The Government Of The United States Of America Is An Oligarchy.

In Andrew Sullivan’s essay, “America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny,” he expresses his beliefs that our government is drifting away from the original goals that were embedded for a structural government. Now a days, we are leading towards a government that is construct with individuals in power have wealth while the common people still dwell with less. Sullivan clarifies his argument by introducing the idea that our government is not a democracy, it is more closely similar to an oligarchy. Due to the fact that our democracy is economically unequal, it is coming close to being destroyed by our past and by the rich who can purchase political influences. As common people in society, our voice is simply being diminished due to the fact that

Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.

When writing the Constitution, one of the most prominent arguments focused on whether America should be considered a Democracy. A large percentage of the founding fathers feared the term “Democracy” because they strongly believed that if the people had control, then there would be disorder and violence. As James Madison stated in Federalist No. 10,

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

The United States is no longer the democracy it stands for. Democracy stands for a government controlled by the majority of the population. The United States is no longer controlled by the majority. America is controlled by the powerful corporations and rich elite. The combination of an uninformed, disinterested public, a flawed election process, and an economy controlled by 1% of the population have all led to the formation of the American Oligarchy.

All this together gives grounds to say that the adoption of the U.S. Constitution was a historic event and played a major role in the development of democracy in the USA, as well as throughout the world. According to one of its founding fathers and the third U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, “The Constitution of the United States is the result of adding the wisdom of our country”.

In debate of the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists agreed on several things: the necessity of some form of national government, the preservation of the right to vote, and the need to secure our liberties. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, whereas the Anti- Federalists wanted more power reserved to the state government. The right to vote is important for both sides, but they hold conflicting views on the amount of involvement through the power of the vote. Finally, individual rights is something that they both strongly agree upon, but where it should be officially held in our documents presents a huge conflict. Between Federalists and Anti- Federalists, there is an understanding in the importance of these matters, however each side has different interpretations in mind.

In the late 1700’s a debate broke out about the Constitution and its ratification. The debate was between two groups of Americans, Federalists, who supported the ratification, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed it. Federalists supported the constitution’s ratification because they wanted a strong government to rely on, however, Anti-Federalists opposed the constitution because they wanted more individual power and a weaker central government. Anti-Federalists were Americans who opposed the Constitution and its ratification for various reasons including their fear of individual rights being lost.

Democracy, as defined in American Government: Power and Purpose, is “a system of rule that permits citizens to play a significant part in the governmental process, usually through the selection of key public officials.” In the centuries before and since its founding, the United States has indubitably had undemocratic elements. In colonial times, the thirteen colonies’ government derived most of its authority from the elites, depriving many of those residing in lower socioeconomic classes from a voice in government. During the time of the American Revolution,

This paper is about how The United States moved from it’s inept first attempt at self government progressing, to the Constitution, which took care of many issues prevalent in the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionary concepts exemplified in the constitution propelled The United States onto the world stage. To gain a deeper understanding of this topic, two essays and a book will be consulted concerning what people thought about the Constitution when it was first implemented and how it is perceived today. In addition, a brief history of early American government and how the Constitution came to be will be discussed. Furthermore the resulting Constitution and how it improved upon the Articles of Confederation will be discussed.

The question posed by both Madison and the Framers in the 85 “Federalist Papers” and Dahl in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? is how effective the Constitution is at promoting the ideals of a democracy. For Dahl, there are several issues surrounding the Constitution, from its drafting, to its ideology, to its relevance. By analyzing Dahl’s critiques of the Constitution in terms of the parallels that exist between factions and the two-party system, the issue of unequal representation, and the necessity for the Framers to compromise on their ideals to ratify the Constitution, Dahl defined a clear argument based in his general disapproval for the Constitution. However, by combining Dahl’s critiques with potential rebuttals from the opinions and perspectives of Madison and his fellow Federalists, it is evident that both Dahl and the Framers believed that if the constitution was completely successful, then the lives of the American people would be enhanced. While Dahl believed that the Constitution, ultimately, has not fully protected the rights of all persons, he, like the Framers, focused on the particulars of government that must be improved such that the American life is bettered.

The government in the United States supposedly revolves around American ideals such as equality and diversity; however, this is simply not the case as perpetuated by class inequalities. The meaning of democracy has been skewed in the United States to represent something entirely different than it did in 1776. Today, American democracy behaves more like an aristocracy, where the upper class exercises power within the government and state, influencing discourse and therefore the laws and resources in our country, which are purportedly “for the people”. Democracy is presumed to provide everyone with equal political power, but the government in today’s America, although seemingly following this ideal model, does not. Instead, the elite upper class has a monopoly over the political influence and are the sole benefactors from public policies due to their influence over the policy making process. The upper class has an overall benefit from class inequality, as it greatly impacts American ‘democracy’ through the significant power gained through money and status, leadership roles that impact government, and the influence in the policymaking process that creates upper class advantages.

Federalist papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison and were publish with the pen name “Publius”. They were first written to urge the citizens of New York City to support ratification of the proposed United States Constitution. This paper will analyze the problem of tyranny of the majority in both society and the government by using Madison’s Federalist Papers No.10 and 51. It will also discuss how the republican government and separation of powers provide remedies.

In today’s modern American political culture, the public seem to be driven by the belief that we are governed by a democratic system. However, this system is actually moving away from the democratic republic way where all have a say, to one where it is metamorphosing into Plato’s third schema of an oligarchic constitution. The people gaining power politically, seek money to get into office, then once elected they funnel money and favors to family, friends, constituents and supporters who in turn help them stay in power. The insider ruling class raises taxes on everyone except themselves. They pass laws, but exempt themselves. They are able to do this because they control the media through their wealth and power. The problem is that the rich have become the most cogent political force in the United States, and the people’s votes and opinion have become ineffective, representing little more than a decoration. As a citizen of the United States, and a member of the working class, I believe that money has become the enemy of our society.