How Democratic is the American Constitution? Second Edition | 
 enlarge | Author: Robert A. Dahl
Publisher: Yale University Press
Category: Book
List Price: $15.00
Buy Used: $2.95
You Save: $12.05 (80%)
New (35) Used (82) from $2.95
Rating:  28 reviews
Sales Rank: 146977
Media: Paperback
Edition: 2
Pages: 240
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.7 x 5 x 0.7
ISBN: 0300095244
Dewey Decimal Number: 320
EAN: 9780300095241
ASIN: 0300095244
Publication Date: December 1, 2003
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Not Pretty. Pages Pulled from Spine;Some Staining/Writing/Highlighting/Wrinkling/Bent Pages;Frayed Corners/Bent Cover. SKU:16423604 All orders shipped within 1 business day. 14 day money back guarantee
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In this volume, an eminent political scientist questions the extent to which the American Constitution furthers democratic goals. Robert Dahl reveals the Constitution's potentially antidemocratic elements and explains why they are there, compares the American constitutional system to other democratic systems, and explores how Americans might alter their political system to achieve greater equality among citizens. In a new chapter for this second edition, he shows how increasing differences in state populations revealed by the Census of 2000 have further increased the veto power over constitutional amendments held by a tiny minority of Americans. He then explores the prospects for changing some important political practices that are not prescribed by the written Constitution, though most Americans may assume them to be so.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 23 more reviews...
 Dahl Fails to Demolish Own Strawman July 4, 2008
Robert McAvoy (Burleson, TX USA)
Robert Dahl does a fairly good job of raking up the dry grass from previous commentaries on the U.S. Constitution. From this grass, Dahl constructs a strawman, that democracy is virtually synonymous with political equality, then concludes that our political culture stands in the way of any significant reform either of the written or unwritten constitution. Though he dispatches the tension between political equality and liberty with a fairly thin argument, he fails to consider the tension between political equality and individualism (dare I say, equity) and justice (particularly transformative justice where some attention might be given to the principle of subsidiarity). br / br /In short, this book is a quick read for identifying criticisms raised by earlier scholars, but Dahl's narrow defintion of democracy and failure to tell us how he proposes to increase the availability of "resources" leaves this reader wondering where hope resides for increased democratization under the existing constitution? br / br /Might increased democratization of our constitutional system of government rest more squarely on dealing with the depreciation of social capital (see Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone for further reflections on Tocqueville's portrait of America)? Then again, we might conduct a postmortem on the impact of the Democratic Party's use of proportional representation in 2008, both parties use of presidential primaries, and the role of a commentariat that occupies such privileged position in a mass media based almost exclusively on consumerism. These and other areas of inquiry, while they lay outside the focus of the written constitution, speak more to Dahl's efforts to seek opportunities for reform in the "unwritten constitution". I hope that he and others will turn their considerable talent on such alternatives in the future.
 brief April 25, 2008
Robert W. Smith (Virginia, USA)
first, this book is quite brief. less than 200 pages, large font and margins. i can see why he is recognized as a distinguished professor at yale. he is brilliant and engaging. he covered all of the essential topics and this book is a sound, middle-of-the-road text. there were just a few statements he made that i re-re-read, asking myself, "did he really say THAT?" i wish that he had covered more topics and gone into greater depth on those that he did address. perhaps he has done so in other texts? overall, this is an excellent book that is somewhat interesting.
 Holy Cow! December 22, 2007
James B. Johnson (HUDSON, FL United States)
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
Robert is upset that the Wright Bros. airplane didnt include a First Class section and free liquor. That is, he's sore at the Founding Fathers for slavery and women's sufferage and the Electoral College. br / br /Dont waste your time on this mind-drool.
 Not Very December 21, 2006
Andrei Bolkonski
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
This slim little book has a single, narrow objective, and, with commendable consistency, it refuses to stray. The focus is simple, and given in the very title: How democratic is the American Constitution? The answer, which it deliberately and relentlessly drives home, is, "Not very." br / br /It is with this point that a lot of the reviewers seem to take issue, and let no potential buyer be mistaken: this is the only topic Dahl discusses in this book. He does not wish to argue why absolute and unimpeded democracy should be pursued. Nor does he bother discussing the virtues of whatever checks to pure mob rule America employs. Certainly, he believes that America should have less impediments to democracy--a notion most apparent toward the end--but that is more of an undercurrent to his thought than an inherent element to the argument at hand. br / br /Hence, Dahl points to the Electoral College, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and a variety of other elements of American government only with the intent of proving how they are undemocratic, and how they should be if the American Constitution strove for unfettered democracy. That the Senate, for instance, may be a legitimate tool of federalism as a nod toward state existence is irrelevant; the very notion of federalism is undemocratic, as it creates a source of legitimacy not founded in the people, and consequently it comes under fire. Anyone looking for plausible arguments of why democracy should have limits, and why there should be a Supreme Court capable of curtailing the will of the people (if indeed it can for any respectable period of time) should look elsewhere. It is unfair to this book's streamlined purpose to expect tangential discussion of why democracy is good or bad in a given case. br / br /The question that it does strive to answer, however, it does clearly and concisely, and for this point alone should enjoy one's reading.
