Questions and Answers

Question: What if the representative does not keep his pledge. What can the Committee do?

Answer: If the Representative is totally dishonorable, there is little we can do in the short term. They will not support him for re-election and replace him with another candidate. The Committee can publicly announce his betrayal and call for his resignation. If public opinion is roused enough, some of the dishonorable ones will resign. If nothing else, the public disgrace will be enough to send not to betray their word.

Question: You say the voting is done by Co-Legislators. How are they selected?

Answer: They select themselves. This position is open to all legal voters of all races, color and creeds. All a person has to do is to prove he is a citizen and a potential voter in the district or state of the Representative or Senator with whom he is going to Co-Legislate.

Question: How will the Co-Legislator cast his vote?

Answer: After his identify is proven he will cast his vote through a secure internet site. Only one vote will be allowed per voter per issue. To avoid fraud, each Co-Legislator’s identity will be verified. When he is properly set up to vote, then he merely sends it through the internet.

Measures must be taken to avoid fraud such as one activist sending in a thousand votes from a thousand people processed by a pressure group. There are ways to avoid this, such as verifying individual applications and IP addresses. After a vote an automated reply could be sent to the voter’s email address to which he must respond within a set period of time.  If he does not verify, then the vote would not be counted.

Question: How will the Co-Legislator get information about upcoming bills and items to vote on?

Answer: Fortunately, in this technological age we have easy access to information through the internet. The Committee with the help of the representatives will gather all information on items that are coming up for vote and will post them on the Web. The voter can then download information on the items that interest him, study them and vote his viewpoint

In addition to the cut-and-dry wording of the various pieces of legislation, the Committee will also post news articles, columns and comments made by people of prominence about the legislation.

The representative will also post his opinions about the matter and whether or not he thinks the vote should be yes or no. If he is doing his job properly, his opinion will carry quite a bit of weight with the voters because he will often have insight that others may lack.

Nevertheless, voters are free to accept or reject his suggestions.

Question: Not everyone has a computer or is computer literate. How are these people supposed to vote?

Answer: If they do not have a computer they can go to the public library, set up an e-mail account and also gain Internet access.

On the other hand, if they have a complete mental block about using computers and wouldn’t know what to do if they had one, they can then go to one of the offices of the Committee for Representation. There, a volunteer will set them up with an e-mail account and do all the computer work for them. Hard copies of all legislation will be available when practical for the non-computer people and copies will be made and distributed on request for the cost of materials. Thus, even the most computer-illiterate among us will have full access to all information and voting privileges.

We might note here that the rising generation is close to becoming 100% computer literate. In another generation only the most mentally challenged will not be using them and, on second thought, maybe even they will join in.

Question: Many people are very incredulous of poll results and are down on the idea of voting by polls. Wouldn’t this be a similar thing?

Answer: Not at all. As we previously discussed, polls can be manipulated by designer questions and be very deceptive, but a direct vote from an informed people is a true representation of what they really desire.

The Co-Legislator would not receive some phone call while he is in the middle of dinner, asking his opinion on something he could care less about. Instead, he selects items that are of interest to him and votes because he is informed and concerned. This produces a much more intelligently-cast vote than any poll and brings true representation.

Question: What is the elected representative supposed to do? Twiddle his thumbs?

Answer: We admit that he will not be as occupied with lobbyists, action committees and fundraisers as much as other legislators, but he should be busier than ever concerning the people’s business. This new generation of legislator will not be in the position for the power, but for service to his country. The motto will be: “What can I do for my country?”

As a true public servant he will be looked upon more as a manager and teacher by his voters rather than a power broker who votes his own will.

As a manager, he gathers data and informs his voters. As a teacher, he explains the issues at hand so his Co-Legislators can make the most intelligent of decisions.

Question: What if the legislator has to vote yes on a bill that is totally contrary to either his conscience or good sense?

Answer: There will be times that the legislator will disagree with the vote of his Co-Legislators, but he will be tested for his open-mindedness before he is endorsed by the Committee.

For instance, one of the hottest topics of the day is abortion. Feelings are very strong in both directions. If the Committee were in place today, one of the questions to be asked a potential legislator would be something like this: “If an abortion bill came up for vote, would you be willing to vote the will of the people above your own in the matter?”

If he cannot answer yes to this and other questions on controversial issues, then the Committee could not endorse him.

