導讀: 這是一篇美國essay范文，討論了美國民主制度的缺陷。制度是一個國家得以有序運行的必要條件和有力保證。但是從本質來說，制度是由人制定的，不可避免的會帶有時代局限性和考慮不周全的方面，不存在十全十美的制度，美國的制度也遠非完美。在世紀之交的美國大選、醫療改革和官員腐敗等事例中，都真實反映了美國的民主制度中存在的弊病。
 
When it comes to the United States, it is inevitable to talk about its democracy, which includes the separation of powers, the two-party system and the civil liberties. Indeed, for the first time, the United States transformed the political philosophy of power restriction and balance, social contract, and people's sovereignty into reality. On this basis, it led the American people to become the only superpower in the world and realized the American dream generation after generation. Even so, the American system is far from perfect. In particular, the 21st century, from the election at the turn of the century to the war in Iraq, to the difficult health care reform, to the exposure of official corruption, all reflect the shortcomings of the American political system. The emergence of these problems has led to people's reflection. It seems that the American political system, which always prides itself on stability, is less and less able to adapt to the development of The Times. The reform plan of the political system in some aspects is also put into the proposal of congress. Due to the limited space, this paper will try to demonstrate some problems of American democracy from several aspects such as separation of powers, supervision of the news media and participation in politics of interest groups.
談到美國，談論其民主是不可避免的，其中包括權力分立，兩黨制和公民自由。實際上，美國第一次將權力制約和平衡，社會契約和人民主權的政治哲學變為現實。在此基礎上，它引領美國人民成為世界上唯一的超級大國，實現了一代又一代的美國夢。即便如此，美國的制度還遠非完美。特別是21世紀，從世紀之交選舉到伊拉克戰爭，到困難的醫療改革，到官員腐敗的暴露，都反映了美國政治制度的缺點。這些問題的出現引發了人們的反思。似乎總是以穩定為傲的美國政治體系越來越不能適應“泰晤士報”的發展。一些方面的政治體制改革方案也納入了國會的提案。由于篇幅有限，本文試圖從權力分立，新聞媒體監督和利益集團政治參與等幾個方面論證美國民主的一些問題。
In order to prevent the uncontrolled expansion of power, the institutional designers introduced the decentralization thought of political philosophers such as Locke and montesquieu into the United States, and made the three branches of legislation, administration and justice link up with each other, separate and restrict each other. However, the institutional design of the separation of powers principle in the specific implementation process is far more complicated than the theoretical level. Designers must fully consider the possibility of all kinds of abuses, design a series of complex procedures, on the one hand, to ensure that the legislative, administrative and judicial mutual containment, which one can own the power of the infinite expansion, on the other hand, to guarantee to cooperation between them, not because of too much checks and balances and hinder the smooth operation of the policy. American system design takes these two aspects into consideration, trying to harmonize the contradiction between restriction and cooperation to the greatest extent. The United States, for example, the constitution gives congress with legislative power, the other two departments shall not interfere in, but at the same time, the President has the veto of legislation, federal courts have the unconstitutional review power, such an arrangement makes the administrative and judicial departments on the premise of not impede legislative independence in fact involved in the legislative process and play the role of the legislature of legislative activities to supervise. However, in fact, the distribution of power cannot be equal. When the total amount of power remains in a relatively stable range, there is a game for power among various departments, which makes American politics swing between "big congress" and "big President". In many cases, this pendulum phenomenon results in the failure of various departments to play a positive role in the restriction and the inefficiency of the collaboration. These phenomena reflect the funnel in the system, once it is used intentionally, the impact will be huge. There are many examples of checks and balances failing. The President of the United States, as a dual representative of the head of state and the head of government, can have as much, if not more, influence as the despot once power is not forcefully limited. Mr Bush is clearly very good at spotting and using the system's funnel for his own use, pushing his own claims on everything from appointing officials to spending money to military defence. The inefficiencies of co-operation are too numerous to mention. In diplomacy, the imbalance of power is even more pronounced. In this regard, American scholars made an oblique comment that "the President of the United States almost dominates the major policies of American foreign affairs, while the congress is seen as a political platform to realize the diversified democratic values in the United States". Chinese scholars put it more bluntly: "when it comes to foreign affairs, the role of congress has almost invariably been portrayed as an inconsequential silence." But the effect is often negative. In international exchanges, the United States' dual diplomatic system has led to foreign distrust and weakened the image of a responsible major power in many cases. President Wilson, who enthusiastically called for the establishment of the league of nations, was unable to join it because of congressional opposition. Many of the President's bilateral, multilateral agreements are not approved by congress, making presidential diplomacy less effective. At home, the recent financial crisis, for example, has been exacerbated by divisions in congress and the President that have made America's response to the crisis slow. Francis fukuyama, author of "the end of history" and a former champion of democracy and market economics, has recently begun to value the Chinese model of "responsible authority", recognising the efficiency of centralised institutions and their huge capacity to mobilise. Moreover, as a representative of the neo-conservative forces, Mr. Fukuyama's criticism of "the United States is caught by the fire in the process of emphasizing the use of force to promote democracy" reflects the increasing reflection of American academia on the domestic and diplomatic aspects of its own political system.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
A good system can always follow the right track, without the supervision of this link. In the United States, the media is known as the fourth power by image. The first amendment to the U.S. constitution is about protecting the freedom of the press and the press. In recent years, the news media became famous for following Nixon's watergate scandal and revealing the truth. Due to institutional guarantees, the American media has sufficient freedom of speech, and many TV programs dare to speak out about government policies and measures, and even directly criticize those in power. However, can it be said that the media in the United States completely stand on the objective side of the government as a watchdog? The answer is no.
 
