Between Christmas and New Years, I had lunch with one of my oldest friends, home from New Jersey for the holidays. I had not seen him in more years than I would like to admit I have been out of high school. He said something that I let go at the time but later couldn’t shake. It was quite profound and reminded me of the knack he had for saying things that the rest of us talked about when we were younger, long after he had said them. He kept his opinions to himself much of the time, but would not hesitate to give a thoughtful answer if pressed, and never pulled a punch to avoid controversy. His observations could seem clairvoyant, as if he could notice the Emperor removing his cloths before the rest of us. In this uncharacteristic moment, he was wrong. At least I will attempt to prove him so.
He said, “Democracy does not work. We have proven that we are not even capable of governing ourselves by proxy.”
On the surface he is right. Few will argue that our republic is not working as it was envisioned and certainly not as it did before the New Deal or the Fed, or the gold-standardless-dollar. But is it a failing of democracy? I think not, I exert that the failing is ours. The failing is one of human nature.
If we took a panel of 12 lawyers and placed them in a room with an ailing man, and asked them to vote on what ailed him or what his treatment should be, how likely are we to get a reasonable answer, much less the best one? If we replaced the lawyers with a single Doctor, how different would the outcome be? In fact, ask the attorneys to vote on most any topic, other than that area of law which they are well versed, and how good would you expect the answer to be. Democracy is just this way. An uninformed electorate cannot decide anything of value, except by accident. We should each consult a doctor when ailing, perhaps more than one, instead of turning to democracy. We can only rely on democracy, and our republic built on those ideals, to settle matters of general policy, not which light bulb to use, for instance. We cannot expect to be acceptably governed by proxy with no limits on where such authority ends. The areas which the most central democratic governance should be engaged in should be extremely limited, with each more local subdivision thereof given more and more specific authority as the decisions are made closer and closer to those who will be burdened by the unintended consequences of decisions made in ignorance. The overwhelming majority of authority would remain with the individual where the least ignorance of his condition lies. This is the idea of limited government, individual rights, and personal responsibility which the founders tried to protect in the constitution. Like so many great structures built on such sturdy foundations, it is settling on the rot of apathy and consumption by opportunistic infestations.
Much of the problem our governments face today is the result of the failure of the electorate, not the method of choosing governors. We have fallen for the idea that any educated person will make good decisions for us, without the need for us to keep an eye on them. The truth is, that there is nothing so ignorant as an educated man outside his area of expertise. We point out the difference between book sense, and common sense. The devotion of seeking one, voluntary or otherwise, often leaves little time for the pursuit of the other. We, the doctors, teachers, engineers, construction workers, factory workers, stay at home moms, etc., ad nauseam, have stopped paying attention, stopped making sure that our elected representatives are not making decisions for us about topics that we are better equipped to make for ourselves. (Just as importantly, individuals can make mistakes with relatively little affect on our neighbor and indeed, change our actions following those mistakes with lightning speed compared to the large scale harm government mistakes have and the near impossible reversal of government action.) Once we took our eye off of the public servants, they were persuaded by those who did not. Their egos were stroked and sensibilities wooed by groups who know of the ignorance of the educated man. A doctor would show up and persuade a Congressman that everyone should be able to get their retinas flushed, and would except that the insurance industry doesn’t “want” them to. If only someone would step up and be brave and take them on for the benefit of the little man. . . . and his dusty retinas.
The retinal flusher gizmo manufacturer got his money’s worth by hiring the doctor turned lobbyist. The insurance company would not stay in business long in a free market without offering retinal flush insurance if there were demand for it, as their competition would quickly fill such a void and squeeze them out. But the lobbyist would have them cover such procedures, demand or not. The insurance purchaser is forced to buy insurance for many such procedures that were not asked for, which they may not need. A blind, eyeless man, for instance would be required to buy such insurance if the State he lives in mandates that all minimum policies cover flushes. The ultimate democratic system, the free market, is usurped in this way a thousand times a day. Eventually, the market is so complicated with government mandates that Bob’s Discount Neighborhood Insurance and Surety will never be allowed to open, much less compete with the only insurance company left in town. Democracy creates competition, government creates monopolies.
Limited self government has fallen to unlimited-government-by-lobby. This is organized favoritism which is the hallmark of socialism. An industry or individual succeeds, not by meeting public demand but by receiving favored treatment from government. This is the most common, pervasive, and difficult to eradicate form of corruption. We are no longer governing ourselves, we are serving the government because we are too lazy to keep an eye on those in our custody: Politicians. The inmates are running the asylum because we are too politically correct to call them nuts!
We would not consider it fair if a trial by jury were held where the jury only heard from those with a vested, financial interest in the outcome. Yet we seem perfectly willing to allow a hodge podge of mostly lawyers vote on the health care the rest of us will receive, exempting themselves, behind closed doors, with only lobbyists as a source of information. We then blame democracy when we get something that has more back scratching and pandering than health care.
Democracy has not failed us, we have failed democracy.