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
