Customer Reviews

How Democratic Is the American Constitution?

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Some other reviewers have citicized this book with the non-sequitur that the US is "a republic, not a democracy." A republic is simply a representative democracy. The Founders feared a system in which a majority of the population could empower their representatives to do whatever the majority so pleases. To prevent such a nightmare they proposed limits on government power. Although they feared the unchecked will of the majority, they all agreed that the "will of the people" was a better source of power than any alternative. Anybody who recites from rote the "Republic, not a democracy" mantra to ward off any discussion of perfecting our form of government is forgetting that the preamble to the Constitution speaks of a "more perfect union", not "a perfect union."

That said, the question Dahl raises is why no other government in the world is quite like ours. He makes it clear that the Framers had good ideas, but suggests that other nations have improved on the excellent baseline model established by the Framers. That is a very reasonable proposition. Ironically, much of the innovation seen in other nations consists of solutions to problems that our Framers thought they had solved.

The Framers feared "faction", because blind partisanship is clearly a bad thing. Ironically, a failure to foresee and allow for the inevitable formation of parties has only exacerbated the effects of "faction." Dahl addresses the lack of proportional representation (PR), where each party gets seats in (at least one house of) the legislature in proportion to its share of the vote. The lack of PR leads to a two-party system. When you only have two parties, the inevitable result is rancor and polarization. Conversely, multi-party systems require coalitions, compromise, and negotiation. If the formation of parties in inevitable, I'd much prefer a system in which parties compromise and solve problems rather than demonize and obstruct.

Also, Dahl points out that the Founders feared a popularly elected President because (a) they believed no national figure would emerge and (b) they feared that if one did emerge he would be a strong-man. They also rejected a Parliamentary system because they wanted checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. However, the electoral college rapidly evolved into a crude accounting scheme for national campaigns, and Dahl explores the historical background to this evolution. He also points out that we now have Presidents with "mandates." This suggests that maybe our Executive branch is TOO independent.

Finally, Dahl addresses the (sady, unchangeable) malapportionment of the Senate. He points out that revered advocates of limited government (e.g. Madison) opposed equal Senate representation for each state. In fact, Madison accused the small-state representatives of seeking power rather than liberty. Conservatives should be wary of any system that gives a small group huge power. Dahl argues persuasively that protection of minorities should look at ideological or political minorities, not minorities based on which state a person happens to live in. Ultimately, people should be free to organize politically with whomever they agree, and not be forced to organize their interests along artificial lines drawn by governments.

Overall, Dahl does an excellent job of pointing out the areas where our Constitution needs a fine-tuning, and he brilliantly demolishes the political ancestor-worship underlying opposition to his critique.

I think the book is a good one, as far as it goes. But, I think that the author, like virtually every author on the subject, is essentially arguing trivia that has little relevance to the real world. They intellectualize on a subject that our Government does not take seriously

The truth is that what the Constitution says or the form it takes simply has no consequence since the people who run our government simply ignore those provisions it does not like, enforces those provisions that enhance their power, and the Supreme Court can make its words mean anything they want by interpreting it to mean whatever they want it to mean. Let me give a few examples.

Example:1 Perhaps the most glaring example is the ruling that money equals speech. This ruling gives Constitutional protection thru the Free Speech Amendment for Corporations and the super rich to bribe any government official they want. Could anything be more obscene than to use the Bill of Rights to permit what would normally be a criminal action. I don't think so. When one adds that to the recent ruling that Corporations are persons under law, there is no hope for the common man to have any reasonable chance to have a seat at the tables when laws are being enacted that are critical to there own well being. Both of those interpretations are so absurd on the face of them that one simply cannot take any intellectual arguments about the Constitution seriously. And while our government scrupulously enforces those rulings, the smply ignore others.

Example:2 You may not know it but our government violates the Constitution on several subjects. The first is tha the Constitution states that our government is to give an accounting for all expenditures. So, why do they have a "Black Budget" that keeps secret tens billions of dollars that are spent on operations that the public doesn't know about. It is a clear violation.

