A THOUGHT ON DEMOCRACY
by Publius II
After much thinking about the political situation today the need emerged to write this piece. Little or nothing can be learned about democracy by listening to the mass of rhetoric which daily spews forth from Washington thru cooperative news media. “We dedicated public servants need you citizens to help us preserve and defend our precious democracy!” The truth is that there is no democracy to preserve and defend, and what is left does not belong to those who are paying for it.
This sad state has existed for some fifty years. Only the lucid elderly can recall studying democracy in detail as part of American history. The essay on education and Pocket Gofer 10 explain this amazing gap.
A description of the history of democracy will occupy but a minor portion of this thought; there is not a lot to be told. Ancient Greek city-states claimed to be democratic, but only adult men who owned property could participate in government. Women, many men and slaves had no say.
Centuries later British subjects in their new world colonies rebelled. Later the founding fathers and others debated the structure of government during the run-up to the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia. They had a blank political slate on which to write. Organized by tribes, the indigenous Indians had no central government.
The existing instrument of government then was the Articles of Confederation. They were a poor guide; the continental congress could not collect taxes and newly established states discriminated against one another. Obviously even worse was the tyranny against which colonists had fought, bled and died.
Delegates to the convention had originally planned to revise the Articles, but they were so inadequate that discussion soon turned to something entirely different. A way forward between tyranny and near-anarchy was needed, and democracy was put forward as an option. But there were two obstructions to be addressed. One was a world history of top-down and largely tyrannical government. The other was logistics.
Can a nation be effectively governed based on an idea? If democracy is a good idea for government, why were there practically no historical examples to guide discussions? The answer lies in human nature: nearly everyone is and has been hard-wired to seek improvement in his/her life. Kings, queens, dictators and other top public officials were no exceptions.
For some 400 years until the late18th century nations had been formed and seized thru armed conquest and plunder. Therefore conquerors ruled thru fear that the defeated would rise up in rebellion. So it was top-down and often tyrannical government, lest the natives get restless and make trouble.
In addressing logistics the founding fathers saw that this was not a problem in ancient Greece. Democracy in a town might have worked well with universal suffrage. But the infant US was a whole nation without telephones, much less cars, railroads, airplanes and trucks.
The founders thus recognized a need for some sort of parliament to act as go-between for citizens and their government. Note the emphasis. The delegates to the constitutional convention understood human nature and had studied history. Therefore they compiled a constitution that was intended to induce alert citizens who owned it to keep government small and maintain public officials as servants of the people.
As US citizens and their government prospered and capitalism developed following the Industrial Revolution (1750-1850), tyrants thruout the world felt the pressure as the era of conquest and plunder slowly faded. Being the only known peaceful method to create and accumulate wealth, capitalism is even today helping to displace tyranny. It has already displaced plunder in advanced nations as a means of accumulating wealth. A side benefit of capitalism was the opportunity for entrepreneurs to create new wealth.
All that said, why are millions of citizens so disgusted with and angry at the government in Washington DC? If as in democracy government belongs to the people, have they only themselves to blame? Well, yes, but only in part. Another recourse to human nature explains. (Pocket Gofer 13 elaborates.)
Anxious to improve their lives, public “servants” have over the decades since World War II done exactly that while preaching democracy. But why have not citizens called them on this mass deception? In September 1787 an 82-year-old student of human nature named Benjamin Franklin said that he and his fellow convention delegates had created a document that will govern effectively for “—- a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”
Not just Franklin. Jefferson: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” And there were others. So the founding fathers understood this vital need. Why did today’s near ancestors drop the ball? Franklin was right: his “course of years” actually totaled around 160, but then several events combined to obliterate that vigilance.
British colonists detested tyranny and rebelled. This bloody sacrifice inserted in people’s hearts a lasting skepticism of government, so they kept it under their thumbs just as recommended in the Constitution. Jefferson again: “When government fears citizens there is liberty. When citizens fear government there is tyranny.”
That skepticism lasted until the Great Depression: event one. People really suffered for ten years while President Roosevelt created a litany of social programs intended to help. They did little; what pulled the nation out of its misery was World War II.
After the war opportunistic politicians leaped to claim credit for passing FDR’s programs in order to relieve the misery. Having been dragged thru hell, people believed. There went 160 years of skepticism: event two.
