What do you think?
Rate this book
What's Wrong with Democracy?: From Athenian Practice to American Worship by Loren J. Samons
Fifth-century Athens is praised as the cradle of democracy and sometimes treated as a potential model for modern political theory or practice. In this daring reassessment of classical Athenian democracy and its significance for the United States today, Loren J. Samons provides ample justification for our founding fathers' distrust of democracy, a form of government they scorned precisely because of their familiarity with classical Athens. How Americans have come to embrace "democracy" in its modern form--and what the positive and negative effects have been--is an important story for all contemporary citizens. Confronting head-on many of the beliefs we hold dear but seldom question, Samons examines Athens's history in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. in order to test the popular idea that majority rule leads to good government. Challenging many basic assumptions about the character and success of Athenian democracy, What's Wrong with Democracy? offers fascinating and accessible discussions of topics including the dangers of the popular vote, Athens's acquisitive foreign policy, the tendency of the state to overspend, the place of religion in Athenian society, and more. Sure to generate controversy, Samons's bold and iconoclastic book finds that democracy has begun to function like an unacknowledged religion in our culture, immune from criticism and dissent, and he asks that we remember the Athenian example and begin to question our uncritical worship of democratic values such as freedom, choice, and diversity.
Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
6 people are currently reading
240 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Read
January 2, 2017Ooo boy. i have Opinions about *this* book.
Where to start? i suppose i'll be generous and start with the good stuff. samons has a pretty cogent analysis of athenian democracy - not a subject I knew a whole lot about going in. All i'd ever learned was from western civ class - you know, sparta military, athens culture, death of socrates, democracy whoo, et cetera. Only this isn't the whole story; greek history and culture and politics was extremely nuanced and complex (like every civilization everywhere, duh). The shortcomings of athens's democracy are not limited to male citizenship and a widespread practice of slavery. athens, too, was incredibly militaristic. their idea of democracy isn't like ours, and, arguably, we've got some of the worser democratic features. samons argues that athens had a better sense of morals, right and wrong, religion, duty, shame.... i disagree with that. i think we have most of those things, too, to our detriment. athenian democracy was actually dependent on silver mines (excuse my materialism) and the wealth allowed them to build up a model citizen-soldier army that then led to the militaristic conquest and exploitation of their greek neighbors. this, i think, is what is especially cogent in samons's book: instead of the democracy = culture = peaceful line of thinking that comes from (at least my) public school education, and which is a shorthand for capital-d democrats in the united states, samons shows that athenian democracy was complicit in aggression, murder, betrayal, war - they beat up on their own allies and made alliances with folks who were opposed to their own form of government, and they threw out their governmental form (and everything else) in a stubborn war with Sparta that lasted 30 years.
so what's good about this book, fundamentally, is that it spoils the idea that democracy is the best, only, righteousest form of government. the athenian democrats were idiots and hypocrites. they wanted empire. they got empire. they ruined their empire, ran out of money, and they killed socrates, too. yeah, that's right; that greek philosopher everyone is always so in love with was sentenced to death by a jury of 500 peers. that's democracy.
but what Samons doesn't get right could be a book on its own. he's definitely a southern republican, although a fairly moderate one by today's standards. he says that americans elevate democracy to its own deistic position. probably true - although what most americans don't understand is that the constitution guarantees a federal republic. democratic *reforms* have been made over time, and samons glosses over the good ones - like ending slavery and giving women the right to vote - to focus on those early american 'virtues' ("civic duty, faith in God, and the belief that work would bring rewards" pg 186) that are the fetish of american apologists. (incidentally, I always find that last one ironic, that early americans believed in the virtues of hard work while turning a blind eye *at best* to the institution of slavery - you might say americans have *always* believed in *other people's* hard work, ha). samons also claims that americans have lost their sense of duty (partially true) and shame (not true). most americans do their jobs with almost fatalistic regularity, and there's always a huge push, at least in the crowds i know, to vote, to do a minimum of 'civic duty'. i do think there's a fundamental failure to think about what makes a good life, what makes a moral life, but there's enough of a post-modern easy pc culture where i think one of our national passtimes is actually shaming others. that's a function of social media, though, i think, and that was less of a phenomenon while samons was writing and publishing.
it's important to recognize that democracy has its limits, that it isn't de facto the best and only answer to every situation, but that it relies largely on the character of the people involved. samons touches on that - but unfortunately, his answer is to hearken back to some mythical american golden age that no longer exists or can exist.
Where to start? i suppose i'll be generous and start with the good stuff. samons has a pretty cogent analysis of athenian democracy - not a subject I knew a whole lot about going in. All i'd ever learned was from western civ class - you know, sparta military, athens culture, death of socrates, democracy whoo, et cetera. Only this isn't the whole story; greek history and culture and politics was extremely nuanced and complex (like every civilization everywhere, duh). The shortcomings of athens's democracy are not limited to male citizenship and a widespread practice of slavery. athens, too, was incredibly militaristic. their idea of democracy isn't like ours, and, arguably, we've got some of the worser democratic features. samons argues that athens had a better sense of morals, right and wrong, religion, duty, shame.... i disagree with that. i think we have most of those things, too, to our detriment. athenian democracy was actually dependent on silver mines (excuse my materialism) and the wealth allowed them to build up a model citizen-soldier army that then led to the militaristic conquest and exploitation of their greek neighbors. this, i think, is what is especially cogent in samons's book: instead of the democracy = culture = peaceful line of thinking that comes from (at least my) public school education, and which is a shorthand for capital-d democrats in the united states, samons shows that athenian democracy was complicit in aggression, murder, betrayal, war - they beat up on their own allies and made alliances with folks who were opposed to their own form of government, and they threw out their governmental form (and everything else) in a stubborn war with Sparta that lasted 30 years.