Example;2 In passing Trade Treatise like NAFTA and the WTO, the Constitution requires a two thirds vote of the Senate. That, of course, didn't happen. They were instead put thru an unconstitutional process called "Fast Track" where members of Congress were not allowed to add amendments. This sham was created by denying that these treaties were treaties, by simply calling them "Agreements." One cannot make treaty not a treaty by simply calling it something else. You cannot turn a dog into a act by renaming it. This is an obvious violation of the Constitution.

EXAMPLE:3 the Constitution requires that only the Congress can declare war. That is another provision that is simply ignored. We have been in dozens of wars since WW II and we have never declared war on anyone.

Example:4 GWB created a precedent that allows the President to ignore any law he wants, simply by creating a Signing Statement. He did it dozens of times during his Administration. The way it works is that whenever Congress passes a law and it goes to the President for his signature, he doesn't veto it, he signs it and attaches a Signing Statement that notifies Congress that, even though he is signing the law, he does not intend to obey or enforce it.

Example:5 Finally, the President can simply ignore the Constitution by simply declaring and "Emergency." Most people don't know it, but we have operating in a state of emergency since WW II. That means that every President since Harry Truman, is free to ignore the Constitution whenever he wishes.

The truth is that the Constitution as, interpreted by the Supreme Court, has created a rigged system that has been manipulated to give all power to the moneyed interests and to ignore what the people want. Given the present situation, it seems to me that any intellectual arguments regarding any requirements of the Constitution is simply meaningless.

The book is an interesting read, but it is just an academic exercise. It has no real relevance in the real world.

Dahl's book is actually more of an extended essay on the Constitution and the conflicts it has with modern concepts of democracy. In particular, Dahl focuses on such elements of the Constitution as senate representation and the electoral college, both of which provide representation on a basis other than that of population.

These "flaws" in the Constitution are nothing new. Dahl's more insightful work is where he compares the United States to other, similar democracies and sees how our Constitution compares with theirs.

This is a fast read, but that's as much a result of the brevity of the book as its writing. There are items Dahl could have developed more: in particular, the difficulty of amendment ratification fits perfectly into his book, but he really only mentions it as a stumbling block to Constitutional reform, not as another anti-democratic element of the document.

Despite its flaws, this book succeeds in its chief goal, which is to look at the Constitution in a realistic manner, without the glorification that so many people give it. It may provide more questions than answers, but these are good questions that need to be asked.

I was enthralled by this book the instant I saw it, because it asked hard questions about American democracy that I've never heard from anyone else before. I would summarize this book as a short course in comparative democracies (sort of like comparative religions), discussing the similarities and differences between democracies that work.

The main question that Dahl asks is, "Why should we feel bound today by a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, a fair number of whom were slaveholders, and adopted in only thirteen states by the votes of fewer than two thousand men, all of whom are long since dead and mainly forgotten?"

Chapter 3 is the most interesting part of this book, where Dahl compares the American constitution to other democratic governments. "[A]mong the countries most comparable to the United States...not one has adopted our American constitutional system. It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it. Why?" Dahl explores this question with respect to the American bicameral chambers (House and Senate), unequal representation (in the Senate), judicial review, the electoral system, two-party systems, and the presidental system. He discusses how the American system works versus other democracies, comparatively pointing out strengths and weaknesses.

Overall I found this a stimulating, well-written, and deep book that looks at fundamental questions about American democracy that few people seem to be asking. Unlike other authors, however, he doesn't do this in a pessimistic manner, criticizing the American system needlessly. It was more of "we've done pretty well all things considered, but we can do better, and we should strive to do better."

Dahl's fine book attacks the American Constitution and system of government for each of the following undemocratic features, most of them totally unique to the US among the world's advanced democracies, and all very rare.


? The Electoral College.

? A bicameral legislature.

? Grotesquely unequal representation in the Senate.

? Judicial review (veto) of acts of the federal legislature, duly signed into law by the President.

? Judicial legislation ("policy making") under cover of enforcement of the Constitution.

? Single member legislative districts with plurality voting (so-called, "first past the post"), contrasted unfavorably with proportional representation and runoff systems.

? The two party system.

? A President with important powers wholly independent of the legislature, contrasted unfavorably with the much more common system of ministerial government responsible to the legislature.

? A strong federal system imposing significant limits on the powers of the general government.

This is a short book in which, of course, RD does not say all he knows, or complain of every undemocratic characteristic of our system. For example, he does not complain of these, and so proposes no better alternative - however hopeless.