Those in support of this new system will come to realize that they may not get their way all the time, but that the votes cast will overall be in a safe and sane direction that brings more opportunity to the common people and less intrusion of government into our lives.

I recently heard a commentator make a shrewd observation. He said that both the Democrats and Republicans support government intrusion into our lives. The Democrats want economic intrusion and the Republicans want moral intrusion. Through the Committee for Representation we can help limit the power of both forms of intrusion.

Question: I have to admit that this idea sounds pretty good. It seems like it should be an easy sell.

Answer: Nothing innovative, no matter how good it is, is easy to sell to the masses. In general, people are skeptical of new things. The first thing they look for is the sinister motive behind the initiator.

My answer to that problem is this question: what could be sinister about the will of the people being represented more completely?


On the other hand, there will be enemies of this idea and it will be interesting to see them crawl to the surface. Many current politicians, who enjoy the full power of their office and delight in being catered to because of the power of their vote, will certainly be negative on the concept. Lobbyists who will lose much of their power will fight it tooth and nail. Party leaders will be aghast because they will no longer be able to command voting blocks as they have in the past. Some will be upset that they can no longer trade votes.

In addition to this, many fringe groups on the edge will be upset that their ideas will have little chance of getting public attention because the common sense of the Co-Legislators will override extreme ideas that are dangerous to the nation.

On the other hand, a common sense fringe group has a good chance of going mainstream through the new system.

If an idea is truly good, the majority will sooner or later embrace it.

Question: You seem to talk about national politicians, but how about state and local governments and the presidency itself?

Answer: This process is needed most among national Representatives and Senators. It could also be used to a degree with a cooperating President. As it is instituted effectively on a national level, then we can see more clearly about how it can be applied to lower level offices.

Question: Is this concept Constitutional?

Answer: Yes. It works within the framework of the established Constitution and national laws. That’s the beauty of it. The Committee for Representation works within the framework of the establishment. It will be like a shot of strong medicine given to a sick body. Once this new system is securely in place party affiliation will fade into the background, for it will not matter which party is elected; the key for effective government becomes unity, not division.

Question: Sounds like a great idea. I’m ready to run for office now on the Molecular platform. Shall I plunge ahead?

Answer: If you run on the Molecular politics platform of representing the people, no matter what your personal opinions are, you will have a great advantage right there. BUT, that by itself is not likely to get a person of good will elected. Unless our candidate is a very savvy and dynamic personality, in the beginning large sums of money will be needed to get elected.

The first step will be popularize the Molecular politics ideas. The second step will be to gather seed money from people interested in the idea. The third step will be to create a national organization dedicated to this purpose.

The fourth step is to then approach potential candidates who have enough gravitas to get elected. The attraction for them is that Molecular politics will appeal to the people and will provide a means to get in office. The downside for them that they must accept is that they will not have the personal power and glamour of the other politicians because they follow the will of the people and not their own will. Even so, many fair-minded politicians would be interested in this plan. For one thing, the first ones will be part of a movement that could change the political world all over the planet. They would be a part of history.

Fifth, after a candidate gets elected, we set up Co-Legislators and a secure internet site where they can make known the will of the people in the appropriate district or state to the representative.

The only way to make Molecular politics work is to first commit the politician to honor the will of his Co-Legislators BEFORE he gets elected . Any politician who is already elected cannot be expected to place any weight behind the idea, but these individuals will generally belittle it and fight against it. Current politicians listen to their peers and interest groups much more than the people as a whole.

Question: I’ve always thought a good elected official is one who is willing to vote what he thinks is right even if he goes against the majority. Shouldn’t a representative vote his conscience?

Answer: Under the current system you have a point. The most desirable candidate is one who truly wants to serve his country, and votes for what he thinks is best no matter what the consequences.

This would also be the ideal candidate in a perfect world, but, alas, that is not our world at present.

But, we are in a transition period where, instead of enlightened representatives, we have mostly corrupted ones because of the outside pressures having little relation to the will of the people.

Under the current system, when the representative goes against the will of the people, it is usually an unenlightened rather than an enlightened decision. When one averages out what the people as a whole think (when properly informed) vs. how the politicians vote, then we see the will of the people is the more enlightened of the two.

