Reflections on a Revolution, Part IV

By Robert Ringer

In Part III of this series, I quoted 19th century individualist and political philosopher Lysander Spooner, who eloquently argued that the United States Constitution was not binding on future generations since they neither agreed to it nor signed it. This position horrifies many people who believe that the Constitution was needed to protect “the people” by placing limits on the government.

Which sounds fine, except that the Constitution has not protected U.S. citizens from government aggression. On the contrary, such aggression has become worse with each passing year – and exploded under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Regime.

Alvin Toffler, who started out as a Marxist in his youth but ultimately evolved into an objective, apolitical observer of world events, pointed out the realities of so-called representative government in his book The Third Wave. While conceding that representative government was a “humanizing breakthrough in human history,” Toffler went on to explain:

Yet from the very beginning it [representative government] fell far short of its promise. By no stretch of the imagination was it ever controlled by the people, however defined. Nowhere did it actually change the underlying structure of power in industrial nations – the structure of sub-elites, elites, and super-elites. Indeed, far from weakening control by the managerial elites, the formal machinery of representation became one of the key means by which they maintained themselves in power.

Thus elections, quite apart from who won them, performed a powerful cultural function for the elites. To the degree that everyone had a right to vote, elections fostered the illusion of equality. … Elections symbolically assured citizens that they were still in command – that they could, in theory at least, dis-elect as well as elect leaders. In both capitalist and socialist countries, these ritual assurances often proved more important than the actual outcomes of many elections.

I agree with Toffler’s insights. As I have repeatedly stated, Winston Churchill was right when he said that democracy is a lousy form of government, but it’s the best anyone has been able to come up with thus far. (His actual words were, “[Democracy is] the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.”)

Of course, purist libertarians would argue that people don’t need government at all, but that’s an impossible sell in these declining days of the American Empire. Through gradualism and addiction to living beyond their means, most people feel they need government to act as an enforcer to protect their lifestyle – and/or give them an even better lifestyle.

The other night, in moment of morbid curiosity, I clicked on Larry King. Surprise: Celeb-worshipping Larry decided to go upscale for the night with a panel of four “financial experts” – with combined IQs, I would suspect, of about eighty-seven – opining on the economy. I don’t remember their faces, let alone their names, but, by golly, Larry himself referred to them as “experts.”

All of their comments were equally stupid, so I don’t want to play favorites here. But one expert woman did an exceptional job of unwittingly summing up why representative government doesn’t work very well for those who believe in liberty. Said this paragon of financial wisdom, “If the government would just step up to the plate and help people, the economy would be fine.” As idiotic as the woman’s words were, the sad reality is that most politicians see such tripe as a winning message. Which is precisely why we get the government we deserve.

If someone like a Barry Goldwater comes along and says something like “A government strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take it all away,” people shout him down as a fascist, heartless, or right-wing extremist (though Goldwater was, contrary to commonly held perceptions of him, quite libertarian-oriented).

Having said all this, I must concede that I agree with Churchill. Until a better form of government is invented (preferably one that makes it impossible to get elected to public office by promising to redistribute wealth and by granting favors to special interests), I opt to support the Constitution. The problem, however, is that elected officials, government bureaucrats, and judges don’t support the Constitution. At best, they ignore it; at worst, they pervert its meaning. And, without question, they hate it.

Would that Washington, Jefferson, and the rest of the white-wigged crowd could return and explain to the populace what they had in mind when they started their unique experiment in representative government. Had they known what it would evolve into, I believe they would have taken a pass on the revolution and stuck with King George III. Which, in the long run, wouldn’t have mattered anyway, because the Brits ultimately opted to follow America down the tyranny-of-the-majority path.

So, until we figure out a better system, your job and mine is to keep pushing back against tyranny. And from this day on into the foreseeable future, it’s going to take a bigger and bigger push just to hold the power mongers to a standoff. Make that a lot bigger push.

Happy Fourth of July!

_______________________________________

Liberty Education Interview Series

Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.

_______________________________________

To comment on “The Illusion of Representation”, please login below:

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 4th, 2010 at 7:00 am and is filed under Ideology of Freedom. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can comment below, or trackback from your own site.