re: #184 jcw46

I also believe that not only our country, but most of the world at this point has been heading steadily in one direction politically. Historically speaking, Democracy/Republicanism and all of its associated ‘cousins’ such as Communism and Fascism that purport derive their sovereignty from ‘The People’ are very new, very revolutionary forms of government. As a society I think we are still coming to terms with some of the philosophy that underpins democracy in general.

The history of democracy isn’t exactly as neat and tidy as the American Revolution, in terms of righteous ideals. It is more of a story of bureaucrats serving inept Monarchs wanting to steal power than it is one of subjects demanding rights. Democracy is all about enfranchising people with political power, and we are still trying to figure out how to do that, and how much we should do it and at what expense to productivity and freedom.

The direction we are slouching seems to be steadily in dividing up power and passing it out to as many people as possible, which in this day in age of universal suffrage means an equal division of resources and capital.

It follows a direct progression from the roots of modern democracy taking power from the monarchs and passing out to the next tier in the hierarchy. I think the impasse in this process is reached when those institutions that have the power (the money), have squandered so much of it on others that it no longer has the capacity to function (ie it has so many people on the dole trying to ensure equality that it goes bankrupt).

I also believe there is a fundamental gap between the previous form of government prevalent in much of the world, Monarchy, and every modern democracy regarding the actual role of government which is something that is still being struggled over by modern societies today.

While Monarchs were sometimes paranoid, and often either pious or greedy, or both, it wasn’t inherent to the system. They were only bound by their personal morality and the need to woo their vassals for the most part. In contrast the very fact that a democratic (or pseudo-democratic) government derives its power from ‘the People’ it has a moral duty to act on their behalf, and is also intensely interested in their behavior and perceptions.

This seems to lead to some very predictive behavior on the part of modern governments to be interested in what we think and feel (disturbingly so), and to constantly find some crusade to go on for the greater good. Democratic governments solve problems for ‘the People’, so it must find them; or create them.

As such I can expect the government to get larger, weaker and more inefficient as it doles out its power in the form of grossly bloated bureaucracies and largess to the public in an attempt to adhere to some extreme egalitarian morality, as has been happening at a steady clip for a while now and gaining speed. I also expect it to become more intrusive, intensely interested in molding public opinion rather than following it and significantly less interested in protecting the rights of its citizens that don’t conform to the moral vision it chooses to pursue. All on the behalf of ‘we the people’ of course.

Carlyle had some famous criticisms and is well worth the read. So too is his forebear Edmund Burke. Namely Carlyle believed that enfranchising the people too broadly with bare slivers of political power only wound up enfranchising those institutions that informed the electorate; and that this process was largely undemocratic and would reliably result in the worst kind of people wielding political power.

He is credited with coining the term ‘Fourth Estate’ in reference to a free Press, as an absolute necessity in ensuring a functioning democracy. At this point I don’t think his criticisms were too far off, but I don’t think a free Press is really the bulwark that he thought it was unfortunately.