Google Images
"That government is best which governs least." Henry David Thoreau- Civil Disobedience
I believe it was Winston Churchill who quipped something to the effect that democracy is, in fact, a terrible form of government, it just happens to be better than the others. Despite all of democracy's perceived benefits (of which there are potentially many) one thing is certain- every democracy in history has devolved into tyranny of one sort or another. The most accelerated example I can think of off hand is 20th century Germany, where the Weimar Republic devolved into the tyranny of the Third Reich... in about a decade. (I'm not going to waste time splitting hairs over the minor differences between a democracy and a republic- they're two peas in the same pod). The reasons for Germany's rapid decline are manifold- mainly economic. The stock market crash of 1929 and ensuing depression had tragic consequences for Germany who was already crippled by the reparations of the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI; forced into a state of political, social and economic desperation.
In the US, the transition has been far more subtle. The purpose of this article is to take a historic perspective of the devolution of American Democracy... bearing in mind one important factor- the illusion of democracy and democracy itself are very different things... and naturally, like I said before, America is technically not a democracy, but a democratic republic.
After the American Revolution the Articles of Confederation were adopted. As a paradigm for governing it was absolutely sufficient as it called for a decentralized federal body, choosing to disperse power to the individual states. In a comment to me by @johndickinson he wrote of Patrick Henry taking a similar position... "And of course, he, too, vastly preferred the old Articles to the new Constitution, which he thought was consolidated rather than confederated." (I admire his ability for conciseness- something I seem to lack!) The Articles were, fundamentally, an agreement that if one or all of the states came under attack, or had problems, the other states would lend their assistance. The perceived failure of the Articles wasn't political, or organizational- it was economic.
The Revolution- like all wars- was expensive leaving the fledgling nation deep in debt. The Southern states, being primarily agrarian economically, took only a growing season or two to pay off their share of the debt- they were quickly financially sound. Conversely, the Northern states depended on manufacturing (for example textiles that required cotton from the South), shipbuilding (also requiring tall pines from the Carolinas for their masts) and other businesses (banking etc.). Their economies were slow to recover- one reason being they had printed money backed by fiat (nothing). Given the choice of selling crops to Europe for gold or the North for what amounted to worthless paper (backed by good will)- the logical choice was clear... the biggest problem facing the country was no universal currency.
To make a long story short (or at least shorter), the South agreed to assume the debts to France, Poland, Russia, et.al. accrued by the Northern states to aid in putting the country back on an even keel financially. The unfortunate downside was the adoption of the US Constitution. This put the locus of power into one set of institutions beginning the inevitable, incremental downward death-spiral toward an oligarchical tyranny. To be clear, tyranny is tyranny, whether it comes from a monarch, an oligarchy, or even the tyranny of the majority (mob rule). For purposes of clarity, we'll look at the centralized federal government as a single institution, rather than a myriad of agencies and sets of institutions... it's unnecessary to break them down at this point.
ALL institutions- as I've written in numerous places- have built-in flaws... flaws that are unavoidable for two reasons- the nature of institutions themselves and the nature of human beings, human nature.. I'll use a simple example to illustrate the first falw. Let's say that several of us get together and establish an institution to help the blind (a laudable undertaking indeed). Everything is going along fine and our institution is performing the task for which it was designed. It then occurs to us, that if the institution fails we can no longer accomplish the goal for which it was created. Therefore, the primary purpose becomes eclipsed by the necessity of the institution to survive- relegating the purpose for which it was created to a secondary purpose.
The second flaw has to do with human nature itself. EVERY institution, movement, organization, etc. is eventually usurped by its worst element- people who will subvert the power of the institution for their own selfish purposes- be it money, power or whatever else the institution has to offer. As Lord Acton so accurately put it: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It can also be said that positions of power seem to attract the corrupt and easily corruptible- something I call the Asshole Quotient (the subject of another upcoming post). NO institution is immune from these flaws. (actually there is one- AA. Because no one is in charge, it's impossible to usurp power- something to remember perhaps)
The Constitution, although beautifully written and brilliantly devised by some of the very best political minds of the time, turned out to be a blueprint for disaster. When power is focused in one locus, once human nature is factored in the result is predictable- tyranny... albeit delayed in the case of America- is inevitable. As far as being a theoretical organizational paradigm, it's as well crafted as any in existence. However, almost all organizational paradigms work well- perfectly even- on paper.
