The Perils Of Democracy

Admittedly, Wilson was speaking as effectively an 19th Century aristocrat. More recently, however, Walter Lippmann has said, "There has developed in this century a functional derangement of the relationship between the mass of the people and the government. The people have acquired power which they are incapable of exercising, and the government they elect have lost powers which they must recover if they are to govern. The unhappy truth is that the prevailing public opinion has been destructively wrong at the critical junctures." "Mass opinion has acquired mounting power in this century. It has shown itself to be a dangerous master..." [25] "There have been men inside the government who judged correctly because they were permitted to know in time the uncensored and unvarnished truth. But the climate of modern democracy does not usually inspire them to speak out." [25] In more recent times, the lost of free speech and civil rights occasioned by the Bush Administration has made things even worse. "With exceptions so rare that they are regarded as miracles and freaks of nature, successful democratic politicians are insecure and intimidated men. They advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bambozzle, or otherwise manage to mainpulate the demanding and threatening elements in their constituencies. The decisive consideration is not whether the proposition is good but whether it is popular -- not whether it will work well and prove itself but whether the active, talking constituents like it immediately. [25] [emphasis added] In essence, government rule is almost exclusively the domain of the clever, wealthy, powerful, and oft times devious individuals among us. It is the rule by an aristocracy -- an aristocracy with or without titles, with or without nobility, and/or with or without ostentatious badges of office. It is the epitome of the bastardized golden rule: Dem wid de gold makes de rules. In effect the State of the Union is one of Preemptive Rule. So, you might ask, why in the world would an aristocracy -- acknowledged or otherwise -- trouble themselves with a democracy? Surely the inconvenience of periodically listening to the trials and tribulations of the masses would be enough to try the most patient and understanding of the most empathetic elitist. It should be pointed out, for example, that the Frenchman (gasp!) who inspired the framers (Jefferson, et al) of the American Constitution's ideals and structure -- a nobleman named Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu [another strong gasp] -- was not seeking a leveling of society. "He proposed a system of checks and balances whereby the fiats of whims of France's Bourbon throne were limited by established laws and the counter-vailing powers of a vital, widely dispersed aristocracy." "It was from the warier sage of La Brede that the Constitution's framers learned how to fashion a lasting government." [23] [emphasis added] In more recent times, President Bush recently "bore witness to a quintessential American faith, 'If people,' he said, 'are given a right to express themselves in a ballot in the ballot box, in the public square, and through a free and open press, it'll lead to peace.' To borrow a line from Hemingway, it would be pretty to think so. In fact, history teems with elections that have led to neither peace nor democracy."[23] In fact, there are the examples of Germany in the 1930s, and today's Haiti, Russia and Pakistan. Clearly, elections do not bring peace. So what is their appeal to the elitists who tolerate them? Democracy has in its purview a wonderful means of reducing the likelihood of anarchy, revolution, and various off-with-their-royal-aristocratic-heads scenarios. The really good news about democracy -- and from the viewpoint of the ruling elite, about the only good news this form of government offers -- is that it provides to every member of the voting populace the illusion of self-direction in one's earthly destiny, their pursuit of happiness, and any and all of their attempts to find the ultimate meaning of rampant ego-gratification. This all imporant, pervasive, and wholly credible fantasy that one can control one's life and the lives of others, that one can provide welfare and status among all of one's fellow creatures -- even if clearly many of the others are almost certainly of another species all together -- is very psychologically beneficial. It makes the average mind positively hum with delight and warm feelings. And it reduces the likelihood of armed revolution. Democracy can provide the common individual with that all important sense of self-responsibility (as well as self-will). It comforts one with the sense that one's importance in the grand scheme of things is relevant to anyone other than one's self, and that one's opinion(s) carries any weight whatsoever outside one's most immediate environment. Furthermore, it allows one to save others and lead them on the path of alleged righteousness -- however such righteousness is pathologically or otherwise envisioned. Democracy can therefore provide proof of one's inherent god-like