Harrison Goodrich

Representative Democracy Triumphs

The Athenians cultivated the idea of democracy and were the first to implement it. Over time, the Athenian form of representative democracy has evolved into the direct model that our founding fathers built our country on. The direct model has been proven to be the superior way to govern because it is more efficient while still representing the views of the voters. Everyone has the right to vote in a democracy, the people have the need for a leader that most represents the ideals and values of the citizens. In theory this does not represent everyone’s views because there can be only one winner of the votes. However, mob rule is not an effective way to govern, where either the more powerful faction will triumph or the division between factions will result in no action at all.

Our current form of direct democracy is efficient and representative of voter’s views because everyone gets a vote. According to Dr. Eli Noam, direct democracy is effective 95% of the time based on his career. “95 percent of the referenda the majority decision had the same sign as total benefits; that is, the outcomes were efficient. Apparently, then, voting outcomes reflect the intensities of voters’ preferences as well as the strict number of voters.” This means that direct democracy is extremely effective. And because democracy is always evolving, minority groups are gaining more representation in our governing body today. For example, there are jewish and openly LGBTQ members in Congress today. While direct democracy is usually efficient, in reality it is far from perfect.

In the words of Professor Howard Ernst at the United States Naval Academy, gerrymandering is the biggest threat to democracy today. Career politicians and lobbyists try to manipulate the political system and party lines to their own benefit. Similar to how Hipparchus concentrated power so he had control over everything. However, everyone has only one vote, no matter the social class or political party. While some may try to manipulate those votes to gain power, democracy will prevail in the USA. There are systems in place to cast out corrupt politicians.

Overall, direct democracy is far superior in today’s world than representative democracy. While Athens invented and pioneered democracy, all groups were not represented. This was as an acceptable practice for the time period but it is doesn’t give everyone democracy. It is also inefficient to have competing factions without a central leader, action cannot be taken if opposing sides are constantly at odds. An example of this in direct democracy is when the government shut down for 35 days because a budget couldn’t be agreed upon. Direct democracy isn’t perfect but it is the best form of government available in the free world.

Word Count: 460

Tyranny of Today

Tyranny, in the Greek tense of the word, means the rule of any individual who is not rightfully an heir to the throne through bloodline, or some other form of righteous means. Today, and in recent history, the word takes on a new meaning. The most famous to most Americans would be King George, the tyrant whom the colonist revolted under and fought to establish this fine nation. He was a rightful heir, but his rule was merciless. This is the tyrant we know in today’s world: one who is unfair in ruling, ruthless, corrupt, militaristic,  and all of the other trigger words that the free world knows today as a threat to democracy and freedom around the world.

New York Post’s Ralph Peters claims that the world is “descending into tyranny”, and in today’s definition of the word, I would have to agree. Although the modern day definition is not the same that the Greeks would have used, there are some parallels to the roots of the word. Putin and Xi Jinping have both essentially secured their power for the rest of their lives, violating the constitutions of their nations. Although they may have been voted or selected through legal means, the way in which they plan to keep that power is not so. Much like the rulers of old, these modern day tyrants do not plan to give up their power. Human nature is just that, natural, and greed and corruption are no different. To me it makes sense that a man with enough power is bound to become corrupt. The people of China and Russia face the same difficulties as the Greeks did while under the rule of corrupt, tyrannical rulers.

Peters speaks to the dangers of new tyrants, and why they have gained traction in recent times. A post Soviet Union world looked bright and hopeful for the world of Democracies. Democracy carries burdens with it, and the process to initialize into democracy is a quite painful one. Tyrannical governments and leaders give a scapegoat and an easy out for people. There is no thinking involved, but rather simply following. The transgressions experienced are not the fault of the people, but rather that of an outside force. This is contrasted from the definition of the Ancient Greeks, because often times, the leaders were foreign. However it is translated or analyzed, tyranny is no longer a word without a negative connotation, but rather, one that has cost millions of lives.

-Austin LaRue: 413

https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/the-world-is-descending-into-tyranny/

In his article, “A Museum of Repression Aims to Shock the Conscience”, Randal Archibold secedes that Rafael Trujillo, formal dictator of the Dominican Republic in the 20th century, has earned his place in “tyranny hall of fame” as determined by historians. Archibold cites ‘El Jefe’s’ crimes against common humanity during over 30 years of dictator rule, disclosing details of horrible suffering, widespread use of torture, and repressive authority which have ingrained upon the hearts of those who endured the Trujillo era bloodstained memories. Trujillo, the ‘Feasting Goat’, was undoubtedly a nefarious, corrupt ruler, capitalizing on the anguish of his citizens, and by common understanding of the word ‘tyrant’, would absolutely fall under such a category. However, while Trujillo represents modern understanding of the word ‘tyrant’, his rein does not coincide with ancient conceptions of tyranny.

