Democracy Imperiled?
For a variety of reasons, Plato was suspicious of democracy. The idea of majority rule could lead to excesses that undermine the body politic, he noted. His alternative of rule by the intelligentsia is equally flawed in my judgment, but at the moment in which fractures in this democratic republic are increasingly apparent, it seems appropriate to assess the conditions that have given rise to our problems.
First, and perhaps most notably, a democratic republic depends on an educated populace and adherence to certain norms of behavior. It is evident, however, that Americans have a far greater interest in amusing themselves than in educating themselves. Even the extraordinary number of college graduates reveals little about educational attainment since so many are trained in incapacity. Many colleges in the United States are only faintly related to education at all, and many that purport to train simply instill an ideological canon on their students.
In a recent ISI survey on civil knowledge, a majority of college graduates could not name the three branches of government.
While democracies confer rights, these rights only have meaning when understood against concomitant duties. The duties of citizenship fall into the categories of understanding, work, loyalty, trust, and sacrifice. If individuals are so self-absorbed that they cannot assist others, democracy cannot succeed. The sinews of the state are dependent on civil understanding and cooperation.
At the moment, many Americans suggest the government must do something to assist them. As one Obama supporter noted at the end of the presidential campaign, “Maybe now someone will pay for my mortgage and assist with my bills.” But democracy was not conceived as the “nanny state,” nor can it survive attempting to care for all its citizens. The idea that government must “provide” is a phenomenon that emerged from officials as arbiters to officials as implementers. A “me generation” now expects the resources of government to be allocated for its specific benefit.
Second, a government that assumes enlarged authority over the economy can browbeat those in the private sector to accede to its desire. It is now evident that the Obama administration played hardball with banks involved in the Chrysler deal because it had leverage through TARP funding. The presumption is that expanded government action was necessary to bolster an economy teetering on the brink of disaster. But this new definition of government’s role means in effect that Washington has replaced New York as the financial capital of the nation. It means as well that the government which has insinuated itself into the automobile, insurance, housing, banking, and financial services industries now controls most of the means of production.
Third, the power of demagoguery is enhanced by a press corps that engages in cheerleading. The truth is nothing more than what the president says it is. President Obama speaks soothingly of nonpartisanship on his watch, yet invariably acts in a straight-forward partisan manner, and as one might expect in the present environment, no one calls him on it.
An excellent piece, Mr. London, bravo!
“First, and perhaps most notably, a democratic republic depends on an educated populace and adherence to certain norms of behavior.”
Education is the key to everything else. The United States is never on the top in any international comparison regarding education. We’re dumb!
I don’t know any other ‘civilized’ country that posses our drop-out rate, not even close. If memory serves, the best countries in education from literacy to math have a drop-out rate less than a 1 per cent.
What other country produces population that sincerely believe there exists a goldmine under the presidential palace?
We are not dumb, we are a huge and incredibly diverse country,measured with misleading rubrics to disquise our real strength. This is done by those enemies of our society who wish to subvert our form of government and replace it with their own hegemony.
As a recent article by Pat Buchann pointed out that if you adjust the SAT scores or any other measured test of academic achievement for the race of those taking the test and compare them each by themselves against the test scores of those same countries they came from, you will find American students beat all comers in almost every catagory. And yet the nay sayers who represent the Government Leviathan and it’s appetite to consume more and more of our wealth present false analysis of the data so pervasively that we all believe it to be true.
Nickel….thanks for bring that point forward! It is a matter of fact! Less than half of all America’s [public schools] represents what the socialist progressive reformist refer to as a [national failure] in education. They are largely America’s [cancer cities] with the high consolidated populations of poor under educated immigrants that are “used’ to dictate the need for unified one-size-fits-all federally controlled education system.
On the other hand, the socialist progressives nearly 50 years of perpetual educational/classroom experimentation and controlled social reform indoctrination has in fact, diminished our educational standards….and results.
I know a young lady who recieved a 1580 on her SATs who had never heard of General Patton or the Battle of the Bulge. Another young lady with equally high test scores had no idea what the three branches of our government are, or in fact how many branches there are. High SAT scores do not mean a thing in our current educational system. The young in this country are astonishingly ignorant of our nation’s history and system of government.
Education is not the problem. Recent polls indicate that more college grads vote Democrat than Republican, primarily due to the propaganda taught by liberal educational establishment. The problem, as Herbert London points out in the article, is the lack of knowledge by the general population in civics and history. And especially the lack of civics knowledge in our elected officials. See how you compare here:
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
The vast majority of the European nations are just like us, this is because the left dumbed down the educational system so they could take over.
Nice article. Reads very smoothly.
Who would vote for a babykilling pervert? Answer: Over 60 million Americans. Which is why Oscambo is in the White House. Because over 60 million Americans see nothing wrong with murder and perversion. Yes, teaching them the truth might move millions to disavow their satanic hero; but there would probably still remain a majority unwilling to understand that there is a perfectly just God who will punish eternally murderers and perverts and those who condone them. It is precisely this lack of understanding which must be remedied if the Republic is to be saved. George Washington said, in 1789,”It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor.” We have failed miserably in that endeavor and will continue to fail unless and until we reverse our course and observe our first president’s exhortation.
It is worse than described. The enemy is not only outside the gates, and is more than inside the gates. The enemy is in the corridors of power.
