[Note: It has been a while since I’ve written one of these blogs or been active on Facebook. Not to worry, I am still around and kicking. Simply having another access issue with Facebook and have been a bit distracted in general to crank out my musings. Perhaps I am slowing up but I ain’t quite finished yet. 😀]

Let me start this blog with an old adage, oft attributed to Winston Churchill. It goes something as follows: Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable, except for all the rest. There is a core truth in this quip. At their best, democratic processes can be slow, confusing, confounding, contentious, often contradictory, and inevitably frustrating. Yet, I suspect we will miss them, and the results they generate, if those processes they were no longer available to us. Then again, how much of the so-called experiment in democracy, at least the version we have experienced, is a mere chimera … more illusion than reality. Why don’t we take a look!

I think back to our earliest days. The colonial hotheads, best personified by Sam Adams, justified separation from England with the catchy one liner, no taxation without representation. Sounds noble enough but I have always wondered about the authenticity of this sentiment.

As I reflect on contemporary American dispositions, perhaps our persistent reluctance to contribute to our common good (i.e. pay taxes) best captures our character as well as the real purpose behind our heroic aqnd revolutionary fervor back in the 1770s. And remember this, only a third of the colonists were committed patriots. It doesn’t take a majority to change the world.

Among advanced nations, the truth be admitted, we are a peculiarly selfish lot. Witness how comparatively stingy we are to our less fortunate brethren. That makes me wonder. Was freedom ever our foundational concern in the beginning or were we mostly motivated by more mundane and pedestrian concerns … like a strong reluctance to pay for the services we received? Hmmm!

Back to our birth as a nation. When you think on it, King George had depleted his treasury while helping the colonists stave off irritating incursions from hostile natives and those pesky French on our western and northern borders. During the so-called Seven Years War, this is exactly what the crown did. From London’s perspective, asking their colonial subjects for some help in recovering a portion of these military expenses seemed a quite reasonable request. After all, George had depleted his treasury in this effort (along with his other conflicts with France).

The crown’s erstwhile loyal subjects, however, would have none of that. Especially in Boston, they hounded British officials, attacked the homes of tax officials, harassed his Majesty’s troops, and threw British tea into the harbor despite the fact that a surplus of this libation would have lowered its general cost. Let’s face it, we have hated taxes from day one with a peculiar fervor.

King Louis of France should have paid attention to this quirk in the American character, a stubborn reluctance to spend anything unless one personally and immediately profited from the expense. Unfortunately for Louis, he acceded to Benjamin Franklin’s persistent entreaties to financially support the American uprising.

He acquiesced after the British effort to cut off the troublemakers in New England from the rest of the colonies ended in defeat at the Battle of Saratoga. The French realized that this ragged band of colonists just might defeat the best army of those times. At the least, we had a good shot at outlasting them, much like the North Vietnamese did to us in the 1960s and 70s.

From France’s perspective, perhaps the donation of troops and naval resources were gifts to the Colonial cause. But the generous financial support to our struggling revolution was surely considered a loan. Once the revolution had been successfully concluded, the French King expected to get his money back.

Right! He woefully mistook the American character. France’s generosity was never going to be repaid, a default that came at great cost to the monarchy. Louis soon found himself so broke that he had to convene the Estates General, a rare and desperate act on his part. He needed their assent to raise more revenue to replenish a bankrupt treasury. What he got instead was the French Revolution, a forfeited throne, and a lost head.

Perhaps my take on things is overly cynical, and surely these musings should be seen as a simplified version of events in a complex era. Still, I cannot shake the feeling that America was founded on the principle of selfishness rather than higher ideals such as a belief in participitory democracy.

This inbred selfishness may explain why some two and a half centuries later, we have one of the weakest social safety nets among our peer nations. Most other advanced nations not only spend more on the common good than we do (consider universal health care) but they tend to do so with comparatively little complaint. They see positive outcomes from their contributions to the state and to the general well-being of society. Continuous moaning about taxes hasn’t become a national pastime elsewhere as it has long been in the States.