so what's good about this book, fundamentally, is that it spoils the idea that democracy is the best, only, righteousest form of government. the athenian democrats were idiots and hypocrites. they wanted empire. they got empire. they ruined their empire, ran out of money, and they killed socrates, too. yeah, that's right; that greek philosopher everyone is always so in love with was sentenced to death by a jury of 500 peers. that's democracy.
but what Samons doesn't get right could be a book on its own. he's definitely a southern republican, although a fairly moderate one by today's standards. he says that americans elevate democracy to its own deistic position. probably true - although what most americans don't understand is that the constitution guarantees a federal republic. democratic *reforms* have been made over time, and samons glosses over the good ones - like ending slavery and giving women the right to vote - to focus on those early american 'virtues' ("civic duty, faith in God, and the belief that work would bring rewards" pg 186) that are the fetish of american apologists. (incidentally, I always find that last one ironic, that early americans believed in the virtues of hard work while turning a blind eye *at best* to the institution of slavery - you might say americans have *always* believed in *other people's* hard work, ha). samons also claims that americans have lost their sense of duty (partially true) and shame (not true). most americans do their jobs with almost fatalistic regularity, and there's always a huge push, at least in the crowds i know, to vote, to do a minimum of 'civic duty'. i do think there's a fundamental failure to think about what makes a good life, what makes a moral life, but there's enough of a post-modern easy pc culture where i think one of our national passtimes is actually shaming others. that's a function of social media, though, i think, and that was less of a phenomenon while samons was writing and publishing.
it's important to recognize that democracy has its limits, that it isn't de facto the best and only answer to every situation, but that it relies largely on the character of the people involved. samons touches on that - but unfortunately, his answer is to hearken back to some mythical american golden age that no longer exists or can exist.
June 27, 2016
A fascinating book dealing with the idea of democracy and its history. The author reminds the reader that democracy was something negative to the founders of America. Over time, the meaning of democracy changed and with it, the outlook changed to something positive. As time has continued to pass though, the idea of what democracy means has fluctuated in some ways closer to its origins that were concerning to the creators of American government.
But what if we look back at democracy in Greece and weighed its credibility in history with an eye towards modern governance? Does it hold up as a positive thing for Americans to desire to evolve our society towards? I read this one a bit slower to think about the ideas in it and did a bit of highlighting passages that stood out.
"Having lost most of its historical content, the word democracy has come to stand for "good government" centered around personal rights and the practice of casting ballots. In short, like many successful religions, democracy has been put into a palatable and easily digestible form - a form that is only loosely related to its historical origins and that requires a certain degree of faith within its followers."
We are currently in an election cycle in the USA. The options the people have selected for the highest nation in the land are not terribly palatable to me. I take comfort in the limits in power each person elected/selected in our system of government has. Democracy at it's heart has no limits beyond the will of the people with the most votes.
But what if we look back at democracy in Greece and weighed its credibility in history with an eye towards modern governance? Does it hold up as a positive thing for Americans to desire to evolve our society towards? I read this one a bit slower to think about the ideas in it and did a bit of highlighting passages that stood out.
"Having lost most of its historical content, the word democracy has come to stand for "good government" centered around personal rights and the practice of casting ballots. In short, like many successful religions, democracy has been put into a palatable and easily digestible form - a form that is only loosely related to its historical origins and that requires a certain degree of faith within its followers."
We are currently in an election cycle in the USA. The options the people have selected for the highest nation in the land are not terribly palatable to me. I take comfort in the limits in power each person elected/selected in our system of government has. Democracy at it's heart has no limits beyond the will of the people with the most votes.
May 4, 2024
First, the guy who said that the USA isn't mentioned beyond the intro obviously didn't read beyond the intro. The US and ancient Athens are thoroughly compared throughout this entire work, even when it is most absurd to do so.
The Greek historical lessons seem to be quite good and relatively unbiased but I don't have a lot of other knowledge to compare it to, so I'm trusting the author's expertise here.
The questions the author raises about democracy and specifically American democracy for the first 80% of the book are quite good and worthy of asking. I wish that was as far as the author went.
The last 20% of the book (roughly the final 2 chapters) draws conclusions that are completely biased, puritanical, conservative rhetoric that basically feels like the author missed the point of their own previous historical lessons.
So at the end, what's wrong with democracy? A lot, and we should be asking these questions more, but you won't find any answers in this book unless your mind is already made up. What you will find here is a great context to finding the answers elsewhere.
The Greek historical lessons seem to be quite good and relatively unbiased but I don't have a lot of other knowledge to compare it to, so I'm trusting the author's expertise here.
The questions the author raises about democracy and specifically American democracy for the first 80% of the book are quite good and worthy of asking. I wish that was as far as the author went.
The last 20% of the book (roughly the final 2 chapters) draws conclusions that are completely biased, puritanical, conservative rhetoric that basically feels like the author missed the point of their own previous historical lessons.
So at the end, what's wrong with democracy? A lot, and we should be asking these questions more, but you won't find any answers in this book unless your mind is already made up. What you will find here is a great context to finding the answers elsewhere.
June 26, 2025
Athenian democracy was prone to being hijacked by demagogues, and to the extent we forget we are a republic, and over emphasize the idea of everyone having a say through voting, polling, and the court of public opinion, we risk the same thing. Instead we need to champion restraint, civic duty, and values of deliberation, wise leadership, and, well, shared values.
February 18, 2011
Dense, dry at times, but a very interesting critique of democracy. A worthwhile read, to be sure. (Also, there are also some not-so-dry portions.)
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews