Democracy vs. Oligarchy

One of the standard mantras of the Tea Party is that they are Constitutionalists and believe in the Founding Fathers. The irony of that is that the Founding Fathers argued out the issues of Federalism and ultimately passed on the Federal Constitution; yet Federalism seems to be exactly what the Tea Party cannot stand. They are actually "anti-Federalist" and if they had their choice we would still be governed by the Articles of Confederation.

Perhaps some Tea Partyers do accept the Federal Constitution but they wish that it had never changed or that we were still interpreting it as we did when 90% or more Americans were farmers living on small rural farms and a largish number of Americans still owned slaves, who were not counted as whole people for population totals. Of course, only land-owning men could vote in those days. Gee, it's sure sad that had to change! As is so often the case with issues raised by the Tea Party, there are certainly some changes from the 1790s that they would admire; it's those other changes that get them riled up. But they don't seem to realize that, if that's the case, they owe us some explanation of why certain changes are evil and others are fine.

I have been an idealist about American government as long as I can remember, and I have rather blindly believed that the Founding Fathers really did mean to create a government that was not only "of" the people but was also to be a government "by" the people and "for" the people (meaning in the interest of the people as a whole). However, as I have aged, I have begun to distrust the sincerity of some of our "fathers" and, in particular, I have grown to suspect that "for" really meant "in the interest of wealth and power." Certainly, when we examine the actual history of America, we have to admit that government has very often worked in favor of the rich and powerful against the interests of the lower and middle classes. In its most uncomfortable extremes this has been when we found it in "our interest" to go to war and young people were slaughtered on the battlefields in the name of something that looks an awful lot like the protection of big business interests.

Of course, we are great at maintaining that we are still a government "by" the people, meaning that we vote for those who represent us. America remains a democracy. But I find that unconvincing as well. Many of our Founding Fathers articulated the grounds on which democracy could truly work and very little of their vision remains today. Voting means making a choice of who will represent me. But "choice" means that I am informed about national issues and about the ideas that a person will represent. Today, the media seem to think they are for anything but real information, and candidates shower us with falsehoods about their opponents rather than telling us what they really think. Worse yet, there are candidate-choices that we will never see because they have neither the wealth nor the power to make it into competition. There is no real democracy in America today when voting fails to involve real informed choices.

Just a brief study of American politics in the last three decades makes it clear that what we are really engaged in is a war to the death of democracy and the Republican winner is going to be oligarchy, plane and simple --- the rule of wealth. Every time Republicans make a pledge to Americans this is what they are talking about. What I fail to understand is why so many Americans go along with this when it is absolutely contrary to their own self-interest and when they are the ones who will pay even their lives to the will of wealth.

What Is Government For?

Americans typically have four levels of government --- Federal, state, county/township, and local/city. I believe that the foundation of government in a democratic society is that government is the way in which the people "meet" in order to discuss and act upon issues of mutual concern and interest. Hence, local government is where people of the locality meet in order to discuss and act upon issues of concern in their locality. For example, when people in my city wanted to locate a sports complex for youth activities somewhere in city limits, we met through our local city council and other local government planning commissions to discuss options and hear arguments.

Since most of our communities are way too large to have purely democratic meetings of the whole, we "meet" through our various elected representatives. These representatives are elected periodically so that they must stand before us on their records of responsible action. If they do not act intelligently and responsibly on our community interests, we can and should remove them from their offices. While this mode of "meeting" is not always adequate and, in particular, may not represent my own point of view, it is the only practical way of proceeding. Since there are issues that require discussion and action, meeting is essential to our well being.

Now, government requires money in at least two ways. The operation of government requires money for facilities, salaries, etc. Secondly, government spends money on projects for the well being of the people --- sewage and trash removal, development and maintenance of infrastructure, enforcement of laws, fire protection, public education, community centers, etc. While fees may be charged for some things, most revenues come through taxation. Here lies the great irony of our age. People hate to be taxed yet they want trash taken away, want to drive on nice roads, and don't want home invasions. If you want the benefits of government --- which is to say the benefits of activities that we need and sanction --- you have to pay for it.

So now-a-days anyone will be welcomed onto a platform by screaming for lower taxes and less government. However, none of these people --- at least none that I have heard --- are willing to take the time to spell out what "less government" means to them or just how much taxation they are willing to bear in order to allow government to act.

Since most of this screaming is aimed at the Federal government, and since reducing Federal government means meeting and acting less on Federal issues, and since radically reducing Federal taxes means tying the hands of Federal government to act or even consider issues, the single question at stake today is whether or not there really is a need for people to "meet" on national issues or to act on national issues. That is the question: Are there national issues that require collective (Federal) attention? Another side of this question is whether or not there is, or should be, a national character.

In the present round of ultra-conservative and Tea Party activism, the implicit answer seems to be that there is no national character and there are very few legitimate national, or Federal, concerns. The practical result of this movement would be to hold up in our individual states and do pretty much whatever our fellow state-citizens want. Even if the Federal government has legitimate jurisdiction over a number of inter-state activities, its hands would be tied up completely by lack of funding. Perhaps the Southern states could even return to a culture of slavery.

Personally, none of this sounds very good to me. I believe in a national character and, hence, I believe there are quite legitimate national issues for which there are appropriate Federal activities. I do not want to see my Federal government crippled for lack of funds.