qualities which are just yearning to be fleshed out and demonstrated. Democracy is intended to keep the masses content... or at least in a non-bloodthirsty mood. It has always been understood that leaving important matters of collective rule, destiny, war and peace, choice of decision makers and so-called leaders, and so forth and so on... leaving such grave matters to the tyranny of the majority has been conclusively proven to be a wretched idea. Only when one includes an overwhelmingly majority commitment to the ideals of sovereignty and a republic can majority rule even be tolerated. But sad to say all democracies -- no mather the initial intentions of their creators -- inevitably forget the dignity of man and impose instead the indignities of "do it my way or else." This becomes ever more noticeable when in the quest to commit any and every heresy in order to get your candidate elected -- that is to say, to justify every crime with the ends justifying the means argument -- any adherence to democratic, republican ideas is very quickly an unacceptable infringement on the right to take away everyone else's rights. It has been said, in fact, that democracy is in some respects a lot like Christain Ideals. It's not that it's been tried and found wanting; it's just that it's probably a very good thing, but has never really been tried. There has, for example, never been a true democracy... that is to say a government where everyone -- emphasis on everyone -- gets an equal say -- emphasis on equal. A true democracy would also allow anyone to cast their vote, no matter that they're as dumb-as-a-fence-post and/or pathologically insane. Democracy's legacy can be extended such that even such dumb/pathological insane individuals can be elected to the top leadership positions in the government -- there now being more cases of such insanity than anyone might care to acknowledge. Nevertheless, there are a lot of individuals who are not getting to vote or to have an equal say in how "their" government is run. [A good example is the U. S. Congress where the congressional leadership have votes which are more equal than the average congressman.] The question is: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Question: Is it okay for your neighbors to have a veto power over your right to plant a tree in your yard? Keep in mind that your tree might provide unwanted shade on your neighbor and falling leaves in his space in the autumn. If your answer is yes, then consider a similar question: Do your neighbors also have the right to veto your sexual preferences with another consenting adult? We will assume here that your groans of ecstasy enjoying such sexual preferences are not sufficiently loud as to cause undue disturbances, or that the earth moving in your fantasies is having any deleterious effect on the local environment. This type of question -- of what constitutes legitimate law when statutes go far beyond common law -- is the essence of democratic rule. Basically, are people with different views on life, philosophy, spirituality, sex, and so forth... justified in imposing their views on you -- especially when manifesting your views does not directly -- or for that matter, even indirectly -- affect them? In a democracy, yes. It's majority rule. Period. Too bad if you're in the minority and are unable to convince enough of the majority to defect to your point of view. If you're not a part of the majority -- or of the elitist class who don't bother with limiting themselves by laws and rules -- your freedoms are a figment of your imagination. Fundamentally, there is little or no freedom in a democracy run amuck. Let me rephrase that. There is little of no freedom in a democracy run amuck. [Okay, so it's not another way of phrasing it, but I, for pursoses of emphasis, did get you to read it again. If this in any way bothers you, take a vote on it.] The good news -- for those who are willing to hear it -- is that there is no democracy anywhere in the world. In those nations in which democracy is alleged to exist, goverment rule is in reality essentially a rule by an aristocracy of the rich. Why is this good news? Because there is at least the potential that upon occasion those with great wealth and power will try to act for the common good. Perhaps they get bored and figure altruism might be fun for a while. Or as was remarked in the wonderful film, Chariots of Fire, those who are among the elite may realize they have a special and unique responsibility to those who are not among the elite. They may even be taught that they should at least set a good example. The good news is that there are historical examples where this ideal actually worked -- even if it's been somewhat absent of late. The bad news is that many elitists with a modicum of principles have failed to instill in their children anything other than selfish greed. As one elitist of the latter class has remarked, "One of the best ways of helping the poor is to avoid increasing their numbers by becoming poor oneself." Lots, lots, lots more article at: http://www.halexandria.org/dward819.htm

Note: http://www.halexandria....