Preserving Democracy. Elgin L Hushbeck

with a legal right to vote, actually vote, and that they vote only once, simply raises too many barriers and thereby hinders democracy.

      Voting itself must be easy. The old fashioned ideas of ‘election day’ and ‘going to the polls’ is too restrictive, and thus limits peoples’ ability to vote. So now we have early voting and absentee voting, not just for those who need it but for anyone who wants it.

      Voting is simultaneously a sacrosanct right and a troublesome nuisance. Everything must be done to ensure that people can cast a vote and that their vote is counted. Whether or not one’s vote is ultimately negated by fraud or illegal voting is irrelevant, that it was cast and counted is what is important.

      Since anything the people want is automatically good, simply because it is an expression of the will of the people, the problems faced by our country can only result from the will of the people being thwarted or blocked in some way by that most evil of all groups, the special interest.

      As a result, politicians then fall into two groups. Not Republicans or Democrats, though they use those names. No, the real meaningful categories are those who fight for the people, and those who represent the dreaded special interests. Of course the problem is that most politicians say they fight for the people, and that their opponent represents the dreaded special interests. There are a few who babble on about some policy details, but they are just boring.

      One theme that does seem to resonate with the people is change. The direction of the change is irrelevant. Change to what, is likewise irrelevant. What resonates is change for change’s sake. Thus every so often the office of President changes party. This type of change, however, is restricted mainly to the President, as for the most part, that is the only politician people actually know. Senators and Representatives are normally spared this regular change unless things are really bad. After all if you don’t really know who they are or how long they have been there, how do you know if it is time for a change?

      The other main theme that resonates is what they (the politicians) are giving us (the voters). But here there is a conflict between those who receive things from government, and those who have to pay for government. Voters must then go to the trouble of deciding whether to vote for more benefits, or more tax cuts, though even here the politicians have become accommodating enough to frequently promise both.

      The net effect of all this is that the size and cost of government has exploded over the last century. But not to worry because that is what the people want, and what the people want must be good.

      A Looming Danger?

      Most Americans would probably be shocked to learn that the Founding Fathers were leery of democracy and saw it as dangerous, something to be controlled and limited. In fact, going back at least as far as the early Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and up until very recently, democracy has always been seen as a dangerous and unworkable form of government, something that could last only a short time, and that would end badly.

      Nor were such views merely the musing of ancient philosophers. They had been borne out time and time again in history. Wherever democracy was tried, it failed. Ancient Greece founded democracy, and while democracy was still in its infancy, defeated the Persians. But internal wars among the city states weakened democratic rule, which was interrupted by tyrants, suppressed by Alexander the Great, and then eventually succumbed to the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic likewise weakened and collapsed but there was no other Rome waiting at the gate to take over, and so the Republic collapsed into the dictatorship of the Caesars.

      Smaller attempts at democracy likewise collapsed and failed. Perhaps the most notable of these was the Renaissance city of Florence led by Savonarola and Machiavelli. But wherever it has been tried, it has failed. That is until the United States.

      The genius of the Founding Fathers is in their understanding of these earlier democracies. The success of the United States is not in spite of these earlier failures, but because of them. Drawing deeply on their understanding of these earlier attempts and on the work of political philosophers from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, to more recent ones such as John Locke, they constructed a government based on a written Constitution aimed at avoiding the dangers and pitfalls inherent within democracy and which had caused the failure of the earlier attempts. The government they established has lasted for over 200 years.

      So does that mean the Founding Fathers avoided all the problems? Well they certainly did much better than Renaissance Florence, which lasted a mere 17 years. They also avoided the catastrophe that befell the near contemporary French Revolution, which ended so badly in the Reign of Terror that today when people think of the French Revolution, the Guillotine is far more likely to come to mind than democracy. But we still have not reached the benchmark set by Rome that were still going strong at comparable points in their history.

      A Cause for Concern

      But not to worry, the Founding Fathers were geniuses and the government they constructed took all of these dangers into account by setting up a system of checks and balances that will protect us. So we have nothing to worry about. Or do we? Even if we assume the Founding Fathers were geniuses and the government they established did provide checks and balances for all the dangers, one possible cause for concern is that we no longer have the government they created. This is not necessarily bad. After all, the first thing the new Congress did after being established by the Constitution, was to change it by adding the Bill of Rights. Since then we have formally changed the Constitution another seventeen times, the last time in 1992. More importantly the courts have informally changed (i.e., reinterpreted) the Constitution numerous times, and continue to do so virtually every year.

      So we are changing our government all the time. Some of these changes are needed to keep up with changes in society, technology, etc.. However, today when we make a change to the government, are we just allowing government to be more responsive and effective? Are we just fixing problems unforeseen by the Founding Fathers? Or are we changing something far more fundamental? Are we changing a key support that keeps the whole system functioning, a key check or balance that keeps the system from collapsing?

      How would we know the difference?

      The American education system being what it is, many Americans no longer have any real knowledge of even who the Founding Fathers were, past perhaps George Washington. As for the problems of democracy they grappled with, and the reason for the system of checks and balances they created, they are so far removed that most don’t even realize there are problems with democracy.

      But not to worry, if we ever do make a mistake; we have the ability to change the Constitution. Once the problem is realized; we can simply fix the problem and continue on. The error in such thinking can be seen in the following analogy.

      A Stroll in the Desert

      Imagine an intrepid but somewhat naive adventurer who is staying at a beautiful resort on the edge of a vast desert. In the distance he sees a hill and wonders what is on the other side. So our adventurer decides to hike out to the hill and see for himself.

      After hiking for some time, he finally reaches the top of the hill. The view is gorgeous, well worth the hike. Off in the distance our adventurer sees another hill and instantly has the same question; what is beyond it? He is feeling pretty good, and while he didn’t think to bring any food or water, he is after all not only intrepid but naive, he tells himself that he can always turn back to the safety of the resort if he needs to. So he decides to press on.

      Now from the moment our intrepid adventurer set out on his journey, the maximum distance he could travel before he died was both limited and yet unknown. It was limited because the human body has limits on how far it can go without food or water. Given that our intrepid adventurer is wandering through a desert, water will be the major issue.

      Since the only water in our mythical desert is at our mythical resort, the distance our adventurer can travel is also limited. At some point his body will simply give out due to lack of water, and he will die.

      Exactly how far he can go is unknown for a number of reasons. How fast he loses water will be determined by things such as the heat, and whether he runs, walks briskly, or walks slowly. But while unknown, there remains a limit to