With the horrendous expense of war over a believing public allowed much of the mountain of money still flowing into Washington to be diverted to more social programs. Politicians tapping into this mother lode began to see that limited terms of public-spirited service could be stretched to become careers: event three.
Then came something altogether new, called television. Radio in homes was largely displaced in favor of sight, sound, action and, later, color. Career-oriented politicians jumped on this new communication medium as they burnished their telegenic images: event four.
These events combined to set the stage for future politics. Personalities and charisma displaced issues that affect the daily lives of citizens. Yes, congressmen showed concern for those issues; they needed this in order to get re-elected time and again. But the laws and regulations they passed only appeared to address relevant issues. The reality was business as usual in Washington because they knew they could get away with it.
As time passed the lack of accountability to those whom the founding fathers had designated as masters slowly became subservient. Their “servants” in government gradually became their masters. Eventually elections were rigged to favor incumbents; see the essay on election campaigns. Their behavior became arrogant. People rightly felt alienated from and disgusted with what used to be their government.
Today most citizens fear government, especially the IRS. Their disgust grows with each passing year that their freedoms are undermined. What is worse, human nature ensures that the situation will get still worse as surely as night follows day. Eventually history must repeat itself: the only recourse to citizens then will be armed rebellion and bloodshed.
This thought will set a new and nonviolent stage for government and politics. But it will differ from the results of the founders’ efforts. Today’s travel and communication have advanced to the point where no corrupt and deceptive go-between — congress —working hard to fatten members’ and their rich friends’ wallets at taxpayer expense is necessary.
Citizens would again own their government, but they can have this only if they govern themselves and practice eternal vigilance. They would hold public officials’ feet to the fire; anyone who does not toe the line would get fired. Active and concerned citizens would see to it that public officials live in constant fear of their wrath. Jefferson’s observation should never be forgotten.
Trust but verify. People would force the news media to help them in this supremely important task. Emphases on empty promises and charisma would give way to issues and ideas. Political power would reside in ideas and the results of deep thinking, discussions and debates. Political power would be dispersed so it could not accumulate in government. Citizens would no longer need BIG GOVERNMENT “solving” their problems for them; they would take pride in doing this for themselves.
Under democracy citizens would learn to tolerate only carefully limited government. They would guarantee their own liberty and protect it from infringements coming from any other person, group or nation, including their own government. They would force Washington to operate on a shoestring budget. They would prevent politicians from making a career in politics, for this is arguably the worst source of abuse today. Finally, they would never stop because they would know that someone is always nibbling away at their liberty, most often in the guise of protecting it.
Individual rights come with strings attached. These strings are called responsibilities. If a citizen makes a mistake he/she should reach for his conscience and not his lawyer.
People support that they help to create. This is bottom-up government, and citizens governing themselves is the essence of democracy. Skepticism of government means that only people knowing what is good for themselves must govern. In a moral society people would need few laws as they rely on moral suasion to guide their daily activities. In this way each person would pursue his/her unique destiny while unfettered by top-down laws and mountains of regulations. Pocket Gofer 8 details this abuse.
Nearly everyone would help to enforce those laws, working with the local police. Potential criminals would first think long and hard. Nearly all would be deterred because they knew they would very likely be caught and suffer swift, fair and sure punishment.
Democracy is majority rule, but a necessary corollary is minority rights. During self-government proceedings a minority view must have the opportunity to speak/write and be heard. Without this there would be two risks. One is tyranny of the majority, and the other would be people with minority views discouraged from participating in government: contributing suggestions.
In 1787 the Massachusetts constitutional convention met to discuss whether to ratify the proposed new constitution. During the debate a minority argued strenuously against ratification and were heard. A vote was conducted and the majority chose to ratify.
A member of the minority rose to speak. He told the convention that he and his group would support the new constitution “—– just as if we had voted for it.” A finer example of citizenship may not exist.
In an uncertain future the minority view on an issue could someday become the majority. Citizens should bear in mind that every proven good idea originated in the mind of a tiny minority: one concerned and thinking citizen. In democracy dissent is sought after and encouraged thru discussion and debate. Top-down government fears and squelches it because it sees dissent as a threat to its personal power base. “If you don’t like the message just shoot the messenger.”