To make Molecular politics work, the candidate must agree to follow the will of his Co-Legislators with his voting, even if it goes strongly against his beliefs. If he has a strong belief that he will follow, even if it goes against the will of his Co-Legislators, then he could not be a Molecular candidate. He has to absolutely commit to the will of the people, and if he violates this once, then the Molecular organization will not support him for re-election.

The Molecular organization will have great power over the politicians, because when the people see how it works, they will vote for the will of the people dominating. In other words, they will vote for the Molecular candidate who represents them over the candidate who votes his own will.

Under this plan, the representative will be both a manager and educator. If he thinks he sees more correctly than his constituents, he will seek to educate them so they will change their minds toward a more reasonable direction. If the representative is a good teacher, he will have a powerful sway over his constituents; but, if he cannot convince them, he must vote with the majority of those he serves.

Question: It sounds above as if the elected representative will not have much authority, but must simply vote his constituency’s will every time no matter what, or he will no longer be supported by the Molecular organization.  Is this correct?

Answer: This is correct. Unfortunately, in politics things have to be pretty black and white. If one allows an inch in leeway, the politician will take a mile and give the most creative excuses possible for his “one exception to the rule”, which turns into many exceptions.

One may ask, what if the majority demands something crazy, like sending a nuclear bomb to destroy France?

First, something this crazy will not even come up for vote. Congress will still be responsible for creating legislation, and they do come up with some things we consider outrageous – but bombing France is not likely.  The will of the people is much more likely to reject bad legislation than is the will of Congress.

Question: I’m concerned that the Molecular politician will not live up to his commitment to follow the will of the people. There is an organization that has sought to get politicians to sign voluntary “term limits”, and some have indeed signed and some have reneged. For the most part it is just ignored.

Answer: Yes, I remember that drive to get politicians to sign voluntary term limits. I thought it was one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen and knew it wouldn’t work. Don’t get me wrong, I think enforced term limits is a good idea, but this voluntary idea was doomed for two reasons.

First, it had no teeth to enforce it and a representative would suffer no repercussions for breaking the pledge. Secondly, the ones who did take the pledge and kept it were the cream of the crop that we did not want to resign. This merely turned out to be a way to get rid of the few honest people we had in Congress.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Molecular politics, when established, will have teeth because every representative wants to get re-elected and keep his good reputation. When the people see that their will is being followed through the Molecular politics organization, they will continue to vote within that system. If a politician defies the will of the people, he will be thrown out of that system and disgraced so he will not be re-elected. The voting of the people will be turned from voting for the personality to actually voting for issues.


Tell us more about how it is that the politician will accurately know the will of the people. Or how the people will know and be able to punish the politician who doesn’t follow it.

Answer: His constituents would be invited to be Co-Legislators with him. This would be open to anyone in his voting district. Let us say there are a million potential voters there. Not all of them would sign up. At first, the number would probably be below 10%, but would grow as Molecular politics became more popular. Let us assume that the politician has 100,000 Co-Legislators and two items are coming up to vote. The first is a funding project for electric cars and the second concerns abortion. 30,000 vote on the electric cars, but a whopping 80,000 vote on the hot topic of abortion.

A majority of the 30,000 (or 18,000) voted for the funding for electric cars;  a majority of the 80,000 (or 42,000) voted against the abortion bill. The legislator then looks at the tabulation and is committed to vote with the majority in both cases. He will vote for the funding bill and against the abortion bill since that is what the majority of those who voted told him to do.

The Molecular organization placed the politician in power through endorsing him and raising money for his election. He has made a strict commitment to always vote with the majority of his Co-Legislators. If he does not, then all funding through Molecular sources will get cut off, and it will be published that the politician has disgraced himself by breaking his word. When this program becomes popular with the people, the politician has to cooperate to avoid disgrace and losing his position.

Another point that helps insure that the politician cooperates is that he will understand the plan when he signs up. Many who clearly understand that they must vote according to the will of the people will be the type of people not looking for power and more likely than average to keep their word without coercion.

Question: There seems to be an evolutionary process in the creation, growth, and eventual decay of systems and societies. The Roman Republic followed by the Roman Empire is one well-known example. Once the rot sets in, it is pretty hard to turn a system around. Can you give me even one example from history of a society – that has had the decay set in, as it has in America – being turned around or reformed?

Answer: Every civilization and kingdom has had its ups and downs. Without the more enlightened working to make things better, there would have been no ups and history would be wrought with much more pain than we have had.