By enemy I mean the people who want to destroy the nation as it is and substitute a socialist version. You may think I have gone too far but you will change your mind if you read this:
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/13/radical-in-chief-3/
I fear we have reached the tipping point Dr. London. I am no spring chicken, I’ve seen alot in my lifetime but never did I think the powers that be in the media today be so shamefully one sided in their promotion of an ideology. They don’t even pretend fairness anymore.
It is not about politics but culture and ours is in a downward spiral. May God have mercy on us.
the guidelines of the democracy which we have to clearly understand by ourselves then only we will face any problem and recruit them
“In a recent ISI survey on civil knowledge, a majority of college graduates could not name the three branches of government.”
I submit to you that most Americans, especially young Americans in college, know precious little about either our past or our government. And a population that does not know its past will certainly NOT be able to control its future, let alone understand its present. Public schools have a lot to do with this. With all the emphasis on math and English, there is precious little time for American history or civics in our classrooms today. Not that the kids today would pay much attention to those subjects. Nope, to our public school systems, understanding how algebra works is much more important than knowing how our own government works. People just don’t get the fact that learning how to vote and having a basic knowledge of how our Constitution works is a lot more important than knowing how geometry works. A country that doesn’t know its past will never be able to control its future. Which is probably just the way the liberals and the Democrats like it.
Do you really think our public schools are even doing an adequate job of teaching even algebra?! Hah! You give them, IMO, far more credit than is due. No, public schools are too much about putting in time, filling seats, and getting those govt./union paychecks and benefits, AND teaching an ideology (e.g. rainforest math)! It would be nice if they actually gave a **** about teaching our children. (Obviously a generalization and not true for all schools, teachers, etc.; but, I do think the statistics tend to confirm this – e.g. math scores.)
Do you think I am just talking off the cuff? I have 3 children all educated in various ways: home schooled, private schooled, overseas educated, public schooled, and now my youngest is finishing his high school at the local community college. At least they can challenge him a bit.
I think that this dumbing down of our children by the public schools is no accident.
www
Amen. We may no longer be a serious enough people to keep a republic. Sacrifice, duty, hardship, consequences and suffering — the foundations of character and achievement — have been reclassified as injustices and indices of failure to be banished by fiat.
I think you may have summarized the problem very accurately. As a people, it does seem we are no longer serious enough to keep The Republic. The principles upon which The Republic were founded deserve to survive, but I think that a people which does not respect those principles or take them seriously does not deserve their benefits, and will ultimately get what they deserve.
Washington has been angling for exactly that result since the Wilson Administration. It is, of course, part and parcel of the “we know what’s best for you” attitude of the political elite — any political elite. It hardly matters whether the elitist calls himself a “liberal” or a “conservative.” He’s a statist, an advocate of totalitarian control over the lives of private citizens, and that’s all that really matters.
One of the major irritations of our current political discourse is how easily political elitists evade the candid admission of their core conviction: “We’re smarter and more moral than you are, and so we’re entitled to dictate the terms of your existence. Call us what you like; you can no longer resist us. God help you if you decide to try.” For one prestigious politician to admit that in public would constitute a revolution all by itself.
Those in power want to remain in power…
The politicians care only to remain.
“Democrcy is endangered when there isn’t accontability.” Great line. So why doesn’t Sarbanes-Oxley compiance for all federal agencies and recipients of federal funds seem like the thing to do. It was one of the most unanimous votes in Congressional history…but government can be trusted? When the GAO admits for the 14th year that they can’t audit it is time to pass a one page bill making government ACCOUNTABLE via Sarbanes-Oxlely the rule. Good for the goose and all.
This article illustrates itself!
It is certainly true that a REPUBLIC “depends on an educated populace and adherence to certain norms of behavior, and it follows, then, that an uneducated populace is a threat to that republic.
We have here a sad example of that lack of education. The left, following the methods of John Dewey, has successfully implemented Marx’s program of dumbing down our educational system, and robbing us of our historical heritage of understanding what government is, what it isn’t, and why it matters. So much so, that even America’s friends don’t understand the basic principles that have made America the beacon of liberty that is has been.
We see this every single day in the press, as politicians and pundits, one after anotehr, on BOTH sides of the aisle, mewl about “democracy” as if it’s a good thing.
Worse, we see the profound, and often willful ignorance of the most fundamental principle on which the great American Experiment is based – the foundation of a correct understanding of human rights.
The common, in fact, almost universal MISunderstanding of the subject is demonstrated here:
“While democracies confer rights…”
What makes America different, what has made America great, is the recognition that human rights do NOT come from government, but come from GOD, and that any government can only be just when it recognizes that fact, and so recognizes that it HAS NO AUTHORITY to abrogate those rights.
Rights are properly under the authority of the entity which confers it. If given by government, then that government has absolute authority over those rights.
A “democracy”, or any other form of government, that CONFERS rights, can with equal authority diminish or rescind those rights, at any time and for any reason.
If given by God, then governments cannot abrogate those rights. They have only that authority given by God, and have no authority over rights given by God to individuals.
This is why both leftists and libertarians are wrong, and why America is going wrong.
Few today understand the nature of human rights. They are not, in the final analysis, HUMAN rights, but GOD’S rights.
Our Founders understood this.
Well said!
You left out number seven: the logic of empire. Historically, democratic republics fail the test of empire, which leads to and accentuates items one through six. .
