Thank you for your comments. My mind is still swimming. I have thoughtfully read your comments twice–at least–at different sittings, as well as Troy’s Secession piece along with the comments that followed. I am very impressed by the clearly written expressions of passion and conviction and the depth and quantity of thought and detail. I have some thoughts to express aloud.

As an American citizen, I share much anger and frustration. On the other hand, I do not believe there can exist a political utopia, whether the embedded economic system is capitalistic or socialistic, or a blend of both. Because human beings are imperfect creatures, all governments, institutions, and professions will have elements of corruption and incompetence: and if these pockets of corruption and incompetence are unattended, they can erode and\or destroy a government, an institution, or a profession. Along with many others, I also think that human beings are animals capable of reason and that human beings are also social animals who thrive best by forming social contracts, that is, systems of agreements with commitments, rights and responsibilities, although the social contracts (including the Constitution) may be imperfect ones. As time moves and flaws in the social contract become apparent and new problems develop, the parties involved in the social contract must make choices to correct present and potential problems. In such a process, I think that intelligent, honest, sincere, and competent men and women will sometimes make mistakes, though they act with good intentions. And I also think that all complex problems are not immediately solvable and that some problems cannot be solved at all. When “corrections or “perceived corrections” are made, there well may be some negative, unintended consequences. Consequently, adjustments will be needed. So the cycle continues and more imperfect representatatives in a constitutional repubic will attempt to solve complex problems. So it goes.

So, for me, given the imperfections of human nature and American strengths balanced against America’s weaknesses (democracy’s flaws, capitalism’s flaws), I think that living in America and accepting my rights and responsibilities (as I understand them in the context of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its Amendments, and The Gettysburg Address (especially a government of, and by, and for the people) is the best choice for me at this time and place, my here and now. And I am thankful that I can freely discuss and write about this free choice to live in America, while at the same time honoring and respecting those who think and choose differently.

A closing note: I believe that Freedom is not an absolute and that Freedom is not free. My freedom–my ability to make important and significant political, economic, and personal choices in a personally secure and comfortable environment–is deeply rooted in the risks and the sacrifices that many Americans have made through the years in order to make and preserve the identity of the United States. I am humbled at the thought.

Tom

I’ll trump your Adams with Alexis de Tocqueville, who published the first volume of “Democracy in America” 45 years earlier in 1835; but that didn’t make our form of government a “Democracy.” I stand by my statement that it was Wilson who was the first President to refer to the US as a Democracy in a State of the Union address.

Thanks for the tip on Adams’ satirical novel about political intrigue in DC, which he wrote anonymously. It brings to mind the delightful “Primary Colors” about Bill Clinton’s first campaign for President, which was eventually admitted to have been written by Joe Klein. I found a copy of it here, and have bookmarked it for a fun read at some point.

You are free to use Daedulus’ definition of a democracy, as long as you realize how incomplete it is, and do not leap the the notion of “one adult – one vote” universal suffrage, which was a foolish twentieth century mistake that did not prevail during our nineteenth century authors’ time. Our founders would have been horrified at the idea of giving tax consumers a say in how much to confiscate from the taxpayers.

…when we look at the essential character of the American body politic and the American people–that is, all of those individuals who reside in the United States or elsewhere as American citizens–are each of the words (capitalistic, democratic, constitutional, and republic) of equal importance or weight in the understanding of who and what we are as a people?

Interesting question… I would still eschew using the word “democratic” in that list because of the misunderstanding of “majority rule” that it generally engenders. Conversely, most Americans haven’t a clue what “republic” means, and I reckon they need to learn. Look at the shock and outrage when Gore won the popular vote, but not the electoral college where the representatives of the voters did the actual Constitutional choosing of Bush as our President.

It is also interesting to note how much the word “capitalistic” has been demonized in my lifetime, and how much the word “socialistic” has been rehabilitated. The opposite was true in my childhood.

Then, it is notable that far too many Americans have bought into the “Living Constitution” concept, and the erroneous notion that judges are free to reinterpret it according to current prevailing societal preferences. This is the most dangerous trend of all for our Republic’s survival, for it renders the Constitution meaningless if the rules of our society can be changed on a whim. Those who get the vapors over the popularly supported Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and water-boarding should keep this in mind. The pendulum is always swinging, and the next 9/11 is bound to be worse than the last one.

Thus, were I to try to articulate the essential character of the American body politic and the American people, it would be simply “A nation of Sheeple.”

We have been subsidizing farmers for decades. Is this not a form of socialism? Was there ever a good reason for farm subsidies? Although I do not know much about it, I personally wish we could get rid of farm subsidies, because I think farm subsidies are not currently good for the nation.

Phil can answer for himself, but I would like to comment on this too. Yes, farm subsidies are a form of socialism. They are not only not currently good for the nation, they never have been, and never should have begun (how is that for a string of negatives?) They are extra-Constitutional and dead wrong. Nowhere in our (original) Constitution does it say the Federal government has the right to tax productive citizens for redistribution to other citizens for any purpose, however dire their needs might be. We, as consumers, are effectively double taxed by these subsidies. First to pay them, and again when we have to pay artificially high prices for their produce, because the government paid millionaires not to grow crops to keep prices up above normal market levels.

For further mental stimulation, please read our friend Troy’s new screed, which covers many of these subjects very well. ◄Dave►

My head is spinning and I thank you for making my sloppy thinking less sloppy. I am partial to Daedelus’ definition of Democracy and I think (?) that is what I had in mind in my comment to Dave. In 1880 Henry Adams wrote a novel about American government and he titled it Democracy. Thanks to Dave’s comment, I telephoned Henry last night and told him that he had made a mistake and that he should have titled the book Constitutional Republic and that he should write to the publisher and tell them to change the title the next time that they reprint it.

This leads me to another thought or half- thought that is very fuzzy and needs some help. Certainly, Dave is right that America is a constitutional republic but this seems to me to be an incomplete definitive description of what we essentially are as a body politic. So I ask: would it be inaccurate to describe the American body politic as a capitalistic, democratic, constitutional republic? And another question: when we look at the essential character of the American body politic and the American people–that is, all of those individuals who reside in the United States or elsewhere as American citizens–are each of the words (capitalistic, democratic, constitutional, and republic) of equal importance or weight in the understanding of who and what we are as a people?

And a question for Phil: We have been subsidizing farmers for decades. Is this not a form of socialism? Was there ever a good reason for farm subsidies? Although I do not know much about it, I personally wish we could get rid of farm subsidies, because I think farm subsidies are not currently good for the nation.

Thanks for your insights and mental stimulation.

Tom

In one important way, their constitution had an improvement over ours. Their political system permitted only one Party, the Communist Party, on the ballot. The voters got to choose among various candidates for an office, but they were all members of the Communist Party – similar to our Primary elections. We simply add an additional unnecessary step by permitting (effectively only two) ostensibly competing Parties to advance their candidate for a general election. (see Incumbrepublocrats)

The improvement lies in that their constitution requires that the winner of a contest must have a majority of the votes; a plurality is not good enough. Further, they do not have runoff elections. If nobody wins a majority, a complete new election is called, and the Party must present an entire new slate of candidates! Those who failed to win a majority in the first election may not run in the second. This procedure I find most agreeable!

Let all the Incumbrepublocrats and minority party candidates for an office throw their hats into the same ring, and have an election. If one of them receives a majority, he is elected. If not, kick those hats out of the ring and call for a new lot to vote on. Repeat the process until someone strikes the fancy of a majority. That works for me. ◄Dave►