The Civil War is an example of something that created positive change in the history of a nation. We had reached a point of tension where it looked like the experiment in democracy had failed, and America was going to its demise. Most of Europe expected a collapse. Instead, we fought to save the Union and end slavery – and the forces of evolution prevailed. The nation became a more civil place to live. Even Congress became more civil. Before the war, representatives sometimes attacked each other physically or challenged each other to duels to the death.

In the Roman Empire after a rule of some of the worst tyrants in history such as Caligula, Nero and Domitian, it entered into a period of positive change through five much improved emperors who were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. Their reigns lasted between 96 to 180 AD.

Some influences came from the bottom up, but in that day those at the top had to cooperate for improvements in government to be made.

We have a tremendous advantage in our day. The law, as we now have it, still allows change to be made from the grassroots level. This is an advantage that the Romans did not have.

Rome lasted around a thousand years and we are only 233 years old (as of this writing). There still exists the possibility of turning the country around. It would be easier if we had a great leader like Abraham Lincoln, but, barring that, the people are our greatest hope. A situation must be created where the common people believe in themselves and assume more power ,for they have more common sense than the uncommon sense of our leaders.

William F. Buckley said he would rather be governed by random names picked from the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty of his day. I think many would rather be governed by a random selection of average people than by Congress. There’s a lot of truth in that observation.

Question: How would I go about implementing Molecular politics in my area and what issues should I stress?

Answer: A candidate running on the Molecular platform has only one issue, which is:


This will have a very powerful appeal. As soon as you start talking about issues, the public will sense which side you favor and half will turn against you.

Obama illustrated the power of delivering a central message and avoiding the issues. His problem now is that he will have to make decisions based on issues which will anger many people who imagined he thought otherwise.

On the other hand, the Molecular candidate can honestly avoid the issues because he does not vote on what he believes, but what the people believe. This is powerful because most people believe the majority is not represented well.

Imagine the Molecular candidate in a debate and he is asked, “What is your position on abortion?”

He will answer, “It doesn’t matter what my position is. I will vote on what the people I represent want, not what I want.”

“What’s your position on the budget?”

He will answer,  “It doesn’t matter what my position is. I will vote on what the people I represent want, not what I want.”

When the people hear this over and over, they will register the plan and get excited over it.

If I wanted to be the first Molecular candidate, I would seek office the established way through one of the major parties. I would seek out some top political people and explain the plan and seek their backing in raising funds. If you do not have money and power at present it would be an uphill battle.

It would be a huge step forward if this book introducing the idea was well received and discussion of the principle received time on the major talk shows.

The next step is to create the Committee for Representation. After this is established, we then approach perspective candidates to run on the Molecular platform.


It seems that the rising generation is too ignorant to be intelligent Co-Legislators.


First, let me agree with you that this is a real problem. All you have to do is watch Jay Leno interviewing some of these people off the street, many of whom have a college education. Some simple questions such as who is the VP, or leader of the House of Representatives leave them dumbfounded. Then he might ask something like who fought in the Civil War or in World War II and they don’t seem to know. It’s discouraging indeed to see the ignorance of some of the young people out there.

We had a young guy in his 20s doing some work for us a while back and he asked me which party I was a member of. I told him I was a Libertarian and he didn’t have a clue as to what that was. Then, when I started telling him a few things, I noticed that he didn’t seem to know anything about current events or terms. He didn’t even seem to know the difference between a liberal and a conservative. By the time I was done talking to him I was hoping that there weren’t too many like him in my home state of Idaho. But, who knows, perhaps the youth are as ignorant in my home state as the ones interviewed by Jay Leno.

Then, too, perhaps we can fall back on the thought that each generation thinks that youth has gone to hell in a hand basket, and then the youth learn their lessons and wind up performing pretty well after all. Let us hope this will eventually be the case.

Even in this generation there will be many good people that will surface and perform well.

Molecular politics offers an important screening process that will weed out many of the ne’er-do-wells. That is, in order to be a Co-Legislator, one will have to show some initiative, volunteer and go through the procedure required to become a member. Then, once he is a member and wants to vote on an issue, he will have to study that issue to figure out how he wants to vote. This process will weed out most of the people of the mentality that answer Jay Leno’s questions. Those who do participate as a Co-Legislator will normally be those who really care about their country.