Excellent article that sums up our situtation. From my vantage it would appear that we have been taking baby steps and recently giant steps leftward towards socialism ala Europe some would say. I don’t believe for a momentn that socialism in this country will be anything like that in Europe. We are not the subdued citizens of Canada (I’ve lived there) or of Europe (traveled extensively, nice place). In the U.S.A. things could get testy in my view.
A friend not long ago asked me “So what is wrong with European style Socialism?” to which I replied “Nothing right now , but they aren’t finished yet, they will continue to move left and that can only end in one form of government that has been tried again and again and is being tried in many countries, like Venezuela for instance albeit accelerated under Chavez, and this form of government never succeeds as eventually the country is bankrupted or in revolution”.
If the Utopia of a Socialist state can be perfected, one would certainly think that it would have happened by now. It hasn’t, because in the end the one thing socialism cannot do, but still thinks it can do, is control Human Nature and that will never happen other than with chains and guns and even then it will fail.
So, our government is as bad as Walmart is with their suppliers.
Mr. London
What you have written here is exactly in line with something I wrote just yesterday. Like Plato I have grave doubts about democracy in the long run. Especially a democracy devoid of virtue. A mass of well educated people is not possible. What is possible, and it is something I have urged the Tea Party people to embrace is the rise of a natural aristocracy. Burke too encouraged this maintenance of an elite. Not one in the caste sense but rather one who’s virtue, intelligence, humility and devotion to duty are paramount. All societies will have leadership, the only question is what kind. The great problem is that our society is so given to leveling (note who was last elected President) that it may be difficult for such individuals to rise to the top. They may simply give way to populist demagogues such as we have often seen. To all our loss they may only lock themselves away in private life.
In the meantime the best we may be able to do is encourage those who have been elected to work swiftly to at least put some conserving checks back into government policy. It may be that gridlock is a virtue when moving forward would only lead to further degradation of the body politic. Thanks for your excellent article.
Mr. London; Your first item hit the nail on the head. Obama is nothing more than an entertainer. But, for real entertainment, I’ve seen better at the average circus. And they didn’t need as many props.
Today is 1775. Like that time, there is no guarantee of the future.
By Nov 4, 2012, your children’s future will be decided.
You can speak up and act up, and they can be free for another generation.
Or you can pretend that everything will be ok because it always has been, and they will be serfs, not just for one generation, but for hundreds of years into the future.
De Tocqueville once wrote concerning the USA: “America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” (Not an exact quote.)
The Founding Father Robert Winthrop said this: “All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State.”
Notice: The Bible or the Bayonet. When America held to Christianity as a people, our problems were far fewer, our enemies were defeated before us and the people lived in relative peace. I suggest that we take the hint.
Democracy Imperiled?
There’s some doubt in your mind ?
This President and his assorted hangers on and cronies are still focused on the goal emphasized by Barack just before his inauguration, to wit…
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Despite electoral setbacks (which they’re trying their best to figure out how to get around through Executive fiat and rulings from un-elected agents of unelected agencies) this is still the goal and will be the goal until this entire crowd is tossed out of DC.
While democracies confer rights, these rights only have meaning when understood against concomitant duties.
Our representative republic doesn’t “confer” rights but confirms that the purpose of government is to ensure rights that are pre-existing and inalienable, unalienable.
The duties of citizenship fall into the categories of understanding, work, loyalty, trust, and sacrifice.
Don’t see those outlined anywhere in our founding documents, although certainly they are worthy goals in one’s individual life, with the possible exception of the “sacrifice” thing.
The idea that government must “provide”…
Would be anathema to founders of this nation. A real killer of all they attempted to ensure and create.
The truth is nothing more than what the president says it is.
That’s a scary thought.
a devil’s brew that makes it relatively easy to pull the wool over the public’s eyes…
More and more of “the public” is waking up and catching on to the (really rather puerile and ignorant) attempts at wool pulling.
Fifth, if self-restraint does not exist, external restraint must be imposed to assure domestic tranquility.
Never waste a good crisis, baby. Panic the people so Jabba the Hutt can step in and save them.
But the people are realizing that Jabba really only wants to eat them, like insects.
Where is Sam Adams when you need him?
Sam’s spirit isn’t dead.
As Mr. London aptly points out, democracy began with the ancient Greeks. However, the Greeks could never keep it for very long and it almost always led to oligarchy or a tyrant. Democracy in the United States has survived for so long due to the moral character of the American people. It is endangered now because that moral character has declined in the 20th century. It has declined most of all in our leadership.
Take a look at the reasons Mr. London gives for the threat to democracy. 1. Education as Indoctrination. No longer does education search for truth and enlightenment because in our post-modern society we no longer believe in truth. 2. Government intrusion into almost every aspect of our lives. 3. Demagoguery. After all, there is no truth or committment to truth. 4. Public masters instead of public servants. 5. No self-restraint. 6. Theft disquised as taxation.
All of these six can be attributed to the decline in morality and social values. Until we recover that morality and social standards, the republic will continue to decline. To attempt to save the republic without rebuilding the moral values is to attempt to build a house without a foundation.
“Democracy in the United States has survived for so long due to the moral character of the American people. ”
No, the REPUBLIC has survived for this reason.
America is not a democracy, and never has been. Be glad of that.
If you don’t understand what I’m saying and why, you are part of the problem.
Let me refer you to The American Heritage Dictionary (3rd edition).
Democracy: 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
If you have a problem, lodge a complaint with the dictionary people.
I understand your point but no reason to be a jerk. If I had meant direct democracy or even majority rule, I would have used those terms.