Jim Jones lives... June 1, 2006
Philip Brown (Arizona)
6 out of 15 found this review helpful
The issue of how best to govern a nation is of great importance and should be explored through intellectual, logical debate. Dahl's book does not carry the weight this topic deserves because he entirely avoids exposure of the logical constructs from which his conclusions stem. br / br /Dahl's unstated presupposition is that democracy is a superior form of government compared with representative democracy. This presupposition is never discussed and simply assumed true by Dahl. This is strong evidence that Dahl hopes to persuade, not promote his ideas in this op-ed piece. Since he offers no logical constructs regarding his specific ideas and avoids direct questioning of potential hazards of his ideas, he does not offer the non-critically thinking reader pause for review. Instead he promotes safe, non-threatening ideas that will be easily agreed to by the reader. Once the reader is agreeing with what is said it is nearly effortless to get the reader to agree to the next idea, even if the two ideas are completely unrelated. In fact, the very fashion in which Dahl presented his justification for changing the constitution was one such trick. br / br /Dahl states that during the time of the constitutional convention we were far less technologically advanced. He tells the reader that DaVinci could have done absolutely marvelous things had modern technology been at his dispose. This is certainly debatable if one were to stop and question what circumstances allowed DaVinci to do what he had done. However, for most, this is an idea that will be readily agreed to and will strike imagination and hope, exactly the combination needed to persuade people of such things as Dahl desires. Dahl never strikes his assumption that technological advances also bring about social and political advances, for which he could have at least made a case. He never brings the topic for discussion and simply behaves as if the point had been struck. However, societal advances are not directly conjured through technological advances and in many cases societal norms become less democratic (what Dahl would call more advanced) with technological advances. And thus, we can see why Dahl avoided intellectual debate and instead opted for a trick. br / br /This is an old, extremely effective sales trick which has personally been used to do things like sell movies to people that did not own a television and found movies morally wrong. This anecdote is not just presented to expose Dahl's method, but is also presented here to strike a point: People are gullible and will easily agree to do things to which they are morally opposed, much less unsure of or apathetic to. This is the very reason to avoid a direct democracy and there are historical examples of such things happening, which of course, Dahl fails to acknowledge. Furthermore, it is precisely self-serving tricksters that the founding fathers had in mind when writing the constitution--no wonder Dahl detests it so. br / br /Dahl uses others tricks that an unsuspecting reader will miss. For example, Dahl goes through some effort to legitimize his term "founding framers," in preference to "founding fathers." This has absolutely no relevance to the discussion of representative government versus pure democracy. However, what it does do is remove a name that places the creators of the constitution on a pedestal and replaces it with something less reverent. This is not to suggest that changing the name to "founding framers," and removing some of the reverence is a bad thing. But combined with the other tricks in this book, it is highly suspicious and comes across as name calling. br / br /Furthermore, it is a rather surprising move on Dahl's part after he showed such deftness with persuasion (discussed in the previous paragraph) in other parts of the book. The reason it is surprising is that the very people he would hope to convince would likely be the people that would put his book away after reading this passage. Dahl is certainly not a dumb individual; so for whom is this book written, the like minded or the variant of Dahl? It is most likely the latter of the two. br /He claims that Tocqueville predicted a "collapse of society," due to the nature of a pure democracy and gives examples of trials which modern societies have faced without collapsing. Yet, again, he fails to address the heart of his argument and instead opts for something safe and at best tangent to his point, i.e. wars and depression which have nothing to do with the nature of democracy causing a legislative overload and collapse. And yet, Tocqueville is highly accurate when he discusses the stifling laws and regulations that will govern a purely democratic state. On needs to look no further than license requirements for bicycles in modern democratic countries. br / br /Dahl claims he believes in "intrinsic equality," which he defines as inalienable political equality among all citizens. He further claims that the intrinsic equality is what not only allows but actually promotes democracy because the majority population will respect the intrinsic equality of the minority population. So, live and let live, allow for consideration of differences of opinion on even the most important subjects is what Dahl claims to believe in and promote. However, talk is cheap. Dahl later states, "...it is difficult for me to see how a significantly different proposition could be defended, particularly if we draw on crucial historical cases...," (131). He later refers to his own judgments as, "prudent," while referring to the judgments of others as based in "hopeless ignorance." It appears that Dahl fails to uphold the very standard he promotes as being the basis for a pure democracy. br / br /Dahl directly states that he considers his own opinions correct and prudent and perceives views in variation from his own as invalid. He claims that the founding fathers had personal motivations and designed our government to promote their own interests. He claimed that people today are superior that people in the past. And because of these things, it must seem to Dahl that the debate of a purely democratic society versus a representative democracy is moot. br / br /That said, merit exists in some of his points and objections about our current government. However, his methods of tricking and avoiding direct promotion of his ideas are distasteful and less effective than its compliment. Without allowing the reader preview to arguments, one cannot accurately gauge Dahl's position and thus cannot identify where differences of opinion stem. Since it is highly unlikely that Dahl will be charged with the tasks of creating a new constitution, it is likely that Dahl's work will only benefit his cause by creating a stir among his like-minded, which is certainly not respectful to Dahl's dissenters. br / br /If offered the opportunity, it would be of great interest to hear what Dahl would say regarding the role of pure democracy in the fall of Athens, or to have him explain what mechanism would prevent a pure democracy from passing arbitrary or spiteful laws into action. Or perhaps it would be good to see a working example of a successful pure democracy in business or politics (money and power); the two things that ultimately drive government action. These are the issues that his concepts bring forth and since he wholly failed to address them, his book lacks the weight required to address how to best govern a free body of people.
|
|
|