If democracy is to build and flourish the political landscape being painted must offer a paintbrush to every hand. In the late 18th century Thomas Paine believed that wisdom pops up spontaneously and unexpectedly in even ordinary people. Because she is a fickle lady and a potentially valuable contributor citizens should issue her a standing invitation.
Democracy thrives when everyone is invited to participate. All resources should be utilized. Some citizens will hold their paintbrushes without touching the canvas. They too deserve standing invitations. Altho bashful at first, most will join the fun.
Human nature cannot be repealed. Therefore political power should be dispersed and kept that way. To do this the best policy is to place such power in ideas and program proposals presented, constructively criticized and debated prior to decisions. In this way if a citizen’s proposal was rejected after thoro discussion he/she will not conclude that he was rejected but rather his thinking. He will continue to participate because he thinks his next idea may be accepted by the group. Pocket Gofer 13 elaborates.
With political power dispersed career politicians would lack the clout to enlarge government without limit. Indeed, because charisma would no longer sell there would be no career politicians. Citizens who pay for government would keep it small and manageable. They would know they are not getting value for money that is taken from them thru threat of force.
Under Rule of Law no one would be above the law, not even the president who would be just another public servant with broader responsibilities than others. As the masters of government, citizens would see that there would be no exceptions under any conditions. (So much for the media hype about the “most powerful job in the world.”)
Citizens would establish courts to enforce property rights and sanctity of contracts. They would create a constitution that among other things would emphasize individual rights and not group rights. These would protect the citizen against force or fraud exerted by other individuals, groups, nations, and his/her own government. This protection would provide a citizen with the freedom to pursue a unique destiny of his/her own choice.
In the land of opportunity there would be equal opportunity but not equal results. The latter would be the responsibility of individuals and their families. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities. Citizens would create a moral and open society in which honesty, integrity and trust prevail. There would be no secrets except parts of personal finance, the voting booth and the bedroom. Pocket Gofer 5 explains.
Citizens would demand freedom of speech, press, religion and peaceful assembly. They would force the news media to report truth. These freedoms would remain ensured thru free, fair, open, clean and frequent elections. A citizen-created open society would have mechanisms for tracking and publicizing money that might infiltrate any of these activities. Public servants would know this, so there would be very little infiltration.
Citizens would elect public-spirited servants who will serve for a limited time only. Nevertheless they would be kept fearful of the wrath of the citizenry as long as they serve.
Moral suasion and a sense of civic duty would urge every eligible citizen to vote. For the first time in 60+ years people would be able to see that their votes make a difference.
Citizens would approve open budgets and accrual accounting. They would permit no contingency obligations and absolutely no obligations placed off-budget. Furthermore they would determine punishment for errant officials. Not just accounting; every public official would be held accountable by citizens actively operating and improving their own government. The tradition of skepticism would return.
Sound money that is dependable enables effective long-term planning by individuals and businesses. Sound money holds its value because low or nonexistent inflation does not erode its purchasing power.
The Federal Reserve Board has for decades undermined the value of the dollar. The government has connived with the board to inflate the currency. In this way government can borrow huge sums and force taxpayers to pay on these loans with depreciating dollars.
This may sound good on the surface, but workers are dismayed to see their hard-earned bucks buying less and less. Furthermore they don’t save money because they know it loses value as it sits. Eventually they must retire, but with what? Seventy-eight million baby boomers are asking themselves this very question.
For example, a house has always been perceived as a sound investment. In 1990, say, a family bought a house for $200,000. If sold in 2010 for $300,000 that would seem to be a nice gain. Wrong. That house would have to sell for $333,600 just to break even. The kicker lies in the government inflating and thus devaluing the currency.
This is why Publius II’s preliminary draft of a constitution of the USA does not restrict large banks from creating their own currency. A bank doing so would have a strong incentive to preserve its value. If several banks did this a consumer at first blush would be confused as she went shopping. But mobile phones today can do everything but make hot coffee (and maybe even that soon). A click or a brush of the finger and one bank’s money is instantly changed to that of another bank.