Clearly, the media can't be completely value free. Even for news programs that do not make any comments, the content they broadcast is subjective, guiding the audience's concerns and determining the agenda of the congress. Moreover, the media tends to be tied to party support. Although the media has gained enough freedom, the traditional media in the United States is almost completely controlled by the three major broadcasters, ABC,CBS and NBC. In addition, the two network communication media, CNN and FOX, form the main body of the news industry. And all of these companies have strong political stances. Take the quadrennial presidential election as an example. In the process of the biggest democratic prosperity in the eyes of the American people, various TV stations have been engaged in fierce competition to promote the candidate they support, regardless of the fact to smear the other side. Television is a part of American life and has a subtle influence on American behavior and even values. In an extreme example, watching television during the campaign can lead to a difference in the name of the sacred ballot. This involves the dilemma of representative democracy. What will it take for voters to decide who can represent their interests without full knowledge of the candidates? Clearly there are a significant number of people in the United States who take the direction of public opinion as the most important reference standard.
 
On the other hand, no matter how much the media is praised as the conscience of society to monitor the operation of the political system, as a profit-making organization, its primary purpose is to maximize profits. In a highly competitive market, major media companies tend to deliberately broadcast eye-catching programs for audience rating, and gradually break away from the real life of ordinary people. There are endless official scandals. Instead of strengthening people's attention to politics, criminal cases only lead to a growing loss of confidence in politics, resulting in indifference to politics. Turnout in American elections is at the back end of all western democracies. In recent years, some scholars began to realize the problems caused by excessive trust in the media.
 
