There are two very clear examples of this from modern elections. The first example is from the presidential election of 1964, in which the incumbent was Lydon B. Johnson. In his campaign Johnson promised American voters "that American boys would not fight Asian boys in Vietnam." (Hargrove 116) However, once elected Johnson escalated the war with Vietnam even though public sentiment was against such action (Hargrove 123). The second example of unfulfilled campaign promises occurred in a more recent presidential campaign, the 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton. One of Clinton's primary issues in this election was economic relief for the struggling middle class. Clinton proposed this relief come from a cut on the income tax rates on the middle class (Woodward 17). Another important issue during Clinton's campaign was increasing investments, like education and infrastructure. Once elected this issue became an after thought for the Clinton administration (Reich 65). It is clear that such action undermines the control of the citizens and thus the very premise of democracy. Since the definition of democracy states that supreme power is vested in the people, then it is a violation of democracy when the president knowingly goes against the wishes of the American public. The president can not be expected to seek approval for every small thing he does while in office, but he can however respect public opinion when it quite obvious. An example of this is when Franklin D. Roosevelt started to aid Britain in its fight against Germany in the early 1940's. The general public had made it clear that after the heavy loses of World War I, they wished to remain isolated from European affairs. Roosevelt believed however that it was in the country's best interest to aid in some way American allies abroad. Without the knowledge of the public Roosevelt used the American navy to protect British ships in the Atlantic and to occasional thwart German activities (Hargrove 102).
He finally got his presidency in 1828. ... His presidency was one of violence, and of monarchy rule. ... Many of the actions took by Jackson reinforced the new Jeffersonian Democracy. ... Jackson's presidency mirrored American nationalism. ... His actions were what became known as Jacksonian Democracy, and raised the American Nationalism. ...
The Strengths and Weakness of the American Presidency The American Presidency is a puzzling aspect to most Americans. ... The forefathers chose a mixed government that represented three existing forms of government: a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The president would represent the elected monarchy, the Senate would represent the aristocracy, and the House of Representatives would represent the democracy. The American presidency has a great deal of strength and weakness, which I will discuss in this paper. ... A weakness that the American Presidency holds is that the president c...
The number of voters increased nearly by seven times during Jackson's presidency. ... Before Jackson's presidency, the electors were chosen by state legislatures. ... Another principle of the Jacksonian Democracy was the rotation system. ... This is true, because most of the white population lived in good conditions during Jackson's presidency. During Jackson's presidency there were many changes made toward a more democratic and economically equal society. ...
Jackson's presidency highlighted individualism disregarding persons' background and education level. ... Jacksonian's were, to a great extent, the promoters of political democracy. ... A new party was voted into the presidency and many positions had remained and unchanged since the election of 1800. ... In 1791, they began an idea referred to as the "New Democracy". ... During Jackson's presidency, he put in little efforts into the issue of slavery. ...
Another not so pretty part of Jackson's presidency included the Indian Removal Act, which relocated thousands of Indians to reserves in Oklahoma. ... This two party system opened people's eyes to true democracy, the power of the people. ... Jackson's presidency was one of many ups and downs, but the U.S. always knew that Old Hickory was there for them. That's what people felt in Andrew Jackson, he wasn't just some rich aristocrat, he was just a backwoods kid, who sometimes had trouble even writing and this is what in part made the Jacksonian Democracy work....
In the 1820s and 1830s a change in American democracy took place. ... Jackson and his followers believed in what we now call Jacksonian Democracy. ... In 1835, under Jackson's presidency, slavery was fought for by the executive branch. ... Jacksonian Democracy vehemently opposed a national bank. ... This would have been during Jackson's presidency. ...
Sadly for Jackson, John Quincy Adams takes the presidency by one vote, which aroused some controversy later on. Four years later, Andrew Jackson becomes president and brings the idea of mass democracy. ... With the so-called "Tariff of Abominations," Jackson once again illustrated that political democracy would not become during his presidency. ... If Jackson wanted political democracy, he should of sided with all regions of America. ... Sectionalism was knocking at his door and political democracy was becoming very faint. ...
Without that we will no longer be a representative democracy, we will be an elected dictatorship. ... Lind's reaction the power of the presidency now. ... Americans, now more than ever, look at the presidency as, by far, the most important and powerful branch in government. We saw just how much Americans value the presidency last Tuesday. ... This, if nothing else, speaks to American's respect and approval of the power of the presidency....
So, unfairly, democracy is undermined in the name of efficient government, primarily because of the Electoral College, which embodies the American precedent that federalist comes before democracy when it should be the other way around. ... When democracy is having trouble being effective, the federalist principle should assist in its repair, not feed from it like a parasite. The people should be considered an organism made of democracy, and federalism as a harmless symbiote of the people. If something has to go, it should be the harmless federalist principle, leaving democracy to thrive. But...