Theoretically, there's nothing wrong with monarchies. The problem there, once again, lies in the human factor. If you get a good monarch- one that puts the wellbeing of his/her subjects before their own, everyone benefits. The biggest problem with monarchies is the selection process. Most monarchs are selected through breeding- or more precisely- inbreeding. What you ultimately end up with is what you have in England now... a bunch of Satanic pedophiles with bad teeth.
Getting back to the US Constitution... it has only managed to postpone the inevitable- because, once again, of the human factor and the selection process. Here's where the illusion of democracy comes into play. Although America votes for their representatives, the electorate plays almost no part in selecting who the candidates for office will be (except at the local level)... How many times have you stood in the polling booth wondering: "Is this really the best we have to choose from?" Little by little, despite the Bill of Rights (next post), that were designed to protect liberty and ensure stability, the process that the Framers envisioned has been stripped gradually away... replaced by a despotic, omnipresent oligarchical tyranny. Whether it will manifest itself in an authoritarian or totalitarian regime is for all practical purposes immaterial... a distinction without a difference. The result is the same either way- tyranny.
The "Left-Right" - "Liberal-Conservative" paradigm is a false dichotomy, except insofar as the "Left" generally tends to lean toward Collectivism (I once heard it said: "There is no Right in America- only the Left and those that disagree with them")... and this is where the genuine dichotomy exists- Individualism vs. Collectivism. With authoritarian Collectivism power is usually centered with a powerful individual such as Hitler in Fascist Germany. In totalitarian regimes power manifests itself in a more diversified model such as the central planning commissions of the USSR. Either way, the result is inevitably the same... whether in the ovens of Nazi Germany or the Gulags and mass starvations of the USSR, or the tens of millions murdered in Maoist China- Collectivism equals tyranny that inescapably translates into deaths on an unprecedented scale.
Collectivism is merely democracy (mob rule) run amok- it brings out the very worst aspects of human nature- selfishness and greed. Professor Alexander Fraser Tyler, writing when the states were still colonies of Great Britain, explains why democracies always fail. "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy..."
It is human nature itself that transforms each and every democracy into a repressive and tyrannical form of government. Realizing this, and despite their best efforts, the Framers tried their very best to eliminate- or at the very least diminish- this phenomenon by imbuing the Constitution with Christian values and a Bill of Rights.
NEXT: Tyranny of the Minority: The Bill of Rights and "the Mischief of Faction."
GIF by @papa-pepper
Good job! Yes, the human factor is what ends up ruining the political model.
This happened in my country, a country where institutionally there are no 3 powers (legislative, executive, judicial) but there are 5 (legislative, executive, judicial, electoral, republican), however, thanks to the vote of the people and the imprudence of the opposition, the same people control the 5 powers of the State.
Something I always say is, when Montesquieu described the division of powers, it was assumed that in practice there really was a difference between who executes the laws, and who legislates these laws, however, the systems of political parties, contradicts the system described by this man, because Rousseau said that if within society, groups were formed, and conducted as a united block, then, when voting the election result would not give the popular representation of society, but representation of the majority group. Then, the political society, is organized in political parties, breaking the idea explained by Rousseau, and then, these parties, can participate in both the elections of the executive power, and in the elections of legislative power, that is, the division of powers it is destroyed in practice, and also the idea of a genuine democracy.
They all seem to start out with the noblest of intentions and even work to some extent at first... then what I call the "asshole quotient" (I don't know why I'm quoting myself lol) or human nature kicks in and things begin to degenerate.
