Email
Print
SyndicateThe Illusion of Representation
By Robert Ringer - Tuesday, October 13, 2009
By Robert Ringer
Lysander Spooner, 19th century individualist and political philosopher, eloquently argued that the United Sates Constitution was not binding on future generations since they neither agreed to it nor signed it. This position horrifies those who believe that the Constitution was needed to protect “the people” by placing limits on 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 — especially since the Chicago Mob took control of things in Washington.
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.
In other words, nothing changes regardless of who ascends to the throne in the Oval Office, though the rate in the decline of liberty varies depending upon who’s in control. For decades, we’ve witnessed increasing redistribution of wealth, increasing invasion of privacy and civil liberties, increasing foreign military adventures, and an increasing debasement of our currency.
I agree with Toffler’s insights. I also agree with Winston Churchill’s view 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 anarcho-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 lifestyles — or give them even better lifestyles.
The other night, in a fit of boredom, I checked out Larry King. Celeb-worshipping Larry had decided to go upscale for the night with a panel of four “financial experts.” I would estimate that their combined IQs were about eighty-seven — yet there they were, opining on the state of the economy. I don’t remember their faces, let alone their names, but, by golly, King himself referred to them as “experts.”
All of their comments were equally idiotic, 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.”
I cannot deny that hers is a winning message. 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 in his views).
Even so, Churchill was right. Until a better form of government is created (preferably one that makes it impossible to get elected to public office by promising to redistribute wealth and granting favors to special interests), I opt to support the Constitution. The problem, however, is that elected officials, government bureaucrats, and judges do not support the Constitution. At best, they ignore it; at worst, they pervert its meaning. And, without question, they detest 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 strange experiment in representative government. Had they known what it would evolve into, they may have decided to take a pass on the revolution and stay loyal to King George III. Which, in the long run, would not 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, the job of those of us who believe in liberty is to keep pushing back against the forces of tyranny. And as things continue to become unhinged under the rule of the Chicago Mob, it’s going to take a bigger push just to hold the power mongers to a standoff. Make that a lot bigger push.
_______________________________________
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:
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
5 Responses to “The Illusion of Representation”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
I’ve come to the conclusion that representative government is necessary but not sufficient for prosperity. The sine qua non is a functioning culture with traditions and cohesiveness fostered by unity of language and, ideally, faith and other behavioral similarities. If the average man does not feel that his society reflects his concerns and values his way of life, all the representation in the world won’t help. You might even be better off under a totalitarian government that had a unified culture behind it, if you were part of that culture, than in a fragmented democracy with competing cultural viewpoints that make progress and prosperity impossible. The foundation of American culture is the Constitution and an attitude of progress and prosperity for all who identify with and are willing to sacrifice for the cultural assumptions. Without that, we are doomed as a civilization to decline and chaos.
Rather than having the right to “dis-elect” our alleged representatives, by voting someone else in, we need the right to “unelect” them by voting against them. You could still only select one candidate for a particular office, but you would have the right to vote either for or against that candidate. Simply subtract the votes against from the votes for to determine the winner. People would come out of the woodwork to vote!
Thanks for your excellent articles and “The Liberty Education Interview Series.” I appreciate the way you get to the “heart” of the issue in a clear and concise manner. Thank you for sharing your opinions and viewpoints. I find them valuable.
Tom
I am sitting here watching Glenn Beck, as one of Fox’s financial experts (definitely deserves the name relative to Larry King’s bunch), “Charles,” demonstrates on a black board how our unfunded liabilities are now well over 100 TRILLION dollars. I recall reading Robert’s earlier works where he stressed the importance of understanding the concept of unfunded liabilities. Thank God I learned back then (early 1980s).
But at any rate, it occurred to me watching these guys that there are other folks who believe in our concept of limited govt. as strongly as I and many others. Can you imagine the courage of these guys who over history have died for freedom? They may not have known about or understood the niceties of political philosophy (though compared to today’s generation), but they put their lives on the line. Amazing stuff. We may realize one day why so many have found it so necessary to stand up and give their blood for the concept of self determination.
I have been reading a lot of Jefferson, lately, as well as some of the other “framers” of our constitution and they seem to all have warned against the quite, unassuming relinquishment of “Representative Republic” governance to “Democracy”, or governance by the popular whim of the voters (not always the “people”). As a plethora of Polls have integrated their way into our media-driven society, we have begun to transform ourselves, not just the government, into a populace directed by popular opinion, rather than the sense of sensibility, if I may. Our constitution was supposed to be a set of rules which, when followed and applied to the individual and governing bodies, would direct us all to provide the NECESSITIES of insuring domestic tranquility (keeping people safe from themselves and others and settling disputes), provide for the common defense (protection of the populace), promote the general Welfare (not provide welfare to the general public, but to assure economic stability), and secure the Blessings of Liberty (allow the populace to make their own mistakes/decisions). Anything else is non/quasi-constitutional, or specifically delineated by congressional act as an amendment. Those amendments are binding as long as they do not conflict with the given primary purpose of the constitution as previously stated. Mr. Toffler assumes that the constitution was meant to alter the underlying structure of industrialized nations by providing for government OF the people. He has evidently not read the constitution. Our President, Vice President, Senators and Congressmen were appointed by electors as determined by the states. That meant it was up to the states to determine how the representatives were elected or appointed that would ultimately elect or appoint our president, etc. The Elections of and by the constituents came later. They were added because otherwise there would have occurred a subculture of elites, etc., ad infinitum, to “rule” and become more powerful. Looks like we’re backing up on that one. The problem occurs when we continually think of orselves as a DEMOCRACY. We are NOT. Democracies are inherently unstable and have always led to anarchy and totalitarianism. I fear the step to a form of socialist quasi-democracy manipulated by the media driven branch of the progressive wing of the Democrat party is not only at hand, but well underway.
The elites have seen fit to determine how much our investments are worth, at least when applied to collective labor pools (read unions); basically zippo, nada, nil, zed… zero… and have blatantly handed over control of an enterprise they, themselves, helped to undermine simply because they contributed to their campaigns.
They have determined that the safest place for our school age children is under the watchful eyes of a pedophile supporter… who, by the way, would be protected from discrimination (read prosecution) in their perfect world.
They have determined to “reform” “health care” in this country under the direction of a nutcase who has been a lobbyist for the American Trial Lawyers Association.
For the first time in history we have an avowed Communist as chief of staff for the President of the United States.
Many of us have been sworn to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES from enemies foriegn AND domestic.
I fear the time to do so is fast approaching. Hopefully it will occur in the 2010 elections and thereafter. If not, God help us, as we also have a constitutional edict to oust any government not following the constitution… and this one is not.