Go further back and do a little comparison on the definitions – it’s revealing! That blatant cultural maneuver has changed over time. Everything we know today in politics and education deals with this misconception. As a note: After World War II the official Army Training Manual states that we were a democracy. Before World War II it stated that we were NOT a democracy explicitly. That’s interesting!
I find it hard to believe that Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al., didn’t know the difference? They didn’t need a Webster to refer to. I think they understood the definition quite well and that’s why they specifically didn’t want a democracy. What say thee?
I agree that the definition have changed over time. So have the definitions of numerous words and concepts, especially liberal and conservative. Are we to always use the 18th century definitions for the term “democracy” or do we have to go back to the actual greek terms which encompassed everything from true democracies, to faux democracies, to oligarchies, and even elected tyrants.
The term was used by the author in a general sense and therefore a general term is acceptable. Please check your literary guide to style.
Control of the means of production is the theme of most of Ludwig von Mises’ writings. The only real difference between a Socialist and a Liberal(old meaning) is whether the individual or the government controls the means of production. In the individual’s case, that control is directed by market forces and personal ownership of property. In the government case, the means of production can be controlled by coercion and collective ownership of property. He also believed that individual freedom was a direct result of individual control of the means of production. Giving the government ownership of property would be to hand them our freedom. This article supports von Mises’ depression era view.
add: uncontrollable influx of people with no identification with our culture or democracy all of whom demand public services and the vote
In order to be understood by the broadest audience, the author’s argument speaks of a “democratic republic” rather than, simply, a “republic”. This, alone, speaks volumes about a nation which is no longer taught what used to be called “civics” in high school and college.
God save our Republic.
Mr. London
Where to begin? Not to be rude, but let’s get right to the point!
Do you honestly believe the United States of America is a democracy? Do any of those that posted in the affirmative to what was written understand the problem with the statements contained therein? Where has our educational system and personal study gone wrong?
Question: Where in the founding documents does it explicitly state that this nation is a democracy? Where? That’s because you can’t find it. You also can’t find the term used in context of what the Founders created as our National Charters, in their personal writings, or in their speeches. That’s because they despised the idea of a democracy! That’s why they didn’t create one. You used the Jefferson quote out of context! Franklin knew the difference and he clearly stated it to the woman – “if you can keep it!” Franklin was referring to something very uncommon among human governments. Can we keep our national foundation as laid out or is it now lost through ignorance and apathy?
Even more, you state “First, and perhaps most notably, a democratic republic depends on an educated populace and adherence to certain norms of behavior.” Ummm…do you and others on this posting understand the difference between “democratic” and “democracy?” They are not the same and always confused by using them interchangeably. Yes, ignorance always breeds bad behavior. That’s where we are today in our political sphere. Ignorance as to what this Nation is and is not -
Moreover, if in fact we are a democracy like you and others suggest–when did we become one? It didn’t begin as a democracy that’s for sure. Understanding this then, when did the vote happen that changed our government to one? I don’t remember that bill coming before the Congress in a special session? Do you? Anyone? Therefore, we are not a democracy!
Why are we a democracy in the minds of so very many Americans? It is simply through ignorance to the principles of our foundations that have created this political chasm. Ignorance breeds more ignorance. It’s on display here and in the national spotlight in full glory! President Obama (Peace be Upon Him) clearly made the mistake yesterday many times in is campaign speech at the AZ memorial. Does he know the difference? After all, he is a Constitutional Scholar and celebrated professor at the University of Chicago–right?
There’s a saying that applies directly to this problem — scratch that, misunderstanding — wait, better to say mistake to not lay blame if anyone is now feeling a pointing finger in their direction. I think many will have heard this quote before, nonetheless, it is critical to consider in this particular dire situation we find ourselves in. Here’s the quote: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it….” People believe not because what is said is truth, but simply that is what the people believe because they don’t know any better. People in this country have all the resources to find the truth–they have just decided to believe because it’s easier.
To be clear, we are a Constitutional Republic. A Republic which uses democratic principles to manage the affairs of the government–but we do not govern from the majority! We govern by “REPRESENTATION” that is manifested by those who have been elected to act on our behalf. Representation means that Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, and Nevada all get the same forum as California, New York, Texas, and Florida. Debate and consensus should be used to qualify bills before the Congress and State Legislatures. “The “unanimous” Declaration of Independence is such an example of how consensus works. What’s more, the result of any bill being brought before the body of representatives or being passed should represent the will of the people and MUST also be based based upon law.
Additionally, referendums in California are unconstitutional because they bypasses the State representatives in favor of the popularity of the moment.
Furthermore, The Electoral College brings some form of semblance to the need for representation between States when electing a president. If we voted by popularity–then we’d be a democracy. And if that was the sad case then a few states and cities would manage the affairs of “ALL” Americans through brute voting force. We call this tyranny. That is what Jefferson meant in of his quotes on democracy. Don’t mis-quote what you don’t understand!
Oh btw, the “if you tell a lie big enough” quote came from Joseph Goebbels (Master propagandist under Hitler if you didn’t know). We should all understand the results of failing to be educated in this day and age–especially on government. Now that we’ve come to an understanding: Are we close to reaching the point of no turning back due to ignorance? Or will we act like Americans and fight back by getting back to basics as originally outlined in the founding documents?