Yes @richq I would rather not see the US "AQ" right now, maybe more than one per person. Ruling a disintegrating civilized people is actually quite fun, I am sure. The early generations in Rome fought their backsides off to unite and rule ruthlessly an empire for centuries, but the last few generations had all of the fun and blew it. That is why I think Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" designation may wind getting disqualified. They gave birth to and raised the "Baby Boom Generation," that has become the achilles heel to the US. A country that survived 3% of its population dying in a war--against each other, a country that won independence from "the most massive global empire in history," countless economic collapses/panics, having over 1/6 of the population being owned in chattel slavery, possible self assured nuclear annihilation, (plus countless other threats to its' existence) now cannot shake the boomer generation attitude that has become rampant among the country in the last three generations of the "ME, NOW Generations."
I don't know what if any your religious beliefs are, but there's an excellent video on Y-Tube by Fr. Chad Ripperger called Generational Spirits. Each generation has a kind of zeitgeist by which it can be identified... it makes much the same point but includes the last 6 generations- from the Lost Generation through the Millennials. Fr. Ripperger is a brilliant guy, he has something like 8 post grad degrees, Psychology, Law, Theology... I can't remember them all. He's a Traditional Catholic, not one of the Vatican II Satanists that have taken over the church.
Rome actually started out pretty good, they lasted almost 200 years before declining into tyranny.
Funny me and Fr. Ripperger have a lot in common, minus the degrees of course. Sounds like a heck of a guy, I will definitely have to check it out. Never heard of this on youtube, I will definitely have to check them out, thanks a lot for the info. By the way, I had to double check the user name on the post and make sure it was not something I posted, I agreed with and thought the value was that incredible. By the look of the avatar I thought we might be related. Anyway, you have a follower here, if you would like message me on a comment if I do not reply to your next post, I am all over the place on here, but would definitely like to see more of this brilliance on here. Astounding content, terribly important for the masses to understand! THANKS A LOT @richq11 keep stellar posts like this coming! UPVOTED+FOLLOWED
This will save you digging for it!
AWESOME THANK YOU SIR!
You've touched on the hidden crack in otherwise solid balance-of-power theory: the balance gets deformed when a single ruling class assumes leadership of substantially all the organs of government.
Balance-of-power only works in systems with several groups of elites, groups composed of members who wouldn't be caught dead crossing over into another group. The United States used to have this pluralism of elites, but cultural and war-fueled centralization wrecked this plurality. It's now a "revolving door" system wherein a single group of elites - a ruling class - has assumed leadership over all organs of government.
To see what I'm saying, imagine an alternate U.S. where matriculating at Harvard gives you the shoo-in as a federal politician but kills your chances at becoming a state-level politician, even Governor. If you matriculate at Yale, you have a leg-up for a judgeship but ruin your chance at becoming a politician. And so on...
It's this kind of social fabric that gives you a pluralism of elites.
Interestingly, I had never considered a system that way, I had analyzed ways to divide power and keep different groups of people in them. As for example, that a political party that participates in elections to the parliament, can not do it for those of the presidency. In the same way the politicians, that is, a senator could never be a president, and a mayor or a governor, could never be a congressman, that is, maintain the separation of people who exercise a function or another. However, there is the problem of the influence of money, when people finance politicians to have power over them. However, I like your system a lot, I'll think about it.
I too believe that we would be in a much better place today had we stayed with the Articles rather than the new constitution. We would have engaged in much less war precisely because the Articles made it very difficult to fund war. As they say, that is a feature, not a bug.
I tend to believe that historians have mis-identified the balance of power as envisioned by the writers of our constitution. Typically this is listed as being a balance between the various branches of the federal government -- legislative, executive, and judicial. But to me, that's like expecting your in-house accounting department to be capable of an objective audit, as those are all three branches of the same entity. That's not balance of power -- that's monopoly.
They way I see it, the balance of power they envisioned was between the states, the federal government, and the people. The states had their legislative body, the Senate, whose representatives were elected by the state legislatures and who were supposed to represent state interests and keep the Federal government from taking too much power away from the states. The people had their legislative body, the House, whose representatives were directly elected by the people and they kept the Federal and State governments in check. And the Federal government had the Executive branch, whose role was mostly envisioned as being executing the will of the people as the Federal government had not yet achieved self awareness.
