In our modern media-fueled, mass education society, freedom = liberty = democracy. But is that reality? Hardly.

     All of the politicians and political talking heads seem to hold the ideals of democracy sacred at the expense of all others. How far has our nation fallen? Are there really so few in America that realize the dangerous nature of the pure democracy? Our founders noted on several occaisions the problems with such a system. Just because the majority can vote it into law does not make the law just.

     Contrary to what seems to be the popular consensus, this country was not founded as, or was ever intended to be a purely democratic government of this type. Such systems are historically doomed to failure, as the masses know only what they want and have no care for contemplation of long term legal and fundamental government changes. The invariable end result is that someone who does understand the nature of the purely democratic beast manipulates the masses into creating some form of tyranny or another. The likely outcome is a socialist regime with elected officials. You see, a pure democracy is a non-sustainable situation. It is only part of the description of any government. Our government, for example, was founded as a democratic republic. A republican form of government is a difficult one to maintain. This form of government ensures the rights of all citizens whether or not they are in the majority. There are 2 reasons that these governments are hard to maintain: First, the government must hold the majority in check so that they do not succeed in achieving majority interests at the expense of minority rights (we are talking about ideology here -this has nothing to do with race, religion, or any other factor in particular, but encompasses all in generality). Secondly, the government itself must be kept in check so that it does not (as governments are prone to do) acquire power in excess of its mandated job description.

     So, after over 220 years, how have we fared at maintaining our government? Well, as far has holding the majority in check, I would say we are doing a fair job. In fact, in many cases, minority interests have been successful at manipulating our system to achieve ends that actually remove rights from the majority (a different rant altogether)!

     The major problem has been to maintain condition 2. Our government has spent the entire span of the 20th century amassing power to itself. Responsibility is a zero-sum commodity; that is, when the government gains some, someone else (the states or the citizens) lose that exact same amount. Everyone has heard the phrase "with freedom comes responsibility". If the phrase is reversed, we get "with responsibility comes freedom". Consider carefully. This second phrase is just as true as the first, but provides brand new insight into the system. Don't want to worry about your retirement? The government will take care of it. Don't want to worry about paying your medical insurance? No problem. Just give the whole mess to the government, they'll handle it. How much responsibility have we donated to the government over the last century? The list is much longer than I care to itemize here. Of course, the problem is that the government was never designed to handle those problems that were delegated to the states and the citizens of this country, and  this inadequacy shows. How much of each dollar you give to the government to Social Security actually provides income for a retired citizen? How much is lost in the beaurocratic depths of our bloated government, never to be seen again? 30 cents? 40? More? "With responsibility comes freedom".  An inference that can be made here is that less responsibility = less freedom. Think about it.

Our founding fathers created a document (the Constitution) to outline exactly for what our federal government would be responsible. All other responsibilities are quite clearly delegated to the states or the citizens of the United States. It is all fine and well (even desired) to have governent representatives elected by a popular vote (democracy) but we must also take special care to ensure that the government does not become an instrument of the majority to aquire power or advantage over minority interests (republic). We must remember that the nation can be just as powerful with a smaller, less-powerful government. Government decidedly does not equal nation. The government is a tool of the nation. When the federal government acquires power, it is taken from the individual or the state. When the federal government gives it up, it is then handed back to the individual or the state. The amount of power remains the same. Granted, that power will not all be in the hands of just a few people to exert onto the world at will, but that is part of the point, isn't it?

So we can vote for our favorite politician. Great. We qualify as a "democracy". That's wonderful. But what about the republic in democratic republic? As stated earlier, democracy is only ever half of a description of government. If we do not maintain a democratic republic, it will transition into a different form of democracy. Judging by popular ideologies and trends, I'd say we're headed for a democratic socialist state. A sad day for the land of the free.