Citizen Authority
In Vindiciam Libertatis | In Defense of Liberty
It reminds me of the debacle that would have been Al Gore as President. Over and over they told the lie against our Constitutional Republic… “But he won the popular vote!” The slow drip of tyranny in the lies told repeatedly by amoral people.
You said:
“President Obama (Peace be Upon Him)”
What is that? Is he now the muslim prophet?
A smidgen of satire to a burning question(s). Does President Obama see himself in a different light than everyone else? Narcissistic attitudes are hard to conquer and they seemingly are on full display with this president. AZ memorial was an excellent reminder. Read between the lines on this one -
You’re playing word games; we all fully understand that Democracy is “decision-making through the process of voting and majority rule” although not ALL public issues/questions must be necessarily resolved through that process for a political system to be considered “democratic” or “a democracy.” Use common sense, before you try to make a big issue out of the use of a word.
Where am I not making common sense? There isn’t any word smithing going on here! There is a huge difference between Representative Government and a Democracy. Applying democratic principles and processes is a hell of a lot different than a democracy even though they both use them. Are you assuming that all roads lead to the same result? The right to vote is not the question here either – it is the process that produces the outcome that I’m concerned about. And yes, I will make a big deal out of it because it is a BIG DEAL!
I don’t think you wish to debate the difference between “ideal or theoretical democracy” and “applied or real democracy” do you?
Likewise, I don’t think you want to analalyze the form of an “ideal or theoretical republic” and an “applied or real republic” do you?
For one, these questions fall well outside the main subject of the paper, and its main message, which I take it to be that applied democracy is giving way to an applied authoritarianism here in the US for a host of reasons.
Kyle G
I think the argument is well within the scope of the article. We’re not a democracy–period. Nor are we an applied democracy. People have been told that is what we are–and they believe it without asking questions or doing some due diligence.
I won’t debate the fact that we’re moving to an authoritarian form of government whatever form or process that eventually takes: you’re spot on with that statement.
For the sake of educating myself if in error, please detail out where I am wrong in my defense of our original foundations and what is still on the books? Please, by all means, I’d like to hear your opinion. Mark v, you’re welcome to add your thoughts as you seem to agree with me and have things well in hand. I’m glad you debunked the notion that government confers rights in a previous post. Well done, sir! Can you believe this was stated? Wow -
Our founders understood the PROFOUND difference between democracy and republican ideals. They LOATHED democracy.
The left has been systematically obscuring the difference since at least Wilson’s time.
Don’t play their game.
Words matter.
“While democracies confer rights, these rights only have meaning when understood against concomitant duties. ”
It’s a HUGE issue. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, say it with me, CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. The limited federal government exists to protect our rights-we had them when we got here. This is the poisonous meme that will not die and why language & words matter. The federal government is limited to the delegated authority contained in the Constitution, and the 10th amendment is the lid on that limited-authority box!
In a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC the citizens have supreme authority over themselves, their rights, and the temporary, limited authority they, the citizens, decide to give to the federal and state governments . . . there I feel better, except I have to make this discussion point twice a day. We are living in the inevitable wasteland of the long march through our institutions. Roll up your sleeves, my friends, the historical education task is daunting.
Thanks TomPaineFan
I appreciate very much your additional comments. Mark v – what do you and TomPaineFan think is the proper path to take to begin the education process around this topic? So very many people are ignorant of the basic sets of principles outlined in our founding documents. Apathy abounds.
I think many of us are still trying to grasp the beauty of our founding principles as we study and learn. The Founders were incredible men with a far reaching vision that is lacking in today’s political environment–and dare I say the general citizenry. There should be no confusion with the differences between Constitutional Republic vs Democracy – at least how our government functions as to original intent. We have deviated far from those principles due to ignorance, apathy, delinquency, and purposeful neglect of duty. Today, people refer to our government limiting document as “living” Constitution – what? No such thing exists! It exists in the minds of those who’d like to adjust it for political gain only and those that like to lead around like sheep.
Moreover, I had a conversation yesterday with a colleague on the very subject we’re now engaged in here who believes deeply as we do around the founding of this country and the intentional dumbing down of these principles. For example: How many people realize that many history books, some reprints, or even in public discourse of The Declaration of Independence, leave out one of the most important words in the title? It should read every time it is mentioned as “The unanimous Declaration of Independence” as can be seen on the original. That’s an important word! Yes, Kyle G – words matter!
How about the Bill of Rights? Do we have intentional dumbing down here? Yep! The bill is not a set of amendments as we think of those after the 10th – in fact, if you look at the original parchment they are stated as Article of the First, and so on. Why is this a big deal Kyle G? Because the Constitution was not yet ratified! The States wanted guarantees that were not in the original framing before ratification to limit government; therefore, they added “additional” Articles. This goes along with TomPaineFan points of keeping government in check. My point in these two examples – the citizenry has been dumbed down in respecting and understanding the intent and purpose of the founding documents as well as how they are to operate. Words matter as they define what they are and how they function!
Simple truths have been bastardized for political gain–yet even among the brightest this country has to offer; seemingly are oblivious to these fundamental and clear principles. What’s the solution? This author is bright. Why the ambivalence or ignorance on such a fundamental topic?
I’d like to keep this thread going. Anyone who wants to chime is is welcome -
Electors of the electoral college can vote for anyone eligible to be President, according to the Constitution. States try to constrain this authority.
Nowhere, in the Constitution, are they required to vote for candidates from the Republican or Democratic parties.
