Democracy -- Part One

2009-9-5 03:18:00

John K, you are one of the few that I almost always agree with, not mildly, but usually enthusiastically. Therefore, I feel badly that I disagree with you on Democracy, but perhaps after we have clarified our views we can see eye to eye on this as we do so many other things.

You say:

"So likewise, one might see pure Democracy as the most fair and equitable approach to government (a 20 second thrill ride). But history has proven time and again that the idea inevitably ends in totalitarianism (certain death) because pure majority rule must have an overpowering enforcement agency to insure compliance to the will of the majority."

I'm not sure where you are coming from here as I know of no example in history where this has happened. For one thing we have never in history had a true Democracy so no one can say with a sure knowledge as to what the result would be. In addition to this both good and bad governments come and go and are replaced sometimes by good government and sometimes bad. The replacement of a government is a bit of a crap shoot.

Now some say the ancient Greeks had a couple democracies, but when you examine them they were more like representative government than democracy.

The reason is that the voting government only consisted of the upper class as their votes represented the good of the whole state, not that much different than our political class that claim to represent us.

The Founding Fathers could not seriously consider a Democracy because there was not even the technology to take polls let alone tabulate the vote of the masses on issues. What they wound up creating was the closest thing to a democracy that was possible. Representatives were selected by a democratic vote and the electors who determine the President were selected through the Democratic process. The senators at that time were determined by the democratic vote of state legislators who in turn were democratically voted in.

Our government, I believe has been the best on the planet, but it does have its flaws and subject to improvement. Its inherit flaws have grown like bad seed and no workable corrective mechanism has been in place to set things right.

The founders thought they had three corrective mechanisms in place:

  1. Checks and balances between the three branches of government.

This has helped prevent tyranny and extremism, but is far from perfect.

  1. The vote of the people.

Unfortunately the politicians fool the people and over 90% of incumbents get reelected.

  1. The jury.

The final judge of law was to be the jury of the people, but this has been corrupted, as the people in a jury do not understand their power and duped into believing they must please the judge. A jury has power to nullify bad law, but who is aware of this?

At the present time most people from both sides of the isle would agree that our Republic is not working well. In theory we are supposed to be represented by Congress but in reality we are not. In my treatise, Molecular Politics I give a number of reasons for this:

We have already illustrated how polls are manipulated to appear as if they represent the will of the people when sometimes they do not. If the politician votes according to the polls his real voters will often be frustrated.

When this occurs the candidate incurs the well known political debt that he must repay while in office or incur the wrath of those who put him there. If he refuses to vote in a way that pleases these powerful ones then they will work against him in the next election.

Is the will of the people represented when the politician votes the will of the few powerful ones who financed him?

No. Of course not.

These lobbyists will visit the legislator on as regular basis as possibly and lay their cause and wishes before him. They will also throw parties, wine and dine, and arrange field trips in the Bahamas and other exotic locations so the legislator can become better informed of certain problems. They also help to arrange for fund raising contacts to help assure reelection.

Now let us say it is time to vote for "Project X." The majority of the people are against it and a few have written letters about it, but they have not captured the Congressman's attention nearly as much as the constant influence and "assistance" of the lobbyist. When it comes time to vote, he votes "yes" because the pressure, the gifts, the parties, the free vacation are very fresh in his mind.

So when the politician votes the will of the special interest group is he truly representing the will of the majority of the people he claims to represent? In many cases the answer is a resounding "no!"

How does this happen? Here is an example: Let us say, for instance that the Senator from Arkansas wants a grant for research into chicken feathers and the Senator from Idaho wants money for research into the control of the rabbit population. Now neither of these projects have enough support to pass, but each one of these guys would be a big hero in his home state if he could bring home the big bucks so here's what they do. The Senator from Idaho approaches the senator from Arkansas and says. I don't really care about your feather research project in Arkansas, but I desperately need to get my rabbit project passed so I'll tell you what. You vote for my project and I'll vote for yours.

The Arkansas Senator jumps at this and agrees and so they make a trade or agreement and support each other's projects even though neither the Senators nor their constituents could give a rat's behind about it.

So when the Senator from Idaho votes for the feather project in Arkansas, is the will of the people he represents truly represented?

We often hear of strange projects that our Congress sends millions of dollars on, like the study of the sex life of a mosquito, and we wonder who was crazy enough to have voted for such a thing. This trading of votes is part of the answer and is also one of the reasons Congress always manages to spend more money than they should.

Do you think our legislators take the time to read the whole thing? Very rarely. The real truth is that they often do not even read one page of material that is related to a bill they are voting on. Quite often all they know about the bill is what they have heard tossed around in debate or what their party bosses have told them.

Many bills have riders attached to them that will have more teeth than the bill itself. Often times the politician will know only a small amount about the bill and little or nothing about the riders, unless the rider happens to be a pay raise for himself and colleagues.

Therefore, we ask, when the legislator votes for something he knows little or nothing about can he in any way truly represent the will of the people who voted for him? Again the answer is no.

From the time we were teenagers most of us have had some desire to fit in with a group and conform. This influence carries over in many ways to adulthood and is strongly manifest when our guy goes to Washington. We have seen time and time again that a person with high goals and good intentions goes off to Washington only to wind up under the thumb of part leaders and Washington influence.

When your man in Washington votes according to the wishes of party leaders is he then representing the will of the folks back home? Again the answer is obvious.

If this person believes that the earth is only 7,000 years old because of religious conviction will this not affect his votes on education which teaches evolution?

If his religious convictions makes him strongly for or against abortion we know that there is nothing in the world including the will of the people, that will alter his vote.

If the man uses pot then he will support the legalization of it.

If he has lots of kids he will favor tax breaks for families and so on.

Each legislator brings numerous prejudices to his vote that have nothing to do with the will of the people.

So when we view all seven of these obstacles to the will of the people we may feel overwhelmed and feel within ourselves that we should just give up trying to change anything and just hope for the best.

The truth is that we do not have to give up on the possibility that the will of the people can become truly manifest. Such a thing is not only possible, but it is the destiny of the age to come.

There is a solution to these seven obstacles and they can be eliminated in one master stroke which is in complete harmony with the Constitution of the United States and most other free countries. Instead of just complaining about political situations, in our next article we will present a practical solution that will revolutionize the political world and eventually become a subject of great debate.

To be continued.