The judicial branch was never formally vested with judicial review -- that is a prerogative and power they seized for themselves. They were initially seen as a restraint but not as a branch with authority equal to the Executive or especially the Legislative. The Legislative was where the power was supposed to primarily reside.
From my perspective, it is difficult to characterize what the Founding Fathers wanted, because I think their main focus was to protect freedom -- and that's not a form of government. I believe that they wanted to create a stable power vacuum, with a government just powerful enough to keep invaders away but not powerful enough to be a weight keeping the citizens down.
To me, the difference between republic and democracy is not irrelevant but rather exists on a continuum -- republic comes first, then democracy starts to become more and more stressed because people use the rationale of "the people want it" to justify seizing control over the levers of power so that they can take more from other people using the legal monopoly of government.
The only way this struggle ends peacefully is through withdrawal -- that's the non-violent way that agreements and cooperation gone sour ends without a fight. But that option died with the Civil War, and our republic died with it, replaced instead by an empire.
Great article and looking forward to the next installments!
I couldn't agree more... I've written an article ( a long time ago) about Stinkin Lincoln- our first tyrant, and plan another. The War of Northern Aggression is just the greedy power hungry assholes paying the South back for paying their debt.
Thank you for this article. There's so many issues to sort through here, and it really can't be done in a single post, or even a single series, but I'm glad you're starting the discussion.
I think you hit a lot of good points, but to me this line is the real crux of it all - "EVERY institution, movement, organization, etc. is eventually usurped by its worst element- people who will subvert the power of the institution for their own selfish purposes."
The Framers of the Constitution understood that their government wouldn't last forever. They knew human nature was too deeply flawed even to consider such a prospect. It hurts me to think about how they struggled, hoping against all reason and experience, to form a government which might preserve freedom indefinitely, while knowing from their extensive knowledge of history that such thing never had, and never could, exist.
Their ambivalence was truly remarkable, and I think Gouverneur Morris probably put it best when he wrote, "Surrounded by difficulties, we did the best we could; leaving it with those who should come after us to take counsel from experience, and exercise prudently the power of amendment, which we had provided."
There is also a great line from Washington's notes for his 1st Inaugural Address which I think is both very pertinent and extremely painful. Unfortunately, it was cut from the final product, but here it is -
"Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power & prompted by the supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction & sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable—and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words—that no mound of parchmt can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other."
Our greatest problem ISN'T our government - it's ourselves. As Madison so deftly put it, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Other than Madison (whose writings most people can't decipher) and Jefferson, I really liked the writings of Henry Laurens (SC) who hammered home again and again the necessity of God for the nation to survive. He like the others (even perhaps more so) understood that democracy is not something you can make or give to someone... it has to be earned. Democracy is more a verb than a noun- it's what you do when you have liberty (the noun).
Thanks for the great remark. I had originally thought about 2 short articles... I don't think so. Many years ago I wrote (almost) a book , about 360 pages- some of which survived on floppy- devising a new model for political analysis. Liberal and Conservative are so limited and people change as do the definitions of the words over time. I looked for some immutable characteristics that transcend transient labels and get to the root of human nature (in a political sense) and came up with 4 designations. So after the Bill of Rights post- I think I'll do one on that and introduce my new concept (newly named at least) The Asshole Quotient!
You have hijacked my attempt to write a series of stories with similar content. But you can't really call it stealing when the item you claim stolen is an upgrade in just about every idea possible by a factor of ten times (sarcasm-but maybe also true). My thoughts were a much more compacted version of many similar sentiments. You should go through those writings, I bet it is a heck of a read. Maybe you could co-write with Mark Levin on a book? Your selling point on the title alone he could not resist.
Do you still have a copy of your book draft? I would love to read it! Or even just the parts of it that remain.
You mention 4 political labels; I'll be interested to see what they are. Jefferson came up with just 2 primary ones, and I always thought they fit the bill pretty nicely.