True. However, states get to send a representative nonetheless and very few have changed their vote in electoral history. It’s also important to understand that many states still use the caucus at the local level to begin the process of vetting candidates and representatives all the way to the national convention. This is “representation” and an important factor in combatting the notion of our being democracy. The popular majority doesn’t count!
In effect, the founders intended the wise electors to make wise choices. This supports the concept that popularity would not necessarily be the determining criteria.
It was necessary to prevent people from gaining and holding power by promising to shovel greater largess from the treasury – using the public’s money to purchase votes.
We have perverted the intention into the two party ‘take it or leave it’ system.
This President would love to pull an Oogoe Chavez, suspend the powers of the legislative branch, suspend all of your messy liberties in the name of his superior and enlightened wisdom.
Idiotlogues like Bill Maher have (not entirely kidding) recommended he simply declare martial law and impose his superior wisdom onto the rest of us.
In keeping with the goal of “fundamental transformation of America”, here is the SOTU address Obama would dearly love to give…
Mr. Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of the nation. For more than 220 years, our leaders have complied with this instruction on an annual basis, during times of war, peace, recession, prosperity, growth, and uncertainty.
This address will be unique in that it will be the last time an elected president provides this form of address to the people and their government officials. Why is that? Well, we have problems.
At this time we are involved in a very expensive and unwinnable war, we have a runaway debt problem, we have a failing Social Security system, we have a fragile economy which is not responding to my best efforts to revive it, we have millions of illegal immigrants draining the resources of state and federal programs, we have a problem with narcotics being smuggled in from numerous sources, many nations consider the United States to be the source of most of the world’s problems, far too many able-bodied citizens are out of work, and the American people have allowed hate speech and the rhetoric of fear to create a widespread dread of Islam and everything that beautiful religion stands for.
The failure of my administration to manage or solve these situations and crises results primarily from the disastrous policies of my predecessor’s administration coupled with a stubborn and constant refusal by Republican leaders to accept and support my policies.
Further, the overwhelming majority of media services in this country are right-wing conservative in their ideologies and constantly work to incite public turmoil, suspicion, and doubt about the changes and improvements I have tried to bring about since the voters gave me my clear and unmistakable mandate two years ago.
My administration has accomplished much, and we intend to bring many more changes to this great country of ours, but we cannot do that while being constantly badgered by the purveyors of “No!” who strenuously resist all our efforts to make things better while offering no feasible alternatives to what we’re offering the American people.
Therefore, in keeping with the will of the people for changes in the way we do things in this country, I am suspending the Constitution immediately and assuming total authority over everything to get us out of the mess I inherited and end the pointless rhetoric and perpetual gridlock which has become so characteristic of our two-party Congress.
Effective at midnight tonight, Fox News network will cease broadcasting. All scheduled radio broadcasts for Rush Limbaugh’s talk show are cancelled. The Wall Street Journal and similar right-wing publications are no longer authorized to distribute their slanted, twisted, scaremongering lies. The official national newspaper is now the New York Times. Those who need to keep abreast of international business or their stock portfolios can refer to the Times’s financial section.
The US House of Representatives will terminate all plans for its symbolic vote to repeal and to defund the health-care plan which I signed into law last year. The entire Congress will instead work toward developing new taxes on all those earning over one million a year. With that revenue, we will establish a safety fund to ensure the smooth operation of my health-care plan should any unforeseen costs arise, such as greater numbers of Latino immigrants than we anticipated.
The Supreme Court will review the health-care law and pronounce it to be entirely lawful. Those justices who object to that finding will announce their retirements for personal reasons within the next 10 days so that I may appoint their successors prior to the court’s vote.
Private ownership of handguns is no longer allowed. Those with firearms in their possession, except for members of certain federal law-enforcement agencies which will be named later, will surrender their weapons within the next 10 days to the National Guard Armory nearest their home. Special consideration for antique or historically significant relics can be obtained by presenting such weapons to an authorized FBI office where they will be rendered and certified as non-functional as firearms.
All Latino persons living within the United States tonight, if it conforms with their desires, are hereby declared citizens of this country with all rights and privileges and benefits ascribed thereto by law.
All US bonds held by citizens of the United States are now cancelled, except those owned by active members of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Combat operations in Afghanistan will cease immediately and preparations will begin for return of all US troops as soon as possible from any and all duties in foreign countries except embassies and missions. As a clear signal to all other nations that our attitudes and intentions are non-aggressive, and as an integral feature of our across-the-board strategy for debt reduction, our military forces will be cut by 75% with concomitant reduction in hardware, including ships, submarines, missiles, and aircraft.
To promote and encourage development of alternate energy sources and eliminate our dependence upon oil imports, a tax of $5 per gallon will be incrementally implemented on all fuels destined for use in internal combustion engines. The tax will begin with one dollar on every gallon of internal-combustion fuel sold in the US on March 1 next and increase on the first of every month thereafter until the total of $5 per gallon is reached. Products designed specifically for non-fuel use but derived from petroleum, such as lubricants or plastics, are not subject to this tax until further notice.
So as promised, I will bring change to this country. My administration will work diligently and constantly to bring equity to all Americans, to reduce our debt, to end the hate speech and vitriolic rhetoric which works only to divide us, and to make all our sister and brother nations love us again.
Oh, and effectively immediately, Islam is the official religion of the United States of America.
As-salam Alaikum.
No way would that ever happen, because Boehner would tackle him before he finished.
