Posted on 06/24/2002 3:29:37 PM PDT by ninenot
The following is taken directly from "Chesterton's Mail Bag" and was printed in the current edition of Gilbert! (5/02); it has a bearing on the massive spending increases imposed on the taxpayers by Congress and our President. Since the reply portion of the letter was written in the early 1900's and has specific references to England, I will simply change them to America(n).
You understand that Chesterton was NOT a Libertarian, although he seems to advocate a third party. Chesterton was, instead, for a Government which recognized 'the common man' as its mainstay and which acted to protect 'the common man.' After you read the piece, you will recognize that his similarities to your point of view (especially the philosophical ones) are astounding.
"Dear Mr. Chesterton,
Your idealized Democracy has a fatal flaw. The problem with rule by the people is that it leads to a fanatical struggle for power by the politicians. That factor alone will prevent the best men from devoting themselves to politics. (Signed) 'Oligarchist.'
Dear 'Oligarchist,'
I doubt whether the best men ever would devote themselves to politics. The best men devote themselves to pigs and babies and things like that.
And as for the fanatical conflict in party politics, I wish there was more of it. The real danger of the two parties with their two policies is that they unduly limit the outlook of the ordinary citizen. He is never allowed to do anything except prefer one existing party to another.
We have not got real Democracy when the decision depends upon the people. We shall have real Democracy when the problem depends on the people. The ordinary man will decide not only how he will vote, but what he is going to vote about.
Democracy has a right to answer questions, but it has no right to ask them. It is still the political aristocracy that asks the questions. And we shall not be unreasonably cynical if we suppose that the political aristocracy will always be rather careful what questions it asks.
If the dangerous comfort and self-flattering of modern America continues much longer there will be less democratic value in an American election than in a Roman saturnalia of slaves. Or the powerful class will choose two courses of action, both of them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of taking one course or the other.
The Senator/Representative/President will take two things so much alike that he would not mind choosing from them blindfolded--and then for a great jest he will allow the slaves to choose.
(Signed)G. K. Chesterton
This is good.
When we stop obsessing over whom to vote for for president (which is always a losing bet of the kind Chesterton described) and instead focus on Congress. The establishment can't manipulate congressional elections with the same ease as with presidential elections.
Chesterton has a point when he writes that the "best people" concern themselves with "pigs and babies and things like that." But the conclusion to draw from this seems to be the opposite from what he claims. Making society more political, opening more questions up to political decision, consequently means turning over control over more of our lives to the worse sort of people.
It's clear that the elites raise the questions, and we vote yes or no, but it's hard to see how things could be otherwise. Changing the questions isn't simply a question of ordinary people speaking up, it's usually a matter of a new elite coming into its own. Such an elite may be based on popular discontent and may relieve popular grievances, but eventually it becomes another arrogant, established elite.
But the people aren't completely silent. What the people do bring to politics is the questions of whether they are better now than they were before and whether they can hope to be better off if they elect this or that candidate. There's a desire to believe that there is some great buried groundswell of discontent. That's not usually the case. "The people" generally vote based on pocket-book issues.
It's hard to make that judgment with certainty. The conclusion I would be more inclined to draw from the record is that European-style parliamentary systems (which incidentally tend to be multi-party) are more unstable than the American-style constitutional system. The former have almost nothing in the way of constitutional checks and balances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.