Once citizens have created a body of law to guide public servants in Washington DC, there would be little need to create additional laws. Logistically, a new national law might begin in a neighborhood or community political meeting. Voting on it could begin at the neighborhood level, progress thence to community and state levels, where results would be compiled. States would then forward these results to Washington, where they would be meshed with data from the other 49 states. If the final result is yes, the issue would become law. With electronic voting the logistics would be rendered simple.
At this point Publius II must speculate because a cookie-cutter approach to the conduct of political meetings under democracy does not exist. However, there are many approximations to be found in meetings to discuss local issues. Something can be learned from these.
Democracy at the grassroots would mean meetings at the neighborhood or precinct level. Results of discussions and debates would be sent outward to further discussion in community or rural meetings. These decisions would be conveyed if appropriate to state governments and then to the federal government. The vast majority of governing would take place in local halls.
Word about the agenda for a neighborhood meeting would be circulated about a week in advance. A meeting place would be located where many attendees could walk to it. Walk the walk and they will talk the talk. Child care would be provided by volunteers.
The chair of a meeting would receive training in advance so he/she knows how to balance citizens’ participation. There would be a large flat-screen TV monitor behind the chair’s position. Each attendee would be given a remote to be used for voting and to draw attention to floor assistants with mobile phones.
By definition democracy is inefficient: the confused cries of the multitudes. But those who realize that no other form of government dependably provides personal liberty will accept this flaw and work with it.
Therefore in the interest of minimizing inefficiency there would be three lights placed above the screen. Resembling traffic signals, there would be red, yellow and green. When the chair recognizes a citizen who rises to speak the green light turns on and a brief summary of the proposal would appear on the screen. As he/she speaks for a while some people would think they understand his point and supporting statements and have therefore had enough. These folks would trigger their remotes; when enough have done so the green is replaced by yellow, and eventually red. Every attendee would recognize the need for this arrangement.
With this mechanism in place the chair would seldom need to diplomatically bring an end to the dialog. It would be helpful if the person speaking about a proposal had previously sought a place on the agenda in advance. It that way others would be aware; this should also act to minimize floor time.
Committee reports would be handled in a similar manner. Now a citizen wants to comment on the proposal on the floor. He/she may signal a floor assistant and request help. The assistant might help the citizen to organize the comments, or he/she might summarize the criticism in writing for the critic. This could be sent to the screen. This action may satisfy the critic but he may want to speak anyhow, in which case the assistant provides a radio mic. The green light turns on, etc.
As mentioned previously, it would be imperative for the chair to see that the message is kept separate in everyone’s mind from the persona of the messenger. This should be a part of his/her training.
Guidelines for critics should have been circulated before the first meeting. There are four steps to guide constructive criticism: 1) Let the messenger know the message was heard and understood thru a brief summary; 2) Point out the proposal’s points considered good by the critic; 3) diplomatically point to those considered poor; and 4) recommend acceptance, rejection, or referral to a committee for further development.
In the event of a vote and rejection the chair should bend over backward to compliment the messenger and thank him/her for his contribution toward building democracy. Then he should tell him on behalf of all attendees that they look forward to hearing about his next idea. Done right, this reassurance is a recruiting tool for everyone to dip that paintbrush and contribute a few strokes. Everyone contains within him/herself an impressive inventory of intellectual resources. An effective chair knows how to draw forth a maximum of these.
The chair should be selected from candidates thru citizen vote. As time passes he/she should frequently request a vote of confidence. If negative, his time is up. After a vote he should (perhaps) with some ceremony hand the gavel to his successor accompanied by good wishes.
Especially during the early going those who desire would remain after adjournment for a feedback session. Another thought has volunteer itinerant experts on democracy visiting such meetings and commenting. This commentary could be requested by the meeting and presented during the session, or with the chair afterward.
There will be skeptics who argue that with maybe two jobs, school, spouses and children there will not be time for democracy. There are two points to make here. First, time is a matter of priorities and these can be managed if a person would only make the effort.
The second requires some thought. Since these essays are aimed at encouraging thinking, this one tucks right in. A citizen should think about how much time and money must be spent just to survive in today’s economic and financial misery. Next, he/she should think about how much of these will weigh him/her down in the future as the top-down government in Washington slowly becomes a tyranny. Finally, he should make a comparison. Publius II believes his thinking will come down on the right side.