This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jeffersonian democracy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This article glorifies Jacksonian democracy, while not talking about modern historians' characterizing it as a period of mob rule, demagogy and racism, as it actually was. In reality, there was nothing 'Democratic' about Jackson. This article presents information in the way that a campaign volunteer for Jackson himself might.Van Gulik (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Whatever -- it could be considered to have aspects of "Herrenvolk democracy", but the disproportionate political influence of certain entrenched elites was diminished, and significant progress was made towards the proclaimed goal of deciding things based on "universal white manhood suffrage". It fell short according to modern standards, but in making what was then the most democratic non-small-scale government in the world even more democratic than it had previously been, it was a significant moment in history...AnonMoos (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, it lacks balance. Before my last edit, the article did not mention African-Americans or Native Americans. It did not mention the open racism of Andrew Jackson's administration and the limits on democracy. I've added a couple of sentences, but the article deserves a thorough criticism section. As written, it does glorify Jacksonian Democracy.--TM 13:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I would oppose this. "Jacksonian democracy" is actually a modern historians' term which refers to the convergence of a number of societal and historical trends -- not just narrowly to a political organization. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)