The pejorative connotation of ‘tyranny’ conceptually has not always been true. Trujillo was oppressive, corrupt and in place of power, fulfilling modern definitions and schemas of a tyrant. Correctly fulfilling the modern definition nonetheless does not fulfill ancient perceptions of the accepted exemplification of a tyrant. Historians have identified ‘tyrants’ of thousands of years ago, yet these ancients tyrants are not comparable with the tyranny of ‘El Jefe’. Ancient tyrants did not bear such misgivings about their rein as do modern tyrants. This primarily could be a consequence in the amount of innocent blood spilt in order to acquiesce power. Ancient tyrants were at some points appointed their positions; modern tyrants illegitimately abduct power from others. The purpose of such regime types in ancient and modern history differ as well. Ancient tyrants were expected to improve the standard of living of the populus, which had slipped due to, as often believed, decaying morality of previous rulers. Modern tyrants are self-serving,  claiming to represent the people as means to make profit. Another pointed difference of ancient and modern tyrants is the level of violence evoked and practiced by the regime. As ancient tyrants were appointed willingly by the populus, their rein had little need for the use of violence and faced little violence in return. Modern tyrants typically gain power with blood on their hands, and must use violence to maintain repression of any insurgency.

One might argue that modern and ancient tyrants do have some similarities, therefore allowing Trujillo the same tyrannical legacy as that of ancient rulers. An argument could be made that suggested that both modern and ancient tyrants exercise an unlimited degree of power within their respective states, and therefore, are the same. However, this argument falls short if one were to consider the legitimacy of such power as deemed by the people and outside states. In ancient times, it was accepted that tyrants possessed such powers. In modern times, the opposite is true.

Therefore, Archibold’s conclusion that Rafael Trujillo belongs in the category of tyrants maintains insofar that the author is referring the modern day paradigm of a ‘tyrant’. Archibold’s conclusion becomes inaccurate if one were to consider ancient standards of a tyrant.

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 506

Work Cited

When the average person hears the word tyrant or tyranny, they think that the person in charge of the country is conducting themselves in a way that is oppressive and cruel to their people. This ruler could be a president, chancellor, or even a monarch. This current definition of tyrant and tyranny was not always the case, and has changed dramatically since the beginning of time.

A recent post by the Washington Post on November 1st 2018, talks about how tyrannical the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are. Especially in Venezuela, President Madura has gone to great lengths to keep his power from opposing leader Juan Guiado. Madura bribes the military by giving them very high paying businesses in return for support. President Madura has also bypassed the country’s Constitution by creating another legislative body and gave the new legislative body the ability to rewrite a whole new Constitution. President Trump in one of his speeches relates to President Madura’s unethical and cruel actions as tyrannical and unethical.

The term tyrant was not always defined by the effect the ruler’s actions have on their people. In ancient times, a tyrant simply meant a person that wanted to overthrow the ruler to gain power, an opposing party. An excerpt from the script, Herodotus on Athenian Tyrants , takes on the perspective of a man named Pisistratus, and his multiple attempts to become ruler in Athens. Pisistratus was known by the Athenians for his achievements, “as a military commander during the campaign against Megara,…”. Pisistratus uses this military standing as leverage to persuade the Athenians to give him a group of guards as he claims that someone is after him. He uses these guards to stage a coup on the Athenian government, but he failed. He attempts to overthrow the government again by marrying the daughter of one of rich and powerful families in Athens. The idea is that both the daughter’s family and Pisistratus can bear children which would elevate the family’s social standing as heirs to the throne, but Pisistratus only wants power for himself and divorces his wife. His final attempt was that he conscripted a whole bunch of mercenaries, and overthrew the governing party by military coup. The script describes Pisistratus as the first tyrant in Athens, leading to believe that a tyrant is just someone fighting for a spot at the throne.

The Washington Post’s use of the word tyrant is a huge difference in how the ancient Athenians use the word. The Washington Post coins the term tyrant when the ruler behaves in a cruel, and oppressive manner. For example, when President Madura disagrees with the Venezuelan Constitution, he creates a new legislative branch and proceeds to create a new Constitution violates the very rights the people of Venezuela the Constitution was to protect.  This definition is a stark contrast to the ancient understanding of the word tyrant, which a revolutionary, someone who wants to overthrow the government and be the new ruler . If the ancient definition were to be used in today’s world, then people like Hillary Clinton, or any other presidential candidate would be considered a tyrant. She would be considered a tyrant because she is trying to take the power of the country. The definition of tyrant as drastically changed throughout time.