Our embedded selfishness has surfaced in odd ways. At the start of WWII, we were committed isolationists. We only reluctantly provided Britain with needed resources to fight Hitler. In point of fact, the Brits were doing us a favor by keeping this insane Nazi megalomaniac occupied, forcing him into a two front war that even most Germans thought unwinnable. Yet, we mostly ignored the depth and reality of the British sacrifice.

Not surprisingly, we insisted on treating any such assistance as a loan that had to be repaid. While we took control of various ports etc. under the provisions of the lend-lease initiatives, much of the assistance was in the form of conventional loans. Even though Britain basically was bankrupt at the end of that war, we expected repayment. And they did, even if that obligation was not fully satisfied until early in the 21st century.

I focus on this stubborn streak of simple selfishness since it bears rather directly on the fate of our democratic experiment. Think on this for a moment. A stable and functioning democracy requires mutual compromise and shared values. Everyone has to sacrifice some level of autonomy and (in economic terms) personal utility (well-being) to make it work. At the most fundamental level, a modicum of trust and sacrifice is required.

Our founders surely did not evidence the needed trust as they considered introducing some kind of democracy in the birthing of our Republic. In fact, they were driven by an abiding fear of what they considered the mob. The founders, those who created and approved our Constitution, were men of education and gentility and property. They saw their class as being best prepared for leadership. They were our first elite. But what about the great unwashed out there. Could they be trusted?

Not surprisingly, our homegrown elite showed great reluctance in extending suffrage to most of their fellow colonists. Women were excluded, plus Native Americans, virtually all African Americans, and many landless whites. Essentially, only wealthier or propertied white males were entrusted with the vote. There apparently were some limitations to that all men are created equal thing.

True, there were no examples of universal suffrage to be copied at the time. In Switzerland, it had long been the custom in their 26 Cantons to gather all men in the town squares and have direct votes on public matters. Except for the city-states during the golden age of ancient Greece and some cqolonial townships, such examples of direct democracy were rare. And even these Swiss examples were, as noted, limited to male suffrage. Most of these Cantons did not extend suffrage to women until 1971 (a full half century after the U.S.). The last holdout did not permit women to vote until 1981.

One fear dominated our founders as they considered the complete ramifications of a full democratic experiment. What if the poor, the unwashed, the unlettered, or (God forbid) the non-white actually were permitted to participate in society’s governance. Might they not be tempted to exploit their superior numbers to favor their own selfish, entrenched interests and privileges. Those interests, the privileged could see, would be contrary to those long enjoyed by the current elite.

Heaven forbid, might the rabble not tax the propertied classes more vigorously to help the less fortunate … namely themselves? Wouldn’t that directly contravene God’s will in which prosperity somehow reflected His grace and favor? After all, most societies back then reflected a hierarchical picture of society. A few at the top had the necessary wherewithal for leadership, an exacting role that demanded refinement and sufficient leisure to reflect upon what constituted a proper society. Those that did society’s hard work did not enjoy such opportunities.

What I find sad is that so many around me seek the certainty of autocratic rule. They want to be led, told what to believe. It strikes me that the best estimates suggest that one-third surely would abandon democracy in a heartbeat, blindly following any strongman or cabal of well- financed masters of technology. In the States, that figure may be somewhat higher. And remember, our colonial revolution, the Bolshevik insurrection, even the rise of Naziism all succeeded with support from a only a minority of the population.

So, as noted, voting privileges mostly were limited to propertied white males. The electoral college was inserted between the vote and political appointments, just in case the wrong element won those elections. And members of the Senate would be appointed by state legislatures, not elected by direct votes. Nor would political factions, read political parties, be tolerated. They might resemble the unruly factions that Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton feared most, even as those iconic figures created our original ideological split … the Democratic-Republicans versus the Federalists.

Democracy would be tried but in a quite tentative manner. Still, those archaic rules and protocols limiting a full democracy gradually were negated or abandoned, but only slowly and carefully. The Electoral college eventually became a mere perfunctory step in electing our President as opposed to a barrier against unwise outcomes. In the early 20th century, members of the Senate finally would be elected directly rather than appointed by the elite in each state.

