Throughout its formation, our government has taken a relatively moderate route through the most fundamental issues facing it. These include the conflict between equality and liberty, protection of the individual vs. the community and majority rule vs. minority rights. The only fundamental conflict that has truly been decided in favor of one side or another is that between direct and representative democracy.
The idea of direct democracy is probably the most interesting to ponder. While it is obvious that the route of republican government has been the logical one, it is entertaining to imagine some expansion of American direct democracy. Direct democracy, if successful, would be a movement towards the definition of a true democracy, if not an effective one. Direct voting on some issues would certainly assuage some of the bitterness and confusion felt by segments of the general public. In addition to a definite increase in political transparency, direct voting would also truly represent the American people in a way that a collection of older, wealthy, white, predominantly male politicians does not. True democracy may have been in the thoughts of some of the founding fathers, Jefferson in particular, but it was likely always somewhat of a fantasy. Unfortunately, direct democracy, despite being successful in modern Switzerland and ancient Athens, tends to rely heavily on the universally good judgment and political interest of the masses. Both of these traits may be lacking in America as well as a majority of the human race.
While direct democracies seem to work well enough in towns and maybe even states, issues at the national level probably become too complex and far reaching to be effectively decided by the general public. Despite many accusations that laws are simply made overcomplicated by politicians with extensive educations and careers in law, there is truth in the fact that most of the public is probably too uneducated and concerned with personal or regional interests to make complex decisions on the national level. There have been many arguments that the “uneducated” will make naturally make a split decision leaving the educated to tip the balance, thus allowing a largely uneducated public to make educated decisions based on a few informed members. Unfortunately, real life does not work out with such mathematical perfection. In truth, the masses can usually be swayed by popular misconception or appealing but false arguments and, in doing so, thoroughly stamp out the influence of the informed minority. Basically, most Americans don't have the time or the motivation to make direct democracy possible. Therefore, we leave our decision making largely up to a specialized sector of society, which has worked relatively smoothly throughout our short history. Even still, direct democracy driven by an informed and enthusiastic public is closer to “true” democracy than our current system, even if it is impossible.
The conflict between the community and the individual is probably less potent in recent years, since much of the nation has very little in the way of community. With the ease and necessity of travel in modern America, communities with similar demographics still exist but are far less pronounced. Geographical divides are not what they were in the 1800's. That said, they still most certainly exist. However, even in respect to unified communities, American democracy has historically favored the individual. This is compatible with the basis of democracy: equal rights and opportunities for all. Many of the original Americans as well as the immigrants who came later probably enjoyed an escape from the limitations imposed simply because of one's residence in a certain community.
Democracy always carries with it some threat of crushing the rights of the minority. However, as described in the Republican, a large government with few unified elements makes this more unlikely. Therefore, a large nation, the bane of successful direct democracy, is actually a blessing to minority rights. Despite their importance, minority rights cannot be favored at massive expense to the majority. Still, a democracy must protect the rights of the minority to some extent to remain “pure”; and this job is made much easier by the existence of no clear-cut overall majority.
Finally, equality vs. liberty has probably been one of the most divisive issues regarding our democracy. Up to this point at least, the U.S. has done relatively well in taking the middle road between both extremes. The key to a successful approach is to recognize fundamental human differences. People should be given liberty to achieve what they will, with as little interference as possible. Equality cannot be simply forced onto a society. Instead, equality should be present in that equal opportunities in the beginning are supplied to all, not equal rewards in the end. However, equality should sometimes be insured by limiting the extremely successful when they begin to compromise the rights of others. The same goes for protecting the extremely unsuccessful from outright destruction or generations of cyclical poverty.
Ultimately, our democracy in its present state is not as “pure” as it gets. However, it has formed out of a realistic appraisal of America's experience with government so far. While it is interesting to ponder how our democracy might be made more ideologically perfect, actually doing so would require complete ignorance to many aspects of reality and would probably not come out quite as intended.
