American Democracy and Democracy Promotion

As America inaugurates its 43rd president it enters a period of reflection. The danger is that an emphasis on voting procedure will silence a long-standing and ultimately more significant criticism of American democracy and its policy of democracy promotion. The separation of economics from politics and the promotion of so-called 'market democracy' does a disservice to the wider democratic project and is potentially self-defeating. This article reviews three books to argue that America's declining international reputation can be traced to its own democratic shortcomings. It explores the possibility of a popular working-class movement to address these failings and examines the implication this may have on the liberal international order.
Books reviewed:
John B. Judis, Paradox Of American Democracy: Elites, Special Interests And The Betrayal Of Public Trust
Michael Zweig, The working class majority: America's best kept secret
Ruy Teixeira and Joel Rogers, America's forgotten majority: why the white working class still matters     

清教主义与美国民主

受美国“敬祖”学派历史学家的影响,一些中国学者认为,在美国,清教主义是与民主联系在一起的。事实上,这只是一个流传了很久的神话。从２０世纪２０年代起,边疆学派和进步学派的史学家们便不断地打破这个神话。艾德蒙·莫根指出：“新英格兰的清教徒们在当今的声誉并不好。任何渴望达到一定深度的著作家或评论家都注意对他们的批判。无论是激进的还是保守的,都标榜自己反对清教主义的作法。”①当今各派史学家们所反对的清教主义作法,正是那些与民主格格不入的东西。本文将从历史的角度说明清教主义与美国民主之间差距甚远。一、美洲…     

关于美国民主的清教渊源

本文利用新英格兰殖民地的一些原始档案,通过考察新英格兰清教政体创立和运作的宗教理念以及立法、实践诸情况,论证新英格兰清教蕴含现代美国民主的某些理念和形式,具体体现为限权政府思想和地方教会自治原则,并且清教徒在现实生活中也在一定程度上享受某些“民主”权利。不过,这些“民主”倾向尚未完全跳出欧洲宗教改革运动的藩篱,在新英格兰殖民地创立初期尤为如此,因此,有很大的时代局限性,不可与现代美国民主观念相互混谈,更不可等同。虽然如此,随着时代的推移和新英格兰殖民地现实生活的演进,清教不可避免地日益世俗化,最终成为现代美国民主的来源之一。     

美国国会与《与台湾关系法》的出台

美国国会出台《与台湾关系法》的原因有:相比较中美建交的战略意义,美国国会更注重台湾的“安全”与繁荣;美国国会对于美行政部门在中美建交谈判中的单边主义行动大为不满;美国国会的权力复兴在中国政策上的反映;少数亲台议员的煽动作用。美国总统签署《与台湾关系法》的原因有:美国国会对于台湾利益的强调与美行政部门的本意并不违背;《与台湾关系法》的最后文本是美国府会互动和妥协的产物。     

美国新闻界与国会报道自由

美国宪法规定国会对公众开放,但这并不意味着作为人民耳目和代言人的新闻界就能够自由、真实、全面地报道国会的活动了。为此新闻界在众议院和参议院都进行了长期的斗争。新闻界在经历由党派报纸向商业报纸过渡的过程中,持续推动以国会报道自由的形式公开美国国会信息。经过与国会特权、保密行为长达半个多世纪的博弈,终于取得了稳定的驻国会山记者团制度,使美国国会成为最早得到系统信息公开报道的政府部门。     

Leadership and Coordination in Legislatures: The "President" of the First American Congress: 1774-1789

We analyze the viability of the office of President of Congress as a source of leadership in the Continental and Confederation Congresses.1 Our primary interest is in institutionally grounded, as opposed to and separate from charismatic or personal, bases for leadership. We show that virtually every institutional support for leadership power recognized to be at work in the modern Congress was absent in the Continental Congresses. We trace the origins of these limitations on leadership power and potential to a series of decisions taken during 1774 and 1775 and substantially maintained and even elaborated over the fifteen-year history of the Congress. The result was that even though the institution was awash in "leaders," men like Virginia's Peyton Randolph, Massachusetts' John Hancock, and New York's John Jay, stable and effective "leadership" from the office of President of Congress proved to be impossible.