Will Of The People - Chapter 2

Democracy: Consensus of the Unenlightened

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

- Alexander Tytler




I would like to make it very clear that I am an American and that I am a patriot. I believe in the excellence of my country and I seek to preserve and defend her. In the discussion which follows I shall put democracy under the microscope, and in doing so I shall illuminate many flaws inherent in its design. Because of this, I will also be describing flaws in America and other democratic countries. Let no one misunderstand me as I do so. This is an academic examination of a type of government to further our search for the truth, not a seditious call for action to overthrow or oppose my country. Rather, by illuminating truth, I seek to effect change within the bounds of civilized conduct and lawful action.



The Original Intentions of the American Democracy

Modern Representative Democracy was born with the founding of the United States of America. Its design follows examples drawn from many elements of previous governments such as the Greeks and Romans, and also draws from the British Parliament it replaced. Since that time, representative democracies have appeared around the globe. But the American model for democracy is the present gold standard for how these governments are constructed and work, and shall therefore be the focus of our discussion of democracy.

Democracy was not implemented because it was a revelation given by God to the founders, nor was it a unique shining example of human nobility that the founders felt compelled to implement for all mankind. Democracy was implemented to achieve specific purposes, in response to specific needs of the times. The founders chose democracy because it best reflected the ideals that spawned the revolution against Britain. These ideals are as follows:

1) Desire for a slow-moving, lightly-taxing, limited government that has almost no power for self-aggrandizement or unchecked expansion versus the people it governs.

2) Desire to be unencumbered by the British Empire’s global military and economic entanglements, and the resulting taxation and conflicts these inevitably bring.

3) Desire to permit increasing participation in government, and in holding positions of power, by those individuals who possessed the capacity but lacked the pedigree needed for such actions in Britain and elsewhere in Europe (The Founders considered themselves such men).

4) Desire to allow the people to act in their short-term interests, by moving west into Indian lands, and to reject restrictions that were imposed with longer-term intentions.

Democracy was chosen because it met all these needs of the times, not because it is overall a superior or holy form of government. Let us all remember that the founders were pragmatic men, seeking to promote their own interests along with those of their fellow citizens. While there is nothing wrong with this at all, we should not look upon these men (many of them truly great) as if they were saints who sought only altruistic causes, and that democracy was the primary sacred gift that they gave to us. If monarchy would have allowed them to achieve their goals, they would have chosen that instead. But democracy was chosen simply because it was suited for the needs of the times, and because such notions were in vogue during this time of ‘The Enlightenment’.



Democracy Does Not Persist, but is a Path to Totalitarianism

The discerning reader will notice that the modern form of the American Democracy no longer adheres to any of these four founding intentions. It has great power over the populace, which grows stronger every year. It is now actively engaged in political, economic, and military activities across the globe, and as such has high taxation and routine military requirements of its citizens. Unknown citizens now have very little chance to obtain political office, and those whose families have a history of such offices are easily elected themselves. And entrepreneurial activities and risk-taking liberties have been virtually eliminated from the lives of average people who do not possess a significant amount of money already.

This fact shows one of the primary faults of democracy: It is easily moved from its original intentions and design into another form altogether. It is not a safe form of government because it is unstable and will eventually morph into another form such as Socialism, Fascism, and other types of Dictatorships.

Some will say that this is the genius of democracy, that it adapts to serve the needs of the people no matter what the future holds. But can we really say that the imperatives and intentions of our modern democracy actually serve the people best? I think that both Liberals and Conservatives can site serious inefficiencies and breakdowns in our current government’s ability to properly serve the needs of the people. True believers on both sides consider themselves as underdogs, fighting against a system that is not good for America. Certainly, the middle-class is massively under-represented in our government, even though they are the most numerous of our citizenry.

This is an intrinsically anti-democratic outcome: that the majority is under-represented in the political will of the nation. So just because adaptation occurs, it does not prove that this is needful adaptation, nor is it necessarily democratic. Indeed, due to the effects of entropy induced by the apathy of the populace, and with the natural power-accumulating motives of those already in power; democracy will more likely adapt away from best serving the people and towards promoting agendas that serve minority interests of all types.

Also, just because government has become more and more involved in the daily lives of citizens this does not automatically mean that these government regulations and services actually truly benefit the people, nor are they in any way truly democratic. Democracy’s most basic intention is to create a loose government where the citizens are mostly left alone, and where they possess great power over the affairs of government. But the gradual accumulation of governmental power and authority over almost every aspect of life is opposite these basic intentions.

While many could argue that the FDA, FCC, FEMA, and SEC do things of value that benefit our society, this is beside the point. These government agencies, and all others like them, exist because of past citizen’s ceding of rights (including the right to take risks freely) to the government, which is a tangible movement towards Socialism or Collectivism. Individual Sovereignty is reduced to increase public safety, or the perception of public safety.

And so we see that over time, the accumulated effects of apathy and indolence among the masses, which are always easier to find in people than responsibility and courage, causes the people to gradually vote away their rights to the government in return for the government’s promise to increasingly take care of them and keep them safe.

This is not the original intention of America and is not an American ideal at all. Freedom and independence are the credo of America, not safety and security. And because of the costs paid for these supposed advantages of safety and security, it can be rightly argued that these programs of the government do not actually serve the needs of the people. There are many who would say that the America of 1850, with its zero income taxes, Social Security taxes, and unfettered opportunities for the industrious and enterprising citizen was actually more responsive to the needs of the populace.