– Vincent Potente

Word Count: 549

Link to the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/bolton-promises-to-confront-latin-americas-troika-of-tyranny/2018/11/01/df57d3d2-ddf5-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d540dcc5208d

Released in the United States in 2017, Wonder Woman is a captivating film that tells the story of Diana, Princess of the Amazons, coming to mankind’s rescue to save their world in an epic tale of self empowerment and teamwork. The plot of the film is centered around the conflict of World War I, which was introduced to Wonder Woman by chance after an American pilot lands near her island, Themyscira, the home island of the Amazons.  

The Greek influences in the film extend beyond the protagonist’s homeland. The film relies heavily on Greek mythology and tangible culture to develop Diana as a character. The comic on which the movie was based was created in 1941 by William Moulton, a self proclaimed feminist, collaterally as a result of the early twentieth century American fascination with matriarchal societies. This emphasis on matriarchs is seen as with Diana growing up in the fierce warrior culture of the Amazons and Hippolyta as her mother. Despite Hippolyta actually being the queen of the amazons, according to Greek mythology, she never had any children and was the son of Ares, indicative of the film’s many inaccuracies. While Wonder Woman herself is obviously a fictional character, she is rooted in and created from Greek mythology, which is evident to the audience and visible throughout the duration of the film.

While the film heavily simplifies the complexities of Greek mythology, its heavy influence is indicative of the role ancient culture still plays in modern media. Aries, the antagonist of the movie, is portrayed by a normal, unassuming man, which is in stark contrast to how to god of war is usually portrayed. Additionally, in mythology, Ares is the father of Hippolyta, making him the grandfather of Diana, which is completely ignored in the film. Diana also highlighted how not all of the issues of mankind can be put on one person in particular, making the Ares character less omnipotent than he appears in Greek mythology. With these stark differences from recorded Greek culture, the film skillfully uses parts of mythology that thicken the plot and add interest to the characters.

Differences between historically accurate Greek mythology and its use in Wonder Woman, was intentional to make it more comprehensible for the audience and to allow the writers and directors a degree creative liberty. The select choices made to deviate from the traditional Greek tales ultimately did not drastically impact any of the culture’s use in the film, especially because the differences are not well known amongst the target audience.

Ultimately, while Wonder Woman’s character, and the plot and costumes of the movie, are heavily influenced by Greek culture, Diana herself is not based on a goddess. The writers incorporation of Greek mythology tactfully reintroduced Greek culture, despite their occasional creative deviation.

–Mack Pearson

Word Count: 464

Venezuela has been suffering from months of political dissent and hyperinflation, but the recent presidential elections in the country pushed the people to the edge. On January 23rd, the leader of the legislation Juan Guaidó declared himself as acting president. The real president Nicolás Maduro just began his second six-year term in office a couple weeks before. As a result, the majority of active participants in the National Assembly of Venezuela are currently protesting this recent move, saying that there needs to be an end to Maduro’s reign. A Venezuelan citizen being interviewed for a news article said, “We want the dictatorship out and an end to tyranny – it is more than possible,” (The Guardian). His statement shows what the people think Maduro is – a tyrant. Other protestors to this regime posted banners with comments such as, “Juan Guaidó – we will stand with you until democracy is restored,” (BBC). The citizens believe they are currently functioning under a tyrannical regime because of Maduro’s policies.

According to modern day society, the word “tyrant” is used correctly. The word tyrant in this article holds true to the modern usage and understanding. People would be able to read the article and understand the true hatred that the citizens of Venezuela feel towards their President. People today view tyrants as people in a position of power who are cruel and oppressive who use their position of power only for their own good. I know that this is not the correct usage of the word. However, many people fail to understand the original definition of the word “tyrant”.

The true meaning of the word “tyrant” stems from Ancient Greece. Before the rise of the democracy, the people labeled as tyrants were those who rose to power without having the hereditary right to that power. In reality, these tyrants in Ancient Greece exercised extra constitutional power, and some solved stasis. Benevolent tyrants such as Pesisistratos actually weakened the Aristocrats in power and lead the way to democracy. He established domestic policies such as coinage, weights, and measures. Soon after, Athenians won and a democracy was established, the tyrants were not democratic, so they were frowned upon. Tyrants, who were initially decent people, became corrupt, greedy, and sexually deviant. This is where we acquire the negative connotations and feelings associated with the word “tyrant”. These negative emotions were so powerful they managed to shift the denotative meaning of the word for the rest of history.

Currently, mass media still uses the word “tyrant” to describe people in positions of power who are corrupt and toxic to the people and places they rule. In Venezuela, the citizens underwent a questionable reelection of their president, Nicolás Maduro. Suspecting an immoral election process, the people labeled him a tyrant and turned to support the leader of the legislative branch taking over the executive. Overall, the word “tyrant” evokes strong, negative emotions in people today, despite the word beginning in Ancient Greece as a description for people who assumed power without hereditary rights.