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties. 1. those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2dly those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them cherish and consider them as the most honest & safe, altho’ not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them therefore liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats or by whatever name you please; they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of artistocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." - Thomas Jefferson, August 10, 1824.
I break it down into leader/follower and positive/negative typologies. By positive/negative (the simplest characterizations I could come up with) People driven by either rational or irrational self-interest. In psychological terms, inner vs outer directed. I try to keep the characterizations simple because the explanations get kind of convoluted. I guess Jefferson's elite vs non-elite would suit the leader/follower except that elites are artificial- you can inherit elite status whereas by leaders I mean some innate leadership traits that make people want to follow... by personality, not fiat. I'll address factions (parties) when I write my piece on the Bill of Rights.
The stuff for the book I wrote over 20 years ago and it needs to be updated a bit- part of it was a critique of the Clinton presidency.
Well done. I feel it is much like Steemit. Yes we have problems, but its still the best game in town.
You know, I never really thought about it like that- but you're right!
Great read!
Bookmarked. Along with the discussion in the comment. New follower here.
Thanks... I'm having quite a time trying to keep up with it all myself!
Thank you @richqq11, your post is informative and as concise as can be. I am a Jeffersonian and libertarian by nature. You have outlined the flaws of democracy eloquently. I would say that the only place I differ is that the downward spiral is inescapable. We just need a revolution every generation or so, like Jefferson said.
Exceptional post. I of course had to resteem this. Very well done.
Thank you my friend! I was trying to do two fairly short concise posts but this looks like at least a three parter.
Excellent article, Rich!
The Founders put the burden of sustaining freedom on the shoulders of the people, and the people dropped the burden at the first opportunity.
@gwiss makes a good point about the Supreme Court seizing the power of judicial review...essentially making them both disproportionately powerful and less subject to accountability...that is the first example we have of the people failing to meet their obligations to defend themselves.
...and that was within the first generation, the people that set the deal up to begin with!
I'll note that Adams is wrong...every generation of man must study government and war to meet their moral duties!
Given that they must have recognized their mortality, they did what they could with what they had to work with. You have to understand, this was something that hadn't really been tried in the same way before.
I sent away years ago for the entire correspondence of Jefferson and Madison (2 -3 volumes). I had a wise old philosophy prof that told me if you really want to know what these kind of people think, their works are ok, but their correspondence really puts ypu in touch with what they think. The prose is beautiful!
I Remain, your most humble and obedient servant my dear Sir,
Hi @stevescoins ! As a "collector" of Founding Father quotes I am always happy to see them cited by others. That said, I do not think your second quotation (by Washington) is accurate. I could certainly be mistaken, but I do not recognize the first half. The second half is clearly from a letter to Lafayette dated February 7, 1788, in which he discusses his support for the Constitution. Washington writes,
"With regard to the two great points (the pivots on which the whole machine must move) my Creed is simply:
1st That the general Government is not invested with more Powers than are indispensably necessary to perform [the] functions of a good Government; and, consequently, that no objection ought to be made against the quantity of Power delegated to it.
2ly That these Powers (as the appointment of all Rulers will forever arise from, and, at short stated intervals, recur to the free suffrage of the People) are so distributed among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, into which the general Government is arranged, that it can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarcchy, an Oligarchy, an Aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form; so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the People."
ALSO, how did you indent your quotations to separate them from the rest of the text body??
thank you for the correction and source!
to indent, you will use the ">" character at the beginning of the line; each subsequent line will be part of the quote, to end the indent, simply skip a line or introduce a new Markdown symbol (Markdown is the "language" for formatting Steemit)
Beep!Beep! @shadow3scalpel & listkeeper @chairborne have your six new veterans, retirees and military members on STEEM. We’ll be patrolling by to upvote your posts (because you are on the list) and we'll answer any questions you leave us. Comment by @shadowspub. This is a opt-in bot.
The constitution for The United States was an evil document from the beginning. It was written behind closed doors and forced down people's throats. (Especially when you compare it to the articles of confederation)
Congress can pass all laws necessary and proper.
