The best thing Andrew Jackson did was to stop federal spending and balance the budget. If you want to the federal government to spend money at all, you need someone like Jackson to come in and stop spending every 8-12 years. This unlimited spending since the 1930's is unforgivable.
"What shall we say? The editors of newspapers have no check and yet have power to make and unmake characters at their will, to create or unmake the constitution, to erect and demolish administrations - When a few scribblers, all foreigners, whose origins history and characters nobody knows, have more influence than president, the senate, the people's own representatives, and all the judges of the land." - John Adams to a Dutch intellectual of a early criticism of the media and tabloid newspapers/yellow journalism
The problem with John Adams was that they were too principled to be politicans, and didn't understand the faction feature of republics as much as he ought to have, after reading about the Roman Republic and Empire and dozens of other republics in researching for the constitution. He compared 7 democratic, 7 aristocratic, and 7 monarchic republics. He concluded that every democracy became an oligarchy, and every oligarchy led to a tyrant, dictator, or monarch coming into power.
False. Adams was quick to respond to Taylor's criticism with an 1814 letter. He wrote, to quote the passage entirely, “I might have exhibited as many millions of plebeians sacrificed by the pride, folly, and ambition of their fellow-plebeians and their own, in proportion to the extent and duration of their power. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. *It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history.* Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation.” He states, *"It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history."*
Another problem was Adams was too idealistic that he expected everyone to behave above their human inclination to create political alliances and win elections to secure power in the administration/bureaucracy. In republics, whoever controls the bureaucracy wins. The more democratic a republic becomes, the more you have to appeal to the people for manufactured consent, leading to communism over the long term.
I absolutely love John and JQA. Thank you for coming up with another way to look at these great Americans.
The best thing Andrew Jackson did was to stop federal spending and balance the budget. If you want to the federal government to spend money at all, you need someone like Jackson to come in and stop spending every 8-12 years. This unlimited spending since the 1930's is unforgivable.
"What shall we say? The editors of newspapers have no check and yet have power to make and unmake characters at their will, to create or unmake the constitution, to erect and demolish administrations - When a few scribblers, all foreigners, whose origins history and characters nobody knows, have more influence than president, the senate, the people's own representatives, and all the judges of the land." - John Adams to a Dutch intellectual of a early criticism of the media and tabloid newspapers/yellow journalism
Can you give me a list of any states that are pro democratic
The problem with John Adams was that they were too principled to be politicans, and didn't understand the faction feature of republics as much as he ought to have, after reading about the Roman Republic and Empire and dozens of other republics in researching for the constitution. He compared 7 democratic, 7 aristocratic, and 7 monarchic republics. He concluded that every democracy became an oligarchy, and every oligarchy led to a tyrant, dictator, or monarch coming into power.
False.
Adams was quick to respond to Taylor's criticism with an 1814 letter. He wrote, to quote the passage entirely, “I might have exhibited as many millions of plebeians sacrificed by the pride, folly, and ambition of their fellow-plebeians and their own, in proportion to the extent and duration of their power. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. *It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history.* Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation.”
He states, *"It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history."*
Another problem was Adams was too idealistic that he expected everyone to behave above their human inclination to create political alliances and win elections to secure power in the administration/bureaucracy. In republics, whoever controls the bureaucracy wins. The more democratic a republic becomes, the more you have to appeal to the people for manufactured consent, leading to communism over the long term.
Virginia is not a pro Democratic State since it is homophobic
It is illegal to run a total Republican ticket and why's there a bill for it