? Federal judges are appointed rather than elected.

? Federal judges have effective life tenure.

? There is no federal recall.

? There is no federal initiative.

? There is no federal referendum.

? Legislation is unduly influenced, and often even written, by lobbyists in service of moneyed interests (RD does allude to this).

? Tens of millions of America's mentally competent, non-criminal permanent residents lack the franchise.

? Tens of millions of America's people who have the franchise do not vote. (In the words of Sharona Fleming, "It only encourages them.")

? There is no "None of the above" option for voters.

? The means of campaigning are almost wholly within the gift of the rich (RD does allude to this disgraceful fact in one sentence).

? The means of political propaganda in general, from report and comment in the mass media to the productions of "think tanks," are almost wholly within the gift of the rich.

? Holders of high federal office - including judges, legislators, and the President - are nearly all lawyers and nearly all personally members of the wealthiest strata.

? The legislature has only the slightest real impact on foreign policy in general, and not much even on treaties. It has none on the extra-constitutional device of the "executive agreement."

? The requirement of a Congressional declaration of war is not observed and is without effect.

? There is no popular constraint on, or control over, government - and in reality Presidential - war-making power.

RD is justly pessimistic about the prospects for democratic change, but says not a word about why. But we know why, don't we? Many, if not all, of the undemocratic features of our system serve to protect the interests of the oligarchy who own and operate that machine.

And some are bizarre. Did you know the inequalities of representation enshrined in the Senate (half of America's people elect 18 Senators, while the other half elect 82) are reproduced in lesser degree to the benefit of the very same states in the Electoral College, giving them a wildly disproportionate impact on the selection of the President?

Over 700 proposals to reform or abolish the Electoral College have been passed in the House - and died in the Senate.

This book is a little gem, A CLASSIC worthy of the broadest possible readership, and the widest possible debate. The questions it raises are profound and important; the solutions it suggests are penetrating and sane ... even if, at times, wrong!

Dahl is an eminent political scientist, and his aim (mainly) is to show the extent to which the current version of the Constitution is far less democratic than we sometimes imagine. Not only is it NOT the world-wide model for democratic development that we fondly imagine it to be, but newly-democratising countries routinely reject the American model, precisely because of its anti-democratic tendencies. This is clearly not the view we get in our High Schools, where mindless Constitution worship is the order of the day; and where any suggestion that we could learn from the rest of the world is regarded as a malign, domestic strand of Anti-Americanism!

Dahl's question never even arises in U.S. History courses where the standard treatment is to regard The Constitution as a Sacred Document akin to The Ten Commandments:The divinely inspired Framers simply bequeath it to a (clueless but) grateful People!

That said, however, Dahl's perception of the historical development of the U.S. Constitution is somewhat skewed. For, it is clear even in his own account of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention (given here), that the Constitution was NEVER intended to be "democratic". Its aim was, simply, to create an Aristocratic Republic; one which hedged its bets whenever possible on the troublesome question of `popular' input. If you doubt that then simply reflect on the two most undemocratic aspects of the American system: the Presidency (the Electoral College vote trumps the popular vote every time); and the Senate (popularly elected only since the Seventeenth Amendment, 1913). Indeed, the Senate is so profoundly un-democratic that Dahl rightly castigates it as "the graveyard of constitutional amendments" aiming to end the abominable electoral college system (p. 87). And that's just the most obvious of the Senate's failings!

The great beauty of Dahl's little book is that even if you disagree with it, you win! It is impossible not to be improved by reading this work! The author writes in an accessible, jargon-free style that draws you in; and the spiders-web of interlocking questions followed by clear and clever analyses will keep you reading to the end.

In the midst of our current wrangles about activist judges it is sometimes assumed that the Constitution is a mere passive backdrop. Dahl's work will cure you of that mis-perception, and of the assumption that a critical appreciation of the Constitution necessarily validates judicial review! It doesn't.

In a culture dominated by the most mindless kinds of Constitution-worshipping cant, this book stands apart. It is probing and critical without being mean-spirited or irreverent. The questions it raises don't subvert the Constitution, or the Framers; they strengthen our appreciation of both.