(a passage in the constitution.) So, what is the limits of govern-cement? There are none, as long as those in congress feel it is necessary and proper. Tax children? It was necessary. etc, etc.
Without trying to be argumentative, I don't agree with what you've written here. The Constitution states, very explicitly, that Congress is given the power only "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution THE FOREGOING POWERS." If words have meaning, that meaning is very different from today's interpretation that Congress has the power to make all laws they believe to be necessary and proper for our general welfare.
Even Alexander Hamilton, who is so frequently trotted out as "proof" that the Founders supported big government, wrote in Federalist no. 33, "And it is expressly to execute these powers, that the sweeping clause, as it has been affectedly called, authorises the national legislature to pass all necessary and proper laws. If there is any thing exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers, upon which this general declaration is predicated. The declaration itself, though it may be chargeable with tautology or redundancy, is at least perfectly harmless."
Now, personally, I think Hamilton was a traitor, but he knew full well that not a single state would have ratified a document giving the federal legislature any such unlimited power. James Madison confirmed this understanding while debating the subject with Patrick Henry in the Virginia Federal Convention, when he said, "[W]hat new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that latitude of construction which he contends for, were to take place with respect to the sweeping clause, there would be room for those horrors. But it gives no supplementary power: It only enables them to execute the delegated powers. If the delegation of their powers be safe, no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most but explanatory: For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute it."
Although I agree with the Antifederalists on many, if not most points, this is not one of them. I can accept that the Federalists felt confident the American people would never be so foolish as to let a clause transferring the power to make laws for certain distinct, enumerated powers become a carte blanche to make any laws Congress saw fit.
Hamilton was a Rothschild shill and responsible for the 1st Nat. Bank and subsequently the War of 1812. I don't know if he was in favor of big govt., but he was in favor of big banks (with unlimited economic power). He was indeed a traitor.
Congress has made a law stating that you cannot grow wheat on your land without The US govern-cement consent. You are not allowed to grow wheat, because it may leave your property and may then cross state borders. And this was done long ago. Q.E.D.
So, although they might have intended to limit govern-cement.
All laws necessary and proper means anything those in congress feel are necessary and proper.
What Congress does now is so far removed from what the Framers intended... It's basically not a deliberative body anymore so much as bad theatre!
wow..i think you write a great information.... i impressed to see your post....i hope everybody like your post....thanks for share this
beautiful job!
Wao amazing post any time from your side amazing job
So at the end of day is greed (on its various forms, not only money), envy (on its various forms) and false pride that destroys political systems and societies.
The only purpose that a government has is to force laws into the people for the purpose of defending control of land on a few. Government is as legitimate as any other religion.
Once again, we can find the roots of what ails us in this thing we call human nature. Greed; the need to control; the need to have power over others. Where do these things come from? Fear, it seems.
So what is the fear? The fear of not having enough; the fear that unless we eternally pile up "more" we will somehow go without. Which is also a very old debate, albeit less political: Do we live in a world of "plenty" or do we live in a world of "scarcity?" Fear tends to grow from scarcity, so those who would be tyrants and controllers tend to try to sell the story that there is scarcity in the world, and "they have the answer," in one variation or another.
But whose vision is functionally more accurate? If 1% of the world's population can control 50% of its wealth (this is NOT a "political" statement) I would submit we actually live in a world of "plenty," regardless of how wealth is actually distributed; scarcity is merely a marketing illusion.
If that is true, how do we take away the fear and simply point to tyrants and expose them as they are: "Oh, you're simply afraid of something so you feel you must control things!" and then prevent their power.
I wish I had the answer my friend. I too believe we live in a world of plenty- but I've never had enough sense to be afraid of anything. The worst thing they can do is kill you and then what???
You got a 0.49% upvote from @upme requested by: @richq11.
Send at least 2.5 SBD to @upme with a post link in the memo field to receive upvote next round.
To support our activity, please vote for my master @suggeelson, as a STEEM Witness
You've laid out the basics really well. Keep churning 'em out!