Over time, suffrage gradually was extended to new groups, though grudgingly and with considerable reluctance. First, all white males (not just property owners) were enfranchised. Then, non- white males legally joined them after the Civil War. In the 20th century, women, Native Americans, and several other marginalized groups won the right to vote. Eventually, our traditional minority groups gained actual (as opposed to de jure) access to the polls with the voting rights legislation of the 1960s. Note that the simple ‘right’ to vote had not mean access to the polls for most black Americans. The KKK and Jim Crowe laws saw to that.

After two centuries, and much struggle, America finally had something close to a mature democracy by the late 1960s. The promise of our oft praised political revolution had finally been redeemed. Then, what might have been expected all along soon emerged, at first tentatively but soon with considered vigor.

Almost immediately, some of the more privileged elements of our society began to fight back. The elite did not take their loss of status quietly. Democracy as a reality, as opposed to a mere slogan, proved to be a bridge too far. A neo- liberal counter revolt began to take shape.

And what has happened over the past five or so decades? We have witnessed a fight to dismantle that American experiment in the very moment it had become a mature democracy. Why? The reasons are not difficult to infer. The elite, those who believe they were destined to rule, could not accept this new reality of a fully shared governance.

Some of the early steps were largely invisible to the larger society. Richard Nixon realized that enhanced access to the polls for Black Americans represented a threat to Republican interests. He couldn’t reverse the 1965 Viting Rights Act. But he did push existing drug laws in ways that increased the incarceration rates of Blacks exponentially. And felons couldn’t vote in many jurisdictions. Clever, no? Evil, yes!

Sometimes, that counter- revolt has been explicit and very visible. Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election was a specific and dramatic example of disabusing safeguards inserted into our democratic rules by our founding fathers. He tried to force the electoral college to disregard the actual vote and keep him in office, by deceit if at all possible or by force if necessary. He went as far as encouraging his mob of supporters to attack the Capitol and threaten his Vice President as he tried to execute his clear Constitutional responsibilities. But Pence was an old style Republican  who still believed in our laws. His days in the MAGA fold had come to an abrupt end.

The war to dismantle our now (mostly) complete democracy, however, more often has been less dramatic. Still, some tactics are rather obvious. While both parties engage in gerrymandering when they can, Republicans have turned that practice into an art form.

Wisconsin has been an excellent example. Recently,  Democrats have won a majority of votes for both statewide offices and for local offices when all votes are aggregated statewide. Yet, Republicans control the state Assembly and Senate. Legislative boundaries have been drawn to favor GOP candidates for office thus effectively eliminating the one- person and one- vote principle. Some votes, when located in carefully constructed districts, simply count for less (or more) than others.

When a Wisconsin Supreme Court race threatened the existing conservative majority on the state’s highest bench, some $100 million dollars poured into the race. Elon Musk hinself spent $20 plus million to sway the outcome. After all, the future of right- wing hegemony and gerrymandering were at stake. It was not rocket science to figure out that a functioning democracy directly threatened seminal conservative (elite) interests. Even a state Supreme Court contest assumed existential importance.

Most strategies are less direct but no less obvious. These focus primarily on disenfranchising voters viewed as suspect for one reason or the other. Correcting fraud is offered as the rationale while inhibiting participation is the real goal. Closing voting sites in Minority communities, requiring restrictive proof of citizenship, limiting mail- in voting options, and restricting voting hours are a few favored tactics. Whatever the strategy, the end is simple … to discourage voting among disfavored groups.

And, of course, the rules were bent to permit vast amounts of money into our elections. At times, the legal gymnastics were mind bending. Corporations were to be considered people to justify the Citizens United Court decision that opened up the money flood gates. There would be no equal playing field in politics. If you cannot win elections fairly, then screw with the rules.

Even as the American experiment in democracy matured in the form of expanded suffrage and better access to the voting booths, concerns about democracy’s core efficacy remained. That is, do the best and brightest always rise to the top? In most parliamentary systems, voters choose their local representatives but the Prime Minister (the effective head of state) is selected by the majority party.