A rara avis indeed: a book for the intelligent layman that does not treat us like dummies.

I heard Prof Dahl present these ideas at Yale last year and was struck both by the clarity of his thought and the elegance with which he presented his analyses. While his Preface to Democratic Theory is more remarkable in its sheer audacity (a bold critique of Madisonian (i.e. American) democracy), these lectures offer a unique insight into two of the strangest aspects of our system. While other reviewers are correct to note that the American system is not, technically, a democracy, Dahl's point is not historical, but prescriptive. Based on the assumption that we should be a democracy (the form of government we promote around the world), Dahl seeks to clarify how we might alter the current Constitution to make our system more democratic. Any criticism of this book that takes issue with Dahl's discussion of how to make America more democratic misses the point. This book is about how to make a functional democracy, and uses as its example the pseudo-democratic American system.

This is a good book and would serve as a great reading requirement for a college Political Science 101- American Government course. However, that is about the level that this book is written at, people who are knowledgeable about the Consitituion and the Constitutional Convention may find this book lacking in information and ideas that are not obvious. Also, the book is rather short for a topic about which seemingly so much could have been written. I recommend the book as a good read and it offers a slightly different approach to discussion of the Constitution. College professors who teach introductory American Government courses should require that this book be read.

No matter what you may think of Dahl's views in this book, certainly it can be agreed upon that he provides and interesting and refreshing look at the U.S. Constitution. He brings up a few aspects of the Constitution that he believes are not so democratic in nature. These include the equal Representation amongst states in the U.S. Senate, the Electoral College system, and the broad judicial review powers that exist today that often trump the other two branches. Dahl's stated goal isn't necessarily to demand change, but rather, to provide a different perspective to make the citizenry view their Constitution as a tool of democratic principles. He doesn't believe citizens should simply view the document as something perfectly written and infallible. He reminds readers that the writers of the Constitution were only human themselves, and were subject to the same political compromises and considerations as politicians today. Overall a very good read.

The constitution and constitutional law have always interested me. Further, it has always seemed to me that the cliche "We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic," was always a subterfuge for denying (while acknowledging) a paradoxical truism. Dahl's extended essay goes a long way in showing that to be correct.

Are we more of a republic or a democracy. Dahl thinks that we have more elements of the former. Using the electoral college, "first past the post" as opposed to proportional senate representation, and the fact that the senate and the president (in the original constitution) were more-or-less picked by federal and state legislatures. So in this sense, as that of any good history book, the founders were not the believers in democracy that high school civics has us believe.

Through all of this, Dahl makes some interesting suggestions. Why shouldn't the senate be abolished. It's raison d'etat, after all, seems to be to give unequal representation (2 members per state regardless of size), and create a more 'enlightened' (6 years, 35 yr. of age minimum) house. But why couldn't a unicameral system, used in most democratic countries, work? Also, he proposes that any house be proportionally represented. Parties send out ballots with a list of candidates, people vote for the party they'd like to see, and each party seats according to percentage of votes. Biproduct? This would get rid of our dead-horse two party system. He suggests some others, but I don't want to spoil the suprise.

Still, Dahl's book is quite flawed. It is extremely one sided. Dahl doesn't even try to give arguments for the electoral college. Well, first, there's the very fact that we are the UNITED STATES of America. If we went by straight popular vote, the state lines would become a mere formality and we might-as-well federalize the whole process. While I agree that it should be set up proportionally rather than winner-take-the-state, it is important, especially during elections, to treat states as sacrosanct entities, not just inconveniences. Dahl talks a lot about the Federalist, but has he read the Anti-Federalist, where a lot of these arguments are made (and ironcially, it is chock full of the democratic sentiment Dahl so admires).

Final flaw - Honestly, Dahl did not do enough explaining as to why democracy is worth striving for. To some, it may seem self evident but often they confuse the concept of civic equality, freedoms of speech and press, and material equality with democracy. In fact, Dahl gets these confused constantly. Especially in the last chapter where, when he asks "is democracy desirable?" he answers "Yes, civic equality is desirable" but fails to answer the question asked.

All in all, this book is insightful, challenging, and worth reading (It won't take long). Just make sure you take Dahl's comments at face value. It may be good to counter some of the arguments with those found in the Ant-Federalist papers.