Andrew Jackson Richard B. This honor may exaggerate his importance, but it also acknowledges the important truth that Jackson significantly contributed to shaping the American nation and its politics.
I found it only pretty good, though, because it lacked the focus that very good books require, and it ends up overshooting its own argument and landing somewhere else.
The book begins as a historical survey of demagogues--those characters who come to power in a democracy by flattering people the people and then Michel Signer's Demagogue is the sort of book that ought to be very good, because it deals with an extremely important topic, and the author is very well Andrew jackson demagogue essay and is a good writer to boot.
The book begins as a historical survey of demagogues--those characters who come to power in a democracy by flattering people the people and then try to change the rules once they are in office. Hitler was a demagogue. Andrew Jackson was sort of a demagogue, but he didn't meet quite all of the criteria, so Signer gives him a pass.
Donald Trump is definitely a demagogue, but this book was written inso it can be forgiven for not mentioning the new guy. In the introduction, Signer gives four criteria for identifying demagogues, which he draws from James Fenimore Cooper's essay "On Demagogues.
The four statements he derives are there, but they are not listed as criteria, and they are mixed in with other potential criteria that Signer ignores. But the ones he gives work pretty well: As Cooper recognized, true demagogues meet four rules: They can break these rules, institutions, and laws internally, by threatening tyranny in their own countries, or externally by attacking other nations or groups or by testing the international rule of law.
Either way, they are intrinsically violent. As these rules suggest, demagogues Throughout the book, Signer applies these categories exactingly, as if they were rigid requirements instead of just four statements pulled from an essay by some guy who wrote novels about Indians.
This, then, leads him to argue that Andrew Jackson was not a demagogue because he technically did break any rules which I don't really agree with, given his de facto nullification of the Supreme Courtand that George Bush was not a demagogue because he did not have a strong connection to the masses.
This frames demagoguery as an either-or thing rather than a more-or-less thing, which, I think, makes the concept less useful.
The main argument of the book is that demagogues present a maddening paradox to a democracy: So most of the important political theory produced in a democracy will be focused on preventing the demagogue problem. The book unfolds like a drama in three acts. The prologue comes from the work of Polybius, whose notion of the "cycle of regimes" explains how democracies give way to tyranny through the instrument of the demagogue.
Then each act explores the consequences of this idea in a different historical moment. Act I is set in Ancient Greece. The demagogue was Cleon and to a much lesser extent, Alcibiadesand the philosopher-heroes were Plato and Aristotle, each of whom tried to create a political theory capable of controlling the kind of demagoguery that got Socrates sentenced to death.
Plato did it by swearing off democracy and theorizing about a philosopher king. Demagogues could not manipulate the people to come to power because the people didn't have any power to give them.
Aristotle, more grounded in realpolitik, took a milder approach and argued that democracy could be successful if 1 people knew stuff, and 2 strong constitutions existed to enshrine barriers and limit participation to the people who know the most stuff.
This ends up producing something that is less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy with a really, really big group of intellectual oligarchs. Act II is set in America at and after the Founding.
Jefferson, like all of the Founders, was haunted by the specter of the demagogue. Unlike Hamilton, who wanted to set up Constitutional road blocks to protect the nation from demagogues, Jefferson believed that demagogues were caused by too much government, not too little, and his answer was to devolve more power to the people and then spend lavishly to educate them so that they would exercise this power responsibly.
Tocqueville, who came out of the Reign of Terror in France, was trying to understand why democracy worked in American but not in France.Mar 31, · Words: Length: 4 Pages Document Type: Essay Paper #: Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States and a controversial historical figure.
He owned slaves, as did many American men in his time, and he helped . Andrew Jackson Demagogue Andrew Jackson Essay A demagogue is defined as “ a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices ” Andrew Jackson clearly. Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, was born in the Waxhaws area near the border between North and South Carolina on March 15, A demagogue is a tyrant who owes his initial rise to the democratic support of the masses.
Huey Long, Hugo Chavez, and Moqtada al-Sadr are all clear examples of this dangerous byproduct of democracy/5. The Constitution was designed to weed out demagogues.
Now it encourages them. Andrew Jackson, a patriot to his fans and a demagogue to his enemies, was beloved by millions who had never seen. Andrew Jackson Essay: For the Common Man or a Tyrant Throughout modern times, historians have looked back upon Andrew Jackson’s presidency with two very different views.
He was viewed as either the hero of the common man and the promoter of democracy and by others as a tyrannical President who abused his power.