Age of Democracy

Have you ever wondered about our government? I mean really wondered if our claims to be "the greatest country on earth" could be really substantiated by something other than circumstantial evidence? What other forms of government are there? How have they performed? Surely, in the history of mankind, different models have been played out. One would think that in all those thousands of years, we might have perfected the perfect model. And if we did, why wouldn't the rest of the world be clamoring to adopt it?

I understand that about the time our original thirteen states adopted their new Constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had something to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier. "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government." He continued, "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." And he concluded, "From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Professor Tyler opined further on the subject that the average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, he believed that those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

• from bondage to spiritual faith;
• from spiritual faith to great courage;
• from courage to liberty;
• from liberty to abundance;
• from abundance to complacency;
• from complacency to apathy;
• from apathy to dependence;
• from dependence back into bondage;

Current professors, such as Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, believe that our current political and social agenda in the U.S. suggests that over 40% of the nation's population has already reached the governmental dependency phase.

Now I'm no college professor. I'm probably not qualified to opine on any of this stuff. But as I look out across the world, and as I have been a student of the world all my life, I notice something. I notice that no matter the form of government, or alleged phases that a society moves through, there are failures. The dependencies are broken ... over and over again ... and the society's fail. We've seen many of them in our own lifetimes too.

One of the curious models that intrigues me is the United Kingdom. The Queen, or rather the multi-generational monarchy, seems to have outlasted most. I marvel at that. Having lived in London for a time, I have to admit that it didn't feel like a society that was much different than ours here in the U.S. Nevertheless, one was always conscious of the Queen. She is revered and highly regarded. Though her children have at times behaved as guests on the Jerry Springer show, the Queen Elizabeth has been steady ... above reproach. I wonder if that is what lends stability to that model of government. I wonder if our U.S. government might function any differently if we had ourselves a monarchy as well.

I don't know if the monarchy is the way to go, because other monarchies don't demonstrate nearly the same results. Most don't have the longevity that the U.K. model has produced. Most also don't have the stability, even when they have a highly revered monarch. I was in Thailand when their King was celebrating his jubilee (50 years of reign). He is highly regarded, well respected and well loved by his people. I thought it was odd that he is American born. I took note of the fact that Islamic extremists were creating havoc in the southern provinces of the country. And I took note when there was a military coup in Thailand recently. Clearly the Queen of England has something figured out that the King of Thailand doesn't!

Some years ago, I remember developing a philosophy --- a theory really, about government. My conclusion at the time was that "Man is too stupid to rule himself." Now that I'm older, I believe this is still a true statement. I'm not sure that it's democracy which fails. But rather the failures of democracy (or other forms of society) are just evidence of the real truth --- that man is just not capable of ruling himself.

Today, my theory continues to evolve and build. Where I'm at today is having an understanding of why the first statement is true. Men (and women) are broken people, living in a fallen world. Is it any wonder that government after government, and society after society eventually collapses?

I don't know how the future of the U.S. will play out. I doubt it will go away in our lifetime. But I see serious building of problems that make me wonder how long it can last. I'll talk about the national debt issue and my concerns in that regard next.