History shows the efforts of nations, civilizations and peoples to make sense of what life is all about. Two of the big efforts to make many people equal were the Greek and Roman efforts.
Greece tried establishing a truly democratic state, where all men had a voice in government. Unfortunately, it ended up failing because no one could agree upon anything important. The nation was often paralyzed when quick decisions needed to be made, and it soon collapsed into an autocracy.
Rome had better luck. Instead of developing another democracy, it established representative government. So successful was this type government, it lasted for centuries. A Republic must be run by the rule of law and not public decree, otherwise it devolves into a democracy and then eventually collapses. Countries hate vacuums, and so the ruined republic is replaced with a ruler/king. So happened with the Roman Empire.
Rulers or caesars and corrupt senators removed the rule of law by degrees, and replaced it with whatever was reasonable at the moment. Rome didn't fall in a day, but the collapse was still there, done from within by those who forgot the principles of republicanism and law that the nation was built upon.
Much of known history consists of kings, emperors, and autocrats, who believed they had a divine right to rule. This "right" was established over a millennium ago, as rulers sought ways to legitimize their reigns. Anyone could rule, but only the person selected of God should be the ruler.
So it has been, with kings that have been benevolent and tyrannical, sometimes both. The people lived for the king, were HIS subjects/children, and were to be treated as such. Classes were established to support the king in his methods and ways, with the rich nobleman working as his right hand man, while the underclasses often were relegated to extreme poverty and serfdom.
However, the king could impose one set of rules one day, and change them the next. Or he could extend favors to some, and deny others any privileges. A person's "rights" were whatever the ruler determined he/she would have for the time being. And it was subject to change.
There was no way up or out for those of lesser means. Not only that, but they were expected to accept their way of life, in exchange for a measure of security and protection. National protection provided some stability to a region, though the protection often failed (Mongol hordes attack Russia, Napoleon crosses Europe, etc). Security often meant that the rulers and noblemen gave a subsistence living to the people tied to the king's or lord's land.
Certain things began to change this. Literacy and education helped people see that they could have more in life. Small business allowed merchants and craftsmen to work for themselves and make an honest and decent living for their families. The printing press, inventions, and new ideas sprang up during the Reformation/Renaissance.
Then, a new land was discovered in 1492, allowing people with different ideas to try their ideas without recrimination. Pilgrims, Separatists, Puritans and Adventurers came to the Americas in search of new opportunities. These opportunities include religious expression and business.
Distance to the New World for the most part kept Europe off the backs of its colonies. This allowed them to flourish, prosper and to grow up. With "adulthood" the colonies realized that they should have the rights of all men, as established by Adam Smith and others in their writings.
Our nation was formed under a new ideal, that "all men are created equal" "endowed with certain inalienable rights" given by their Creator. As the Republic was formed under the principles of liberty, rule of law, and representative leadership, it flourished. There was nothing that could stop the United States from becoming a powerful nation, except for its own people.
The Constitution, the first and longest existing written document, establishing the egalitarian rule of law, is considered inspired by many, and a work of art by most.
Many internal threats have almost toppled the nation before. The War between the States (not civil by any definition of the word) was fought for precepts that are found in the Constitution and rule of law. Two main issues, closely related, become the focal points: what is the rule of law, and who does it apply to?
In other words, did the states have more right than the federal government to make and issue laws binding upon the people? Was the rule of law to apply, or could unpopular laws be discounted by popular vote? And who did these laws apply to? White men? Women? Blacks? Northerners? Southerners?
Other issues also hit on this point throughout America's history. During the U.S.' expansion into the Pacific during the Spanish-American War (1898), we not only "freed" the Phillipines and other island-states from Spain, but we took them over. Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines became territorial vassals of the state, and as such did not have the Constitutional rights of those in the U.S. They could not vote. They didn't have any true voting representation in Congress. Their laws were different.