The author stated:
“First, and perhaps most notably, a democratic republic depends on an educated populace and adherence to certain norms of behavior.”
Well, when close elections are decided by the magnitude of fraud at inner city precincts, what “democracy” are we talking about?
America has kissed the realm of “democratic republic” long time ago, and this has been our dirty little secret. We live in an institutionalized dictatorship of the liberal establishment under no rule of law or the Constitution. The public’s apathy, fed by Hollywood, corrupt media, reality TV, and a decadent pop culture, sustains it.
Athenian Democracy (that first, rare and noble experiment) didn’t last long, either.
So much discussion on the theme of inadequate education. Everyone here must be big Democratic supporters.
The four loudest and most influential people on the right have exactly 1 college degree- obtained after floating around 5 colleges in 6 years- or is it the other way around? Wow, forget about elite degrees- Rush, Beck and Hannity have not one degree above their High School Diploma and they, along with that outstanding scholar from the North, are the intellectual foundation of the right these days. There’s nothing more to be said-Case Closed!
And your point? Do you infer that because a few well known purveyors of the conservative view have attained less than a stellar formal education, that therefore ALL conservatives would fit this supposedly deficient model? Do you see any difference between the attainment of degrees and the attainment of knowledge? All of these presumed opponents of the government education are basically entertainers, and gifted ones at that. Entertainers don’t typically attain many diplomas because they typically don’t need them for their chosen profession. I am not a entertainer and you are not an intellectual.
“…Washington has replaced New York as the financial capital of the nation”
Not true in the sense you mean it. Washington and NY are twin centers of power, feeding off each other and the citizenry. What is really scary is how they have rigged the system to transfer wealth from the rest of us to themselves. They watch with glee as we call each other names, while they milk the country dry.
I’ve often wondered if we shouldn’t merely have the left and right alternate power every four years. Like a pendulum. We would only vote for who would represent the left and right each time.
A good article. At small dead animals there is a link to a must read companion article by Mark Steyn about the decline of the Anglo-sphere.
I think this all can best be understood by a more general principle. Speaking broadly, successful empires seem to go through three phases: wealth creation, power centralization, and power appropriation. (You could read wealth as power– since wealth is really just one form of power.)
In the first phase, the route to success is to create new wealth. This could take the form of entrepreneurship (as in the United States) or conquest (as in most empires). Ultimately, it means that the route to an individual’s personal success points outward rather than inward.
However, once enough wealth has been digested into the empire, the call for centralization emerges. In Rome’s case, many of the reforms which lead to the death of its Republic were actually necessary to defeat a powerful outside threat. In the United States, several such existential threats were accompanied by centralization of authority and wealth (the rebellion of the southern states, and external threats from first Germany and then the Soviet Union). There’s an economies of scale argument here, too: the corporate behemoths of the industrial revolution (right up to the present day) followed the logic of efficiency. The point is that there is a strong case to be made for the virtues of centralization, a case that is very real in the benefits it offers… but it comes with a terrible risk.
Once enough power is available all in one place, the easiest access to power stops being the outside. Instead, the quickest route to personal success comes from taking control of what’s already been accumulated. At first, this means accelerated centralization. Later, it means internecine battles over the centralized entities themselves. Eventually, it leads to destructive factionalization and disintegration.
I believe we’re in the appropriation phase. Using that as a prism through which to examine the six challenges our republic faces, the reasons why they’ve appeared in the first place become clearer.
1. Education: You can see why actual education is slipping, even as access to the credentials of education has greatly expanded. Wealth creation requires the former, wealth appropriation requires the latter.
2. Government de facto control of the economy. This is appropriation at its most explicit. Notice also the revolving door between industry and regulation, to the detriment of both. Who wins? The centralizers: the very largest businesses and the government. Who loses? Local governments, small businesses, and of course individuals.
3. The role of the media in all this should come as no surprise. They’re simply one more faction trying to grab the steering wheel. The power they seek is status (or “referent power”, as French and Raven put it) rather than money or physical coercion, (but they don’t hesitate to snap it up if it’s on offer). They see themselves as players in the game, and of course they’re right.
4. Self-explanatory, I hope.
5. The moral and institutional atrophy you describe is a consequence of attempts to centralize, too, though this isn’t obvious as at first glance. Community opprobrium is a powerful force– and so it’s no wonder that most of the 20th century’s cultural history was the story of the Left’s (successful) effort to destroy it and replace it with centrally dictated national standards. Where rebellion against cultural and community standards wasn’t successful from the bottom up, government regulation and standardization castrated the institutions from the top down. Look at charities: once a religious function, now mostly a government function– and even those remaining non-government charities are under regulatory siege from the city, state and federal governments. Look at community disputes: such conflicts between neighbors were once settled privately, or mediated by the community. Now, they’re shunted to the courts, who are armed with legal tools like strict liability and arcane notions of causation that give them virtually unlimited power to meddle.
6. The key question for taxation isn’t the direction of the wealth transfer (though obviously that’s a crippling problem in itself)– it’s the broad social acceptance that a single central arbiter should be deciding and imposing a desirable distribution of power and wealth in the first place.
To illustrate the kind of world we’ve entered, consider a parable. Consider a child actor (real case based on media reports, but I’m leaving the name out in respect for those affected). At the height of his success, he was worth tens of millions of dollars. When his parents split up, they had a bitter custody battle… and burned away most of the child’s wealth in their legal maneuvers over which parent got that money.