 

Corinne DeSpain

 

Word count: 475

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36319877

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/24/we-want-an-end-to-tyranny-venezuelan-diaspora-call-for-maduro-to-go

In a recent interview conducted by The Economist with Madeleine Albright, former American Secretary of State and author, the topic of tyranny came up often. Albright accurately refers to tyrants in accordance with the recognized, modern definition. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines tyrant as, “A cruel and oppressive ruler.”(Merriam-Webster). Abright rightly accuses the Nazi Regime that she escaped from as a child of being tyrannical rulers. This directly clashes with the ancient definition of a tyrant that is longer fitting after the rise of democracy. To be a tyrant before democracy was to be a ruler who attained power by unconventional means and by ignoring a blood line. This definition is no longer fitting because it does not refer to tyrants as the ruthless rulers they are. Adolf Hitler was a sadistic and immoral ruler who is responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people and will go down permanently as a modern tyrant in history. The ancient definition does not apply to Hitler as he began his reign of terror after being named Chancellor of Germany.

While Albright’s use of tyranny differs from the ancient definition, which refers to a tyrant as someone who broke hereditary ranks to become a ruler, it is used correctly in context. Abright uses the modern definition of tyrant as shown in a quotation from her interview by comparing tyrants to bullies, “History is replete with bullies who seemed formidable for a time only to crash by attempting too much or by underestimating the quiet courage of honourable women and men.”(Albright) In the modern democratic era it is an irrefutable argument that tyrants need to be forcefully taken out of power just like the Nazis were. Before the rise of democracy tyrannical rulers might not have been associated with the modern definition if they were fair and honest rulers. In some cases it took unconventional methods to take out an oppressive ruler who was in a position of power because of who their father was. With the modern definition, the previous ruler would be considered a tyrant and the one who unseated them would be a hero.

In conclusion, Albright correctly uses the term tyrant in her interview. The ancient definition is no longer fitting given the atrocities that modern tyrants have committed and the way that they have ruled. The use of the ancient definition gives an ounce of legitimacy to modern tyrants and downplays the villains that they are. The correct definition for a tyrant is the modern one that is recognized today and needs no explanation.

Harrison Goodrich

Words: 429

“On Tyranny, Populism-and How Best to Respond Today.” The Economist. July 30, 2018. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/30/on-tyranny-populism-and-how-best-to-respond-today.

“Tyrant.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyrant.

Ortega’s Tyranny

Daniel Ortega, the President of Nicaragua, has found himself in the news not nearly as much as he should, given his recent history and his rise to power. The nearly four decades of his rule have been marked with numerous instances of corruption and heinous crimes. James Dyde, in his article titled “Daniel Ortega: Inside the Mind Of a Dictator,” discusses Nicaragua’s oppression under his rule. Dyde even went as far as to call him a “tyrant.” While this description is is fitting given his record, our modern definition of the word differs from its original meaning.

The term originated in Ancient Greece to describe rulers with a certain way of coming to power and a method of ruling. They were classified as illegitimate rulers who stole power from the aristocracy or inherited it unconstitutionally. Some had relations to monarchy while others were foreign nominees. They often aided in transitioning the government from an aristocracy to a democracy. They typically lacked the modern reputation of being cruel and oppressive rulers, as they were commonly preferred over the alternative government.

Surprisingly, Ortega’s rise to president of Nicaragua bears some difference to the typical tyrant of Ancient Greece. He was born in a rural town in Nicaragua during the rule of a harsh dictator. In his teens, he joined a political movement against his reign and was imprisoned for his aggressive . When he was released and his movement succeeded, Ortega became their nominee for President. He took control in 1984 with support from the people and has managed to stay in power close to 40 years later. He is known as a heinous and repressive dictator who is responsible for 400 deaths in just 3 months of 2018 alone. “The only people who still support Daniel Ortega are his “sapos” – the word used to characterize his band of fanatics inside Nicaragua.”  While his support is dwindling, he seeks out and destroys his opposition, leaving no enemies to threaten him. His rule is comparable to most central American dictators and garners him reputation as a feared and unjust ruler.

According to modern interpretation of the word, Dyde correctly attributes “tyrant” to Ortega. His climb to power against a previous ruler, along with his cruelty, oppression, and marginalized support classify him as a tyrant. However, Ortega’s malice towards his people and his small band of advocates differentiate him from the tyrants of Ancient Greece. The evolution of the word that has occurred during the past century can be accredited to the numerous dictators, monarchs, and emperors who have tarnished the word’s original meaning. Ortega resembles a tyrant in a modern context but falls short of meeting the Ancient Greek’s.

Cameron Douglas

Word count: 450