These efforts worried many people of the period, including Mark Twain, E.L. Godkin and others, who believed that tyranny abroad would eventually bring tyranny to our own soil. Regardless of the fact that such actions were against the teachings of the Founding Fathers, the expansionists of the day thought they were doing the world and America a favor by capitalizing these territories. Besides, it was a very popular thing to do, what with Manifest Destiny and all.
However, it was one major step in the direction of rule not by law, but by popular vote. It expanded America's protection and security onto other peoples, in exchange for their freedom. It also expended some of our own freedom, as we now had to employ military and others overseas to ensure that security. And while we were at it, we could use the military to put down native reaction to American expansionist efforts, such as was done in the Phillipines.
Meanwhile, within the United States, much of our law was being directed by the new big money of robber barons. Payoffs were very common in buying the vote for breaking railroad strikes (such as the great Pullman Strike), and establishing giant monopolies. Although some barons, such as Carnegie, were rather benign in their treatment of others (and some actually did some great charitable work, seeing themselves as the king taking care of his own), others were extremely malevolent. Rockefeller and Gould are just a couple examples of men who were extremely ruthless in destroying the competition and abusing the workers under their employ.
For them, much of the rule of law was replaced by the rule of the plutarchy (the rich). Whatever became most popular among the rich often became the law.
Jumping to today, we see some interesting parallels with the past. The
Constitution has been breached many times. Some examples we see are:
These are just some examples of the rule of law being abrogated in order to create a new non-Constitutional order.
Although many of these actions may sometimes seem extremely popular, they crack the foundation of the Constitution and rule of law. Although established as such, we cannot continue being a Constitutional Republic, if we actually rule by popularity polls.
In the last few years, polls to establish the views of the American people have taken precedence over the Constitution and the rule of law. With polls, we now have a purer form of democracy at work.
Recent efforts have also shown that the rich are making many laws, as well. We see more fund raising being done (legal and illegal), and that influence is showing. We currently see satellite and missile technology being sold to the Chinese military in the name of Commerce (and money).
Concerned about such actions in 1895, E.L. Godkin wrote: "You see I am not sanguine about the future of democracy. I think we shall have a long period of decline like that which followed the fall of the Roman Empire, and then a recrudescence under some other form of society."
In other words, Godkin saw the beginning of the decline of this nation in his day. Perhaps we are seeing an even more advanced decay in our day.
Most people in this nation do not want freedom as much as they want security. They want tax breaks, but only if it doesn't affect their entitlements. They want a safety net for them, that can watch their children as they work, make sure they medical care, and have a retirement in the future. They do get much of this, but only at an intangible, yet costly, price. Freedoms are given up as taxes are collected and often wasted, private information is gathered, and new rules are given.
The rich make many new rules, as they can buy their way into a visit to the Oval Office (or Lincoln bedroom). No wonder we have had so many scandals over the past several years! (Travelgate, Monica gate, White Water, DNC fund raisers, etc). Clinton's war cry truly exemplifies this administration: "It's the economy, stupid!"
But is the economy sound? We have a $6 trillion national debt. The average consumer has $7000 in credit card debt alone. Our markets are tied to the worlds' markets (which, as we've seen this past year are on roller coaster ride). The military is stretched to the limit handling peace-keeping, nation building, and Iraq in many areas of the world. Year 2000 threatens to disrupt at least parts of the nation (and even 1% can make for a big hit on Wall Street). And other dangers that are always out there (terrorism, disease, biological weapons, etc).
Right now much of it is propped up by propaganda. The same media that recites the polls, have helped Americans forget the potential problems and concentrate on an elusive good feeling. But it might not take much to bring the nation into a strong recession, or even a depression.
Regardless of potential disasters, as long as polls establish the rules, the rules can change. What works great for the people now, can quickly change into a tyranny for the people. We saw it with Hitler, as he used popularity to guide the public away from the rule of law to his own law. And we risk it today if we continue going down Godkin's slow (but quickening) path of Constitutional destruction.
And if history holds true, then that which will someday replace our Constitution and government will not be a free government, but will resemble the governments of the ancient kings and rulers of Europe. And many of us may be serfs, secure yet unfree.