Right now, America’s ruling class plays the part of the parents. They didn’t earn the money, but the law gives them authority over it. And they’re blowing it all so they can claim it all for themselves. It’s still unclear which parent will win, but we can be sure of one thing: the child won’t see a dime of the money they earned.
In this light, let me propose a seventh symptom: our crippling, massive debt. It isn’t just a financial peril, but also an institutional one. How do we propose to pay all that money back? If it’s owed centrally, it will likely be paid centrally, too– with all the attendent taxes and economic manipulations required to pay it being centralized as well. As much as we talk about the Federal government bailing out private individuals, banks, corporations, municipalities and states, what’s really happening is that the obligations (themselves a form of power) are being centralized. Has it occurred to anyone to try to split up the debt among the states? Or to simply divide responsibility for the outstanding T-bills among all the individual citizens? Of course not (and there are good reasons why this would be a disaster if tried). The debt is itself a form of power, a crushing weapon on both attack and defense for the political class.
Some of the questions in that civics test are confusingly worded. Like the last one. I generally leads to a couple of answers making sense in 3-4 of the questions.
Still, people should be scoring higher than 50% (particularly if they’re teaching college courses).
Years ago the Italian economist Antonio Martino suggested that you cannot have all three of the following things: (1) democracy (2) a stable currency and (3) unlimited government. If you pick any two together you lose the third. For example, right now we have democracy and unlimited government but we don’t have a stable currency. The Republicans are more inclined to choose (1) and (2) and therefore try to limit (3). The Democrats choose (1) and (3) but can’t control (2). (2) and (3) can go together provided (l) disappears.
The left has done a fine job of making American’s dumber. They started many years ago infiltrating into the minds of the youth by hitting up the school systems so it may just be too late to turn it around. Go to http://www.takingonisssues.com for a real education.
You hit on a topic I was thinking about today; The Left has been depreciating the U.S. education system for several decades. But, they are not satisfied with only that angle of attack. They have Americans interbreeding to bring down the innate intellect that has made this country so great. It’s no wonder that it’s so hard to find good hard working employees. The Left is turning the American Society into an incapacitated, feeble culture of parasites.
Come on Mr. London, everythings going to be dandy. No matter what we read in the news, it all works out? Take this article for instance?
From Sunday’s 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised “Meet the Press” THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag. General Bill Ginn’ USAF (ret.) asked Barry Barak Hussen Obama to explain WHY he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played. The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171…During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, “Stand and Face It”. ‘Senator’ Obama replied: “As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides”. “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression..” “The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing.”
Oh my God, never mind.
Well Roy, I enjoyed that, despite the ending. Obama, the great equivocator.
Exactly! Ya have to wonder why we don’t like the guy, right. I don’t care what the rest of the world thinks – I love my country and it’s founding principles. Would Mr. Obama be willing to die for a cause? Would he die for his country? Would he ever, under duress or extreme pressure by nations rising up against the U.S., stand by its principles?
We all know the answer. Why is he President?
So what he is saying is that the PRESIDENT of the USA does not take sides with the USA. That just about takes the biscuit as they say and moonbats still worship this buffoon???????????????????????
This what is really threatening Western Democracy. Look at what is going on not just in the Holy Land but all over the World. You cannot just look at what Muslims are doing isolated to one place alone. Mohammedans want to rule the World and they will keep trying by ‘slow’ or fast ‘jihad’ as the opportunities present themselves. But one thing is absolutely certain and that is they believe they WILL one day rule the whole world. After all the violent, incoherent, contradictory, misogynistic, antisemitic, Arab supremacist, Racist, mistake laden Koran tells them so and is according to them the ‘actual and UNALTERABLE’ word of their Satanic Allah. Its all in there just take time to read it, I know its turgid and boringly repetitive and contradictory and non sequential and dont forget the ABROGATION TRICK but you will get an idea of what lies in the Mohammedan mind.
Nicely stated and precisely accurate.
Interesting. The image you chose to illustrate “democracy” is plato. Plato had no problem with slavery. He owned a few slaves himself. He thought it was natural.
So …
(1) Did you KNOW that plato thought slavery was just the bee’s knees?
(2) Did you NOT know plato thought slavery was just the bee’s knees?
1 or 2 will be fine. Thanks.
Matthew, read the damned articles BEFORE you post. You must be about 12 years old. If you knew how to put anything into it’s proper historical perspective, you might not be so obsessed about whether Plato owned slaves. Slavery was the method used by aristocrats, in those days, to control the means of production. That was how economies worked 2000+ years ago.
“Slavery was the method used by aristocrats, in those days, to control the means of production. That was how economies worked 2000+ years ago.”
2000 years ago? Uh-huh.
Think about it a bit more.
I will continue to insist that Plato was a slave owner more than 2000 years ago, even after thinking about it a bit more.
Slavery was also used used by aristocrats a lot closer to home a lot more recently.
Democracy? No.
Constitutional republic? Yes.
The problem is that most of you still think you’re living in a democracy or even a democratic republic.
You’re not.
Hint: When it takes tens of millions of dollars of spending in order to get a candidate into and through the primary, let alone get them elected to office (billions of dollars for presidential elections), you’re not living in a democracy, let alone a democratic republic.
Funny, but I was under the impression we are a Constitutional Republic with democratic principles – one man one vote – and not a true democracy which is simply tyranny of the majority.