night. It was really over before the guests even knew what was happening.
There is often a fine line between ignorance and arrogance, so fine that often it is very difficult to distinguish if someone is really arrogant, or if they just do not know any better. Of course the worst case results from a mixture of the two, arrogance based on ignorance. This was the case with the rulers of Babylon, their arrogance in throwing such a party while the city was under siege and ignorance of the grave danger they were really in. They simply took it for granted that they were safe, unaware of the danger around them.
There are some similarities with 21st century America. So much of what is good and even great about this country is simply taken for granted. It is just how things are, how they should be, and how they will always be. And most are unaware of the weaknesses and dangers in the system that could be exploited or could result in its downfall.
Instead we have slogans. Democracy is good and the more democracy the better. Count every vote. For some it does not even matter whether the voter is a citizen or even if they are here legally.2 They are a person and in a democracy shouldn’t everyone have their say? Aren’t we all just citizens of the world?
And of course anything the people want and vote for is automatically good. The people voted for it democratically, and democracy is good, therefore anything they vote for must likewise be good.
Conversely, anything that stands in the way of voting, and therefore democracy, is bad. Voter registration must be simple, easy, with a minimum of hassles, lest any inconvenience be a barrier to voting, with the epitome being the ability to register when you vote.
Voter fraud is merely an abstract concept, a red herring used by those wishing to limit democracy. Asking potential voters to demonstrate their identity so as to ensure only those 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?