And, as always, there is concern that pressure groups could infiltrate and tell thousands of people out how to vote in one big voting block, but there are ways to circumvent such things.


Why don’t we just let this country disintegrate into chaos and then start fresh?


There are a number of reasons we do not want to see a complete breakdown of the United States. The main one is that this country is presently the first and last line of defense in keeping the free world as free as it is. If America were to fall and become powerless, who would fill the vacuum? The Russians? The Chinese? The Moslem extremists? If foreign armies moved here to restore order would that be a good thing?

I don’t think so.

If that were to happen, would our citizens even be free to peacefully gather?

Probably not.

While it is true that a complete collapse can force a reorganization, such a thing may turn out to be more like a forced evacuation rather than a planned rebuilding.

Think back to the last successful new political creation. It happened with the colonization of America. England was not in a state of collapse, but was at its heyday of power. In the beginning, its resources were a means of nurturing the colonies until the time came that they had power to live apart from the mother country.

It is in our best interests to support the principles of freedom in our native lands to the best of our abilities. It would be a big hindrance indeed if we only had tyrannies to deal with or had to use stone age tools to rebuild.

I am extremely confident that Molecular politics can succeed. After the first representative is elected and votes the will of the people he represents, we will be half way to the finish; the country will see how the idea works and the common man will love the idea that he can have a voice. There will be nothing that can then stay the progress of the idea.


Can deluded people hurt us if they become Co-Legislators?


Yes, this will happen. All types of people will participate, but the reason it will work is that the majority of informed participating citizens have the good of the country much more in their hearts than does Congress, which is mainly concerned with power and partisan politics.


What makes you think this idea is workable?


I admit that if all we did was attempt to use our circle of friends and limited resources to do the job, it would be difficult indeed. It is possible, of course, that someone who reads this could successfully implement these ideas, but without lots of money and name recognition it would be difficult.

If I were to approach orthodox politicians with the idea and promote it that way, it is also unlikely the job would get done.

If I were to create a fabulous website dedicated to the idea, that would help, but it is unlikely the job would get done.

So, am I just having a pipe dream or do I really see a way to accomplish this?

There is a way to launch it and the way is quite simple. It is this.

(1) Publish materials that educate and promote these ideas to the public.

(2) After interest is aroused, announce the creation of an organization to implement the ideas.

(3) Work with people of money and power to further the program.

(4) Find candidates who support the idea and back them for office.


Who would run for office when they would not have the power of a regular legislator?


The answer is quite a few people would.

True, there are those who seek power who would not be attracted to Molecular politics, but there are also good people out there who want what is best for their country.


How does a Molecular representative who refuses to follow his party’s lead on issues successfully operate in Congress?  He’ll be a pariah – no party funding, no committee assignments, etc.


Yes, it’s true. Until Molecular candidates increase in number they are likely to be shunned by both parties and not have much power on committees.  BUT, they will maintain the greatest power available, which is the power of the vote.  Voting according to the will of the people is the main thing.  When this materializes it will only be a matter of time before other political powers will follow.

In addition they will have a political power not available to the others – praise from the people for voting according to their will.


If a person is a Molecular candidate then he has just promised NOT to follow his own judgment and ideas. In other words, he is just a sort of robot who does what the majority of his Co-Legislators vote. A monkey could almost do the job.


The Molecular candidate has three jobs that no monkey can do:

(1) He is a manager of a large constituency. Just as a large business cannot be managed by a monkey neither can the candidate’s job.

He will work to expand the number of Co-Legislators, make sure information on bills is available in readable and understandable formats,  handle the press, and work with all the non-Molecular candidates.

(2) He is a teacher. He will not be a robot, but will study the issues coming up for vote and determine in his mind the best way to vote on them. He will then attempt to educate his Co-Legislators and the people he represents as to why the way he would like to vote is the best. Because they helped elect him, the Co-Legislators will give a lot of weight to his words and may be swayed by them. But, in the case that they do not agree, they can vote the way they see fit.

(3) He is a salesperson. He has to sell the people on electing him and will assist in selling Molecular politics to the world.

Many who are not Co-Legislators will vote for him, for there are those who do not want to take the time to participate who recognize the value of the will of the people and still take the time to vote in elections.


Are there alternatives to Molecular politics?