If the media of the United States still plays an important supervisory role in the internal affairs, then in the foreign affairs, the media has not hesitated to maintain a consistent position with the government, build up an ideological copper wall and shape the Americans' external cognition. In a country full of a sense of superiority, the public has been little known to the outside world, and the only recognition is mostly from the media's disgraceful image of other countries. To some extent, the American media cooperated with the government in carrying out the policy of "fools". This is good for increasing political cohesion in multicultural countries, but where does the diplomatic propaganda that strips out the right of citizens to know place the democratic idea?#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Interest groups are a form of popular participation advocated by pluralistic democracy. Different from general democracy principle of a simple majority, pluralist democracy view in order to ensure the freedom and personal property, must prevent majority tyranny, in a complex pluralistic society, the individual direct participation is impossible, only with the identity of the members of the organization or institution, thus allowing different interest groups to express their demands is a reflection of democracy. The final decision will be a compromise between different interest groups, which ensures fairness. In practice, however, it is debatable whether the competition of active interest groups actually prevents both majority and minority tyranny. First of all, interest groups are also organized by the bureaucratic model. Each interest group has its own leadership, usually those outstanding figures in the society, but rarely the ordinary people. It can be said that "the status quo of American society is dominated by the intelligentsia, the media, the urban elites, and the liberal voices. The existence of interest groups reduces the opportunity for ordinary people to directly reflect their own will. Second, power among interest groups is not equal, so there is no guarantee of fairness in the process of wrestling. Especially when it comes to the competition of economic interests, organizations that are strong enough to provide large amounts of "political contributions" in presidential campaigns can gain a favorable position. This is a big drawback of party politics, exacerbated by America's extensive lobbying by lobbyists.
 
In addition, the excessive protection of interest groups, especially trade unions and other non-profit organizations, which are designed to promote public welfare, also has a series of consequences. The affirmative action movement that began in the 1960s, for example, was a response to the growing movement of women and the black movement. The policy is designed to take care of minorities and women, and to compensate them for the pain they have suffered in history with practical benefits. Specific measures include expanding the percentage of blacks and women admitted to schools, companies and others. This policy, of course, has the support of American citizens. But over time, it was found that the policy actually created a kind of "reverse discrimination" that put most people other than these people at a competitive disadvantage. In the United States, for example, as a social organization to protect workers' rights, the United States has numerous labor unions of all sizes, such as the united auto workers union, the cleaner's union and so on. These unions have formed a network to link workers organically. But Americans' indulgence of unions has created many problems, both for the sake of democracy and for the protection of the weak. For example, the labor union constantly demands to improve the wage level of the workers for the protection of their basic rights and interests, so as to shape a group of high wage rate and low efficiency. American workers are less competitive, and the decline of traditional American manufacturing has been linked to overprotective labor unions. When the interests of a group are put before the interests of society as a whole, the original intention of defending democracy is lost. In specific policy choices, whether to follow "equal opportunity" or "compensatory equality" is a major challenge for democracy. Problems in the American political process reflect the dilemma of choice.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
These are just a few of the flaws in American democracy. Besides, the United States also has a series of disadvantages in the fields of election, judicial judgment and foreign policy making. It can be seen from the above analysis that the defects existing in the American democratic system are largely caused by the logical contradiction of "democracy" itself: freedom and equality, as the two cornerstones of democracy, always weaken each other in practice. So the potential danger for Americans is not the flaws of the system, but the ability to recognize or recognize them. All these problems are caused by the concept of democracy in practice, which is inevitable.
 
The national character of Americans was once summed up as skeptical. If this is true, it is at least an exception to political ideas and institutions. Tocqueville long ago recognized the American "majoritarian dictatorship," pointing out that Americans confine themselves to an ideological boundary that no one can surmount. That is to say, the American dictatorship is not passive, controlled by one dictator, but formed by the values that all the people actively identify with. It is a question for American leaders to ponder how the flaws of a democratic system, to which all the people are proud, can be adapted to The Times. For the Chinese, as the United States pushes its soft power aggressively around the world and exports its model to the rest of the world, our scrutiny of the American polity should always be sober, aware of its advances and aware of its shortcomings. After all, China and the United States are at different stages of national conditions and development. The social system, strategic culture and geographical conditions of the two countries are quite different. If the us democracy is pursued blindly, more new problems will emerge than the problems solved.