Government is a way of regulating who does what, in the process protecting its citizens from violence. And despite Henry David Thoreau's claim that "government is best that governs least," this is not to say that no government at all is the remedy.
Somewhere in between a totalitarian dictatorship and anarchy is the median that a society is comfortable with.
A wandering tribal society based on family size groupings may seem at first glance to be totally without government, but each unit will have a dominant figure who establishes and maintains order.
In some, that person could be a woman, and the society is called a matriarchy. If a man, it's a patriarchy.
In a large society with a single ruler, it's called a monarchy, and government by a few is an oligarchy.
There are variations, also, partly depending on the behavior of those in charge and whether the duties of government are shared with opposition members.
Monarchies are usually hereditary. Dictatorships are not. Moreover, either can be benevolent or harsh.
In short, total government control, whether led by a monarch or a dictator, is unworkable, and leads to rebellion and revolution. Total lack of control is chaos.
Some 240 years ago, widespread opposition to excessive control by a monarch led Thirteen Colonies in America to declare themselves independent of a British monarch.
Moreover, they were careful to explain their reasons for taking such a drastic step, and after announcing their plan to separate one country from another, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" required them to list the reasons why they felt independence was essential.
Some 87 years later, that new nation faced a test as to whether any such nation, "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal, can long endure." So said President Abraham Lincoln in his speech dedicating a cemetery in Gettysburg, Pa.
This year, the nation faces yet another test of its founding values, and its citizens must decide whether to continue with a form of government that has been in place since 1789, or to replace it with something else.
What that something else might be has not been spelled out amid all the raucous allegations that the current system is phony, no longer fair, and is somehow "rigged" to defeat any challengers.
But suppose this year's challenger does win, and becomes head of a system of government that has been in place for more than two centuries, along the way becoming the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet?
Will the challenger replace the current system, which he claims no longer works? If so, replace it with what?
Meanwhile, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," as Thomas Jefferson wrote, calls for a list of specific objections.
If, as the candidate alleges, "the system is broken," and that "only I can fix it," a decent respect for the American citizens the candidate hopes to lead calls for details as to why it's broken and how the candidate would fix it.
It seems that if this candidate should lose, that in itself would be proof enough for him that the system is broken. It can be equally said that his defeat would be proof that the system works.
The rebellious delegates who went to Philadelphia in 1776 gave their reasons for independence and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in their attempt to fix it.
The current candidate has been asked to divulge details of his fortune, as every President and candidate since Richard Nixon has done. But this candidate has refused, saying "It's none of your business."
No longer does anyone ask candidates to pledge their lives, but as for this candidate's "sacred honor ... "
No comments:
Post a Comment