Whatever the official rationale for this protocol, it does prevent the people (the unwashed masses) from directly selecting the head of state. This must be a relief in places like Britain knowing that their approach makes it less likely that a deplorable, degenerate, and despicable character such as Donald Trump would ever be selected for such a critical position.

In those systems, the party in power screens for minimal competence for the chief executive position among the candidates within its elected  ranks. That likely was the role initially expected of members of the electoral college, to ensure that no ridiculous buffoon got the position simply because the people could not be trusted. I hate to admit this but there might have been some merit to our founding fathers suspicions about giving the vote to all. Watching the MAGA types explain themselves is a sobering exercise. No wonder that Trump cultists cannot locate their self interests.

At the time in which our national experiment was launched, enlightened thought had begun to posit considerable faith in the wisdom of the people. In his 1762 tract titled the Social Contract, philosopher Jean Jaque Rousseau argued that the “general will cannot err.” He and others lived during a time when top- down autocratic rule was being challenged by enlightened thinkers. These intellectuals ascribed almost mystical powers to the people. Broader political participation was thought to negate egregious self- interest.

At the same time, Adam Smith was giving a series of lectures that were formalized in his classic 1776 work, The Wealth of Nations. His thinking was later interpeted, though incorrectly in my opinion, to assign almost mystical powers to the invisible hand of the market place. The sum of many decisions, made freely and independently, results in efficient markets or, in our social arena, the best political decisions. As the old saying goes, 40 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.

But market failures are real, and the results have proven disastrous on occasion. Almost two decades ago, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was revered as the wizard keeping the economy functioning. His own personal religion was the magic of free markets that were unhindered by excessive control or regulation.

Then came the 2008 housing crash that almost brought down the global economy. Appearing before Congress, Alan admitted that ‘he had been wrong.’ Free individuals, each acting in their own self interest, do not result in the best of all possible worlds. At times, quite often really, the results of free markets (and even free elections) are awful.

Plato’s solution to the challenges of governing was the benign king. A well- meaning autocrat would be a most efficient and effective rulers as long as he governed dispassionately and for the benefit of all. The rub is where to find such gods. 

The fabulously wealthy tech-bros (Musk, Bezos, Altman, Zuckerberg, and the like) appear to be seeking such a vision at the moment. They see society as best best served when directed by a superior elite (a cabal of benign kings) which, of course, is them. They have accumulated billions upon billions because they are smarter, more disciplined, and more creative than anyone else. Who better to serve as custodian of our future. Besides, they have accumulated the resources and means (like ownership of mass media outlets) to control the rest of us.

It is a vision driven by hubris and privilege. In fact, these tech-bros are frantically building the technologies presumably capable of commanding our futures. Peter Thiel, one of their more verbal leaders, asserts that democracy clearly is counter productive. It is not to be tolerated. Time for the elite, along with the ASI technologies they are creating, to assume control.

In truth, this is the oldest vision in the world. The powerful have always believed that they, and only they, were positioned to lead. Guess what? Their conclusions about what is best for the country, or for the globe, or for our futures inevitably turns out to be the same as what is best for them.

So, ask yourself this. What will happen to us common folk when the tech elite manage to subvert what remains of our democracy. Think about what logic would dictate when ordinary humans become redundant and very replacable. I doubt you need to think very hard on this matter. And the tech elite, our new benign kings, have an exit plan if the mob resists the logical end point of their vision. They are frantically fantasizing about colonizing other planets for the times when their machines render our earthly home pretty much uninhabitable, at least for what remains of our species.

As the AI revolution emerges, many question whether the days when homo-sapiens dominated things are at an end. Equally probable is the other 900 pound gorilla in the room. Is our long- revered democratic experiment finally at an end?

I do worry about the future of our species and our long struggle to perfect democracy. Perhaps, in the end, Churchill was right … “Democracy really does suck, except for all the alternatives.” I will miss it, foibles and all, when it is no more.