Options
Is Democracy Viable?
· Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The media have recently been so preoccupied with a Congressman's photograph of himself in his underwear that there has been scant attention paid to the fact that Iran continues advancing toward creating a nuclear bomb, and nobody is doing anything that is likely to stop them.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism might seem to be something that would sober up even the most giddy members of the chattering class. But that chilling prospect cannot seem to compete for attention with cheap behavior by an immature Congressman, infatuated with himself.
A society that cannot or will not focus on matters of life and death is a society whose survival as a free nation is at least questionable. Hard as it may be to conceive how the kind of world that one has been used to, and taken for granted, can come to an end, it can happen in the lifetime of today's generation.
Those who founded the United States of America were keenly aware that they were making a radical departure in the kinds of governments under which human beings had lived over the centuries -- and that its success was by no means guaranteed. Monarchies in Europe had lasted for centuries and the Chinese dynasties for thousands of years. But a democratic republic was something else.
While the convention that was writing the Constitution of the United States was still in session, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin what the delegation was creating. "A republic, madam," he said, "if you can keep it."
In the middle of the next century, Abraham Lincoln still posed it as a question whether "government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth." Years earlier, Lincoln had warned of the dangers to a free society from its own designing power-seekers -- and how only the vigilance, wisdom and dedication of the public could preserve their freedom.
But, today, few people seem to see such dangers, either internally or internationally.
A recent poll showed that nearly half the American public believes that the government should redistribute wealth. That so many people are so willing to blithely put such an enormous and dangerous arbitrary power in the hands of politicians -- risking their own freedom, in hopes of getting what someone else has -- is a painful sign of how far many citizens and voters fall short of what is needed to preserve a democratic republic.
The ease with which people with wealth can ship it overseas electronically, or put it in tax shelters at home, means that raising the tax rate on wealthy people is not going to bring in the kind of tax revenue that would enable wealth redistribution to provide the bonanza that some people are expecting.
In other words, people who are willing to give government more arbitrary power can give up their birthright of freedom without even getting the mess of pottage. Worse yet, they can give up their children's and their grandchildren's birthright of freedom.
Free and democratic societies have existed for a relatively short time, as history is measured -- and their staying power has always been open to question. So much depends on the wisdom of the voters that the franchise was always limited, in one way or another, so that voting would be confined to those with a stake in the viability and progress of the country, and the knowledge to cast their vote intelligently.
In our own times, however, voting has been seen as just one of the many "rights" to which everyone is supposed to be entitled. The emphasis has been on the voter, rather than on the momentous consequences of elections for the nation today and for generations yet unborn.
To those who see voting as more or less just a matter of self-expression, almost a recreational activity, there is no need to inform themselves on both sides of the issues before voting, much less sit down and think beyond the rhetoric to the realities that the rhetoric conceals.
Careless voters may be easily swayed by charisma and rhetoric, oblivious to the monumental disasters created around the world by 20th century leaders with charisma and rhetoric, such as Hitler.
Voters like this represent a danger of terminal frivolity for freedom and democracy.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Howard Baker, Ronald Reagan's White House Chief of Staff, comments on The Patriot Post: "Thank you for your confidence in, and efforts to sustain the Reagan legacy." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
- Linda Chavez: Overreach by Unions in Wisconsin
- Mona Charen: Obama's Education Hypocrisy -- Again
- Jonah Goldberg: Big Business Gets the Hollywood Treatment
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Dave
When is Mr. Sowell planning to run for office. I'm ready to vote for him to be my president!
Posted June 29, 2011 at 11:51:06 AM
Gelio
The reason that half the American public believes that the government should redistribute wealth, is that they are the ones currently receiving government handouts, and not paying taxes. They enjoy their current status quo and want more of what the other half has, instead of getting off their rear ends and earning it.
Posted June 29, 2011 at 1:46:47 PM
Abu Nudnik
Agreed, mostly.
"A recent poll showed that nearly half the American public believes that the government should redistribute wealth. That so many people are so willing to blithely put such an enormous and dangerous arbitrary power in the hands of politicians -- risking their own freedom, in hopes of getting what someone else has"
Agreed that such power is dangerous. If the gov't can take from one and give to the other, no one, not even the beneficiary's property, is assured.
But we cannot assume the motive as soundly. Many redistributionists actually want redistribution when they aren't the potential beneficiary; George Soros and Hollywood aristocrats, for example.
Posted June 29, 2011 at 1:57:36 PM
Patrick
I disagree with Abu Nudnik. George Soros and his ilk most definitely plan to be the ultimate beneficiaries. There is no true compassion underlying any of their pretensions.
Posted June 29, 2011 at 2:19:34 PM
pete
People will be 100% behind redistribution because they are the beneficiaries TODAY. They fail to see beyond their nose to tomorrow, and what will happen when all have equal wealth and the government they gave so much power to still wants more money.
The only equality socialism guarantees is equal misery.
Posted June 29, 2011 at 3:30:41 PM
David S. McQueen
Many people want on the gravy train but don't want to pay for the ticket. The fallacy of that thinking isn't new. It began in the 1930s with the New Deal and grew from there with continual support from the Democrat-Socialist Party.
Obama and his ilk understand that very well, certainly enough to win the WH.
Posted June 29, 2011 at 8:44:16 PM
d.w.hudson
Can there be any doubt that three of the most dangerous affronts to our supposed Constitutional republic are todays liberal/progressive teachers, main-stream media journalists, and judges? Is it possible they have already damaged our nation beyond repair?
Posted June 30, 2011 at 6:01:42 PM
Peter
Repeal the 24th Amendment.
Posted July 7, 2011 at 5:30:08 PM