Great Depression, the United States became a more democratic society because of societal and technological advancements that changed the American way of life. In this paper, a democratic society will be defined as a society with a governmental system that involves the participation of its citizens to help effectively rule a nation that makes decisions through its elected officials. Before the Civil War, only had a handful of individuals participated in the democratic system of the United States, but by the Great Depression, many individuals participated in politics and influencing society. During the Civil War, the United States was separated by differing viewpoints.

The first bit of information this book holds could seem a bit surprising to some, it states that the United States of America is not a democracy but it is a republic. According to a quote by Thomas Jefferson, “a democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town.” (10) McClanahan goes on to debunk several other myths about commonly misunderstood beliefs such as the belief that Paul Revere single handedly warned every one of the British, the idea that Ben Franklin had supposed

“How Democratic Is the American Consitution?” written by Robert A. Dahl is a novel that’s main purpose is to “suggest changes in the way we think about our constitution” (Dahl 2003, p.1). Robert A. Dahl revolves his book around a few questions. However, the main focus of all the questions are “why should we Americans uphold our constitution” (Dahl 2003, p.1)? This question is asked because he questions why we uphold something that was written more than two centuries ago. He also questions how democratic our society is because of our constitution. Dahl examines the fact that some Americans have no problem with the constitution as it is today and then he also states that some find it to lack in some crucial areas. Dahl explains that there are seven crucial areas in which the constitution lacks democracy. These include: slavery, suffrage, election of the president, choosing senators, equal representation in the Senate, Judicial power, and Congressional power.

During the interwar era [1919-40], Americans engaged in contentious political debates about the meaning of democracy and the role that the government should play in fostering this ideal. This could be seen by how the concept of self-determination was changed into a new rhetoric by multiple groups of individuals, more specifically African Americans and labor workers. This new rhetoric differed, to a certain degree, from the US federal government.

Alexis de Toqueville’s excerpt from his “Democracy in America” illustrates the elements that made the governmental system of the United States likely to succeed and flourish in the coming years. The author relates the origins of the country to that of an infant, the development that occurs in the earliest periods shows up throughout the progression of both. In the case of the nation, the fact that it was initially built by groups that differed fundamentally, yet found themselves in similar conditions, serves to show how such a powerful form of democracy came to be. Furthermore, it noted that financial based systems, such as the one in England, could not operate with the extensive and diverse lands of the New World. All of the reasons highlighted

In the era of the contemporary United States, a country that has had the longest standing democracy, we are used to thinking very highly of its system. However, throughout our history, there have been a couple of critics to the system of democracy. It comes as no surprise that democracy does have its issues. One of the first pieces of literature where democracy was mentioned and analyzed at a deeper level was The Republic by Plato. This ancient Greek philosopher did not completely agree with democracy, regardless of the fact that ancient Athens was the first civilization that gave rise to it. In fact, in a numerical list that he composes on which are the best ways of ruling, Plato puts democracy at one of the lowest levels. In order, Plato’s list of types of government from most desirable to least desirable looks like this: 1.) Republic (The ideal city) 2.) Timocracy 3.) Oligarchy 4.) Democracy 5.) Tyranny. Additionally, In The Republic, Plato tells us his beliefs and values on certain aspects of life through the eyes of Socrates. So, even though Plato himself does not appear in The Republic and instead Socrates does, nonetheless, Plato and Socrates shared the same ideology when it came to democracy. As we know, Plato did not agree with democracy. As a result, in this paper, I will explore the greatest intellectual strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s view on democracy.

Certain aspects of German society following the events of World War I became radically unstable. Such instability from 1918 to 1923, led to a series of economical, political and social crises, which would drastically change the country. Certain parts of the country were highly progressive, while other parts remained true to right wing beliefs, and as a result, coexistence proved to be too difficult. While Germany was having its own civil issues stemming from internal unrest, outside factors would also greatly influenced the crises which would call into question the future of Germany. Although one single issue cannot be determined as the sole cause of the crises, the major influences which factored into the upending of German society can be