The alternative to this idea is to expect the system itself to change and that idea is much more unrealistic and more difficult to produce than Molecular politics. Molecular politics is our best bet because it doesn’t rely on changing the current Constitution or system. All it requires is finding people to run who commit to the idea and then win election through standard means.

Under the current system, Congress would never put up with delivering the power of direct vote to the people as a whole. Even when there are state initiatives on which people vote, Congress and the judiciary often seek to overturn them or call them unconstitutional because those in power do not respect the will of the people.

Molecular politics will bring in direct democracy in steps without requiring the system to change. It, therefore, has a good chance of succeeding.


You will need a critical mass of people to implement this idea. Is this possible to obtain in the current climate?


There is already a critical mass of voters who like the idea of the majority being represented. All that needs done is to popularize the idea, and these people who already exist will show themselves in great numbers.

Remember when Ross Perot first came on the scene and started talking about listening to the people? They came out in droves and would have made him president if he hadn’t withdrawn and started looking mentally unstable.

Molecular politics, if given the right exposure, could draw these type of people out again. And if you think it would be difficult to get a candidate to run under this system, think again. That would be the easy part. There will be plenty of people willing to do it and make a mark on history.


I’ve often heard the following quote given in various forms and it seems to have wide acceptance. What’s your comments on this?

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.”

Alexander Fraser Tyler, Cycle Of Democracy (1770)

This quote is often used by strict Constitutionalists who cringe when our government is called a democracy and insist on it being called a republic instead. Most of this group have the notion that a democracy would be much worse than a republic, and even compare it to a tyranny. A phrase often used is “a tyranny of the majority”.

That said, let us examine this quote and analyze it.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.”

There are several problems with this statement. The first is there has never been a permanent government of any kind on the earth in the history of the planet. So if we predict the future based on the past we could say, “There is no such thing as a permanent form of any government.”

Thus, singling out democracy as not being permanent is an illusionary contrast.

Secondly, there has never been a true democracy in recorded history. Athens was perhaps the closest to a real democracy, but consider this.

Greater Athens had about 250,000-300,000 people. Only a male head of a citizen family could vote. Citizen families may have amounted to 100,000 people, and, out of these, some 30,000 were the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly. In addition to this, those qualified to vote were required to vote.

Most people of today would not view a government as a democracy where only about 10% of its residents have the power to vote. On the other hand, there is an obvious flaw in requiring citizens to vote. That is, you get many people voting who do not care or are not informed about the item under consideration. A mindless, uninformed vote is not even a true vote, let alone a democratic vote.

Even with its flaws, however, Athens grew to be the most prosperous and free society in the ancient world. After the government was destroyed by Sparta, the principle of democracy lived on and provided much inspiration for the Founding Fathers of the United States.

The quote continues: “It (democracy) can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.”

The problem with this conclusion is we have never had an example of a democracy where all permanent residents can become citizens and all citizens can vote on issues. Thus, one cannot say that the majority of such voters would selfishly raid the treasury.

This did not seem to be a major problem in ancient Athens, a partial democracy. Their main problem was powerful leaders in surrounding governments who were threatened by democracy and sought to overthrow it.

On the other hand, this raiding of the public treasury is a major flaw in our Republic of the USA. The people here may not be directly raiding the treasury, but our leaders are, for the purpose of buying votes.

The quote continues: “From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

This is true, but this describes a republic form of government – not a democracy.

The quote ends with, “The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.”

This sequence is incorrect – even though it seems appropriate for the US at this time -  for there has been very little real liberty in the history of the world. Perhaps Rome fits this model most closely, but its cycle took 1000 years.

Here is the sequence we see most often in history:

From bondage to rebellion; from rebellion to great struggle for freedom; from struggle to the overthrow of government; from overthrow to creation of new government that frees the rebels and brings bondage and revenge to the others. The new government has only slightly changed, and the victims are merely moved around. The new victims become rebels, which leads to another overthrow. The cycle continues with slight improvements occurring over history.

All throughout history policy has been made by the minority, not by the majority through democratic means. Until such a democracy surfaces, we can only guess as to whether the people would raid the treasury, grow complacent or whether such a government would last only 200 years.

My guess is that Abraham Lincoln was correct in his Gettysburg Address  “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

When the majority are truly represented then we will indeed have a government of the people.

End of Article

Check out these other articles:

Molecular Politics

95 Theses for the 21st Century

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey.  All rights Reserved

Back to Home