Final answer:
Both radicals and conservatives have historically championed the complex democratic revolution heritage in America. Conservative opposition to democracy stemmed from equating it with anarchy, while radicals sought increased popular participation. Neoconservative historians argue that colonial America had a form of middle-class democracy that the revolution aimed to preserve.
Step-by-step explanation:
One of the enduring paradoxes of American history is that both radicals and conservatives have championed the heritage of democratic revolution. While the founding of the United States is often associated with democracy, the reality was more nuanced with intellectual debate about who should govern the republic. Conservative Whigs linked democracy with anarchy and sought to maintain control by a patrician class, whereas radical Whigs pushed for broader participation in political life.
Republicanism offered an alternative to monarchy and democracy, being favored by many revolutionaries who were afraid that majority rule could undermine minority rights and threaten their wealth. Meanwhile, the Neoconservative School of Historians argued against the Progressive view that colonial America was not democratic, suggesting a middle-class democracy was already in existence and the revolution was an ideological conservation of rights, not a radical change. The dichotomy between historical views reflects the complex evolution of democratic ideals and the checks and balances designed to protect against both the tyranny of the majority and the aristocracy within American society.