SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (77194)2/2/2010 6:19:15 PM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Degenerate Democracy

By Mark W. Hendrickson
American Thinker

Aristotle considered the adjective "degenerate" redundant when coupled with "democracy," and America's founding fathers shared Aristotle's disapprobation.

With characteristic bluntness, John Adams asserted,

    "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and 
murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not
commit suicide."

James Madison expressed a similar viewpoint in his famous Federalist Paper #10:
    "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence 
and contention; have ever been found incompatible with
personal security or rights of property; and have in
general been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths."

Such sentiments startle Americans today. For generations, we have been taught that democracy, however imperfect, is the best form of government known to man. The gulf between the founders and contemporary Americans stems from very different usages of the word "democracy."

Benign "democracy" connotes the empowerment of individuals and a corresponding freedom from tyranny and oppression. The 19th-century poet Walt Whitman articulated the essence of America's democratic ideal thusly:

"... government can do little positive good to the people,
[but] it may do an immense deal of harm
. And here is where
the beauty of the Democratic principle comes in. Democracy
would prevent all this harm. It would have no man's benefit
achieved at the expense of his neighbors ... this one
single rule, rationally construed and applied, is enough to
form the starting point of all that is necessary in
government; to make no more laws than those useful for
preventing a man or body of men from infringing on the
rights of other men."
[Emphases in original.]

The founding fathers would concur heartily with Whitman's sentiment. Whitman described exactly the kind of polity that the founders desired to establish -- one in which every American, rich or poor, would be equally secure in the enjoyment of his God-given rights and safe from any power that would trespass on them.

To protect individual rights, the founders established a constitutional republic, not a democracy. What is the difference?

The Constitution crafted by the founders was premised on the primacy of individual rights. It sought to restrain governmental power in order to protect those rights.

Democracy, by contrast, is a theory of power: What the majority wants, the majority gets.
The founders -- great students of history and human nature -- understood that individual rights could be trampled by democratic majorities as readily as by individual tyrants. (Think of noble Socrates and innocent Jesus, both deprived of their right to life by democratic votes.)

The founders knew that if America's constitutional republic ever degenerated into a formal democracy, then Americans' rights and Whitman's democratic ideal would be lost. Democracy would descend into mobocracy. In Benjamin Franklin's pithy prose:
      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to 
have for lunch."

Marx and Lenin shared Franklin's stark assessment of democracy. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that the way to attain socialism was to "win the battle of democracy." The cold-blooded Lenin taught, "A democracy is a state which recognizes the subjection of the minority to the majority."

The democracy that the founders loathed and that the communists coveted is a political system in which government ceases to protect individual rights and instead annihilates them.


The founders viewed such a system as an ethical abomination, an affront to Judeo-Christian principles. As Thomas Jefferson put it,
    "To take from one, because it is thought that his own 
industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in
order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not
exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate
arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the
guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry
and the fruits acquired by it."

Merciless democracy, besides being ethically debased, is also suicidal. In the words of British archeologist and historian Sir Flinders Petrie,
    "When democracy has attained full power, the majority 
without capital necessarily eat up the capital of the
minority and civilization steadily decays."

Over the decades, Uncle Sam has slipped by the Constitution's explicit limitations on government power. The manner in which this has been accomplished epitomizes our political degeneration.
In his farewell address (still read in Congress once per year, but evidently not heeded) George Washington implored,
    "If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or 
modification of the Constitutional powers be in any
particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in
the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be
no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance,
may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon
by which free governments are destroyed."

Subsequent generations of politicians and jurists have ignored Washington's wise counsel and undermined liberty by ignoring or defying (thus, usurping) the clear language of the constitution in pursuit of their ambitions. The rule of law lies in tatters. Our political degeneration has progressed to the point where Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid write major legislation behind closed doors and order their partisan minions to approve their proposals before they even read them. In the name of democracy, the national government has become blatantly undemocratic.

The founders' misgivings about democracy were spot-on. The republic they gave us has been corrupted and possibly lost forever.


Mark Hendrickson teaches economics at Grove City College and is a Fellow for Economic & Social Policy with the College's Center for Vision & Values.

americanthinker.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (77194)2/2/2010 9:22:56 PM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 90947
 
Senate rushing to do favors for Big Labor before Brown is seated

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer beltway-confidential
02/02/10 1:57 PM EST

Yesterday, Senate Democrats rushed through a party-line cloture vote on Obama's nominee for Solicitor General, Patricia Smith. Smith got 60 Democratic votes even though a Republican senator produced damning evidence that she lied in Senate testimony regarding her role in a controversial program that unfairly benefited labor unions while she was New York State Labor Commissioner.

Today, the Senate is again trying to perform as many favors for Big Labor as it can before newly elected Republican Senator Scott Brown is seated and Democrats lose their supermajority.
Senate Democrats are now trying to rush through the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Becker would be the first union-employed lawyer to be confirmed by the Senate to the NLRB and is very cozy with and has received many paychecks from big politically active unions like the SEIU and AFL-CIO.

The Chamber of Commerce is very disturbed by this development and how Becker's vociferously pro-union presence on the NLRB would stack the deck against businesses. Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President for Labor, Immigration, and Employee Benefits, Randel K. Johnson issued the following statement on Becker's nomination:


<<< “For the first time since 1993, the Chamber is taking the unusual step of opposing a nominee to the NLRB,” Johnson said. “It would be an egregious mistake and would set a dangerous precedent for the Senate to push this nomination through during a lame-duck period. The NLRB has the ability to unduly increase union power and leverage it without intervention by Congress. Confirming Becker will tilt the balance in labor law dramatically in favor of union special interests.”

The Chamber has cited concerns over Mr. Becker’s prolific writings which suggest that his views on American labor law are far outside the mainstream and that his confirmation would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance of law. In addition, we have serious concerns that Becker could try to do an end run around the legislative process by administratively imposing card check, as suggested by former NLRB Chairman Gould.

“While a hearing on Mr. Becker is very important, it is shameful that organized labor and their supporters in the Senate are trying to confirm the president’s controversial nominee to the NLRB, Craig Becker, before Senator-elect Scott Brown is sworn in,” said Johnson. “The Senate is leaving just enough time to jam Becker’s nomination through before Senator-elect Brown comes to Washington.” >>>

washingtonexaminer.com