His answer is a group of small republics united in the sphere of foreign relations. To what extent was he right? Is he right today, with a much larger country?
I think he was dead on. I much prefer government to be localized because I like the competition aspect, and IMO there is more liberty. But it seems to me Bryan was not looking at what he would prefer, but what would not dissolve into despotism. Many may argue that the limiting factor was speed of communication, and therefore the situation is much different today, but I believe the inherent problem with large government is that it separates the legislators from the citizens to a great extent. Chances are very good that my senators will NEVER even meet me. I'm not saying we need to shoot pool every Friday night, but there should at least be a chance that we might encounter each other.
Is despotism inevitable, and why or why not?
No, but darn close. There are those that will struggle endlessly for it. I happen to be of the opinion that it will take something big (near revolution or major economic depression) to bring about a return to the love of liberty. Unfortunately, in the two biggest examples we have seen so far we have moved in exactly the wrong direction.
No man shall sit in congress longer than two years successively, nor be capable of reelection for three Years afterwards: and no person who holds any office in the gift of the congress shall hereafter be elected to represent this commonwealth in congress.
Pennsylvania enacted term limits for its congressmen in its constitution. That is what Bryan is referring to.
...but I believe the inherent problem with large government is that it separates the legislators from the citizens to a great extent.
This is a critical point. Were we to adhere to the rule of 30,000, then we would have 10,000 congressmen in the House today. This is why I've begun to think that we should maintain the House of Repesentatives on the Internet and actually have those 10,000 congresscrittters. They would never leave home, would be available to their constituents 24/7, and would work via secure server. Bribing that many congressmen would be much more difficult than bribing 435.
Technically, your senator should be reporting to your state legislature, and you shouldn't need to see him.
I happen to be of the opinion that it will take something big (near revolution or major economic depression) to bring about a return to the love of liberty.
A collapse of the economy and the currency might suffice, with the forced return to a hard currency of some kind, perhaps gold, silver, oil, or a basket of commodities. Whatever it is would require that people no longer look to goverment to provide their daily bread.
The citizens of the Soviet Union faced that challenge when their nation collapsed. An entire generation had been brought up under Brezhnev, relying on the government to provide everything. Once the system disappeared, they had to survive by learning new skills. Today there is more economic freedom in Russia than the US, but the Russians still don't have the rule of law.
With all due respect, that would be your fault... and you have your subject backward... it should be YOU that meets your senator.
Gaining an audience with my representative, the representative that covers the district where my office is located, my state representatives and state senator has been suprizingly easy. Getting an audience with one of the U.S. Senators has been more difficult, but not impossible. Knowing their staff is perhaps more important and much easier to accomplish.
BTW, I do like that I run into my representative (Joe Barton) at the Kroger or elsewhere in the neighborhood about once a quarter. I always make a point of saying hello and reminding him where he has met me in the past. I realize he probably doesn't care, but I like to think that when I do meet him in his office that at least my face is familier...(sans bag, of course)