It is hard for many of us who are accustomed to government protecting us from danger and also restricting our freedom to imagine what it was like to live back then. But this was a time when a man could save up perhaps six months income and simply pack up his family and move out west. After completing an arduous but not impossible journey, he could then just set up a homestead and thereby obtain the title to a significant parcel of valuable land. Since land is always the bedrock of wealth, through continued work and improvements on his land he could create a permanent basis of wealth for his family and descendants. This was a time when every nobody could possibly become a somebody, if he was willing to work hard, take risks, and if he caught a break or two.

There is simply no analogous opportunity available today. In fact, today’s man cannot even work anywhere at all without having the documentation (and thereby, permission) of the government and without the government taxing him and keeping tabs on his location. In the past, if a man had the skills needed to be an apothecary or blacksmith he could easily find a job even without the certification of the government. Today, the modern equivalents of such economic opportunities are restricted from those who cannot afford the schooling or licensing processes, or from those whose unique temperaments make it especially difficult to jump through all the hoops set up by our modern education/indoctrination system. Such people often include those of us who are the most intelligent or creative, the very people whose work stands to benefit our society most.



The True Nature of Modern American Democracy

The current American Government is best described as a competitive Dual Oligarchy which maintains control of the populace by wearing the trappings of democratic processes. The Right (Christian Theocrats/Plutocrats) and the Left (Socialists) each fight for supremacy, but since neither side can envision a complete victory over the other in the near future, they cooperate in maintaining their combined control over the people. They shall cooperate like this until one of them gains a significant advantage over the other, when the losing faction will then be eliminated and a new monolithic government will be legislated into existence. The future of America, if left as things stand today, is either a Fascist Theocracy or a Socialist state.

As for the present, both sides exert a far more intrusive and controlling force into the lives of the citizens than is constitutionally permissible, but by allowing the people to “choose” their government in elections, and by using the media to dispense propaganda and to show an occasional scandal (to give the impression of full disclosure, or at least competent monitoring), the people do not revolt against the government because:

1) They don’t know what it really is doing, but they think they are fully informed by the media who are constantly digging up things

2) They don’t know what their rights under the constitution really are, and have no memory of life in these past times when these rights were respected by the government

3) They have a good versus evil mentality – as long as some of the “good” guys are there and are fighting for them, they won’t revolt against the entire government

4) They are pacified by the thought that the majority elected this government, and so this somehow is seen as giving a morality and inevitability to its rule

5) They are pacified by the thought that in 2 or 4 years, they can elect a “new” government which they believe is entirely of their choosing, even though it is only 1 of 2 choices which are both just variants of the same government that has existed since the 1930’s

6) Most importantly, because of the gradual increase in Socialism and Totalitarianism in the government, the average person is no longer accustomed to wielding individual power of any kind at all and does not know how to do it. They are expectant that forces within the government itself are the only forces that can change or overthrow the government and that their role is limited to supporting such factions when they appear. But since no such faction can exist, because an empowered group has no need to overthrow the source of their empowerment, the revolution never occurs and the people remain dormant. This also explains the excitement exhibited when a new political messiah appears, such as Barack Obama (whose record cannot be seen as supporting such excitement), showing a fresh face or representing an under-represented demographic.

As we can see, American Democracy is now only a smoke screen which is used to hide the true nature of the government and to retard the people’s abilities to modify or remove it. Part of the reason this is possible is that true democracy, itself, is universally held in high esteem by the Western World. But if we look deeper into the form and function of true democracy, even when it is uncorrupted, we find a number of flaws that should serve to change our high opinion of this form of government.



Democracy’s Myth of the Wisdom of Inclusion and Consensus

A man goes to see his doctor because he has a pain in his stomach and he wishes to find the right treatment to correct his problem. He explains his symptoms to the doctor, who then proceeds to examine him. The doctor thinks he has an ulcer, and so he sends the man to get tests to see what they show. After reviewing the tests, the doctor is quite confident that the patient has an ulcer.

Following the path of Inclusion and Consensus, because this is supposedly the wisest means of determining a course of action; the doctor shows the patient’s chart and test results to the nurse, who then suggests that stomach cancer might be the problem. Then he shows the chart to the receptionist who suggests that the patient might just have indigestion. Next, he shows the chart to all the other patients who are waiting in his waiting room, seeking their diagnosis and recommendation for treatment.

In his waiting room, the doctor has several magazines. Some of these have recent articles about the danger of appendicitis and how sometimes it goes undiagnosed. The TV news is also showing a story of a woman whose life was saved after her appendix burst by her 7-year old son calling 911 just in time.

After tallying all the opinions he can find on the matter, 3 people think it is an ulcer, 2 think it is stomach cancer, 3 think it is indigestion, and 6 think it is appendicitis. Accordingly, following the wisdom that Inclusion and Consensus bring, he sends the patient to the hospital and then proceeds to remove his appendix.

Does this seem ridiculous to you? That all these people who are not experts in medicine should be included in the decision making process for a serious issue like healthcare is truly ridiculous.

Then shouldn’t it also be ridiculous that 300 million people who know little or nothing about history, economics, military leadership, international relations, and law be given the power to choose who should be their Commander in Chief, Primary Enforcer of the Nation’s Laws, Main Diplomat to the World, and Steward of the Nation’s Economy? Yet we, with all seriousness, execute this farce every four years with our Presidential Election.

What is the likelihood that the consensus of uninformed or unqualified people will result in the best outcome? Not much. If I tell 100 randomly chosen people that I need to program the guidance system of a torpedo I am building for the Navy, and I need to know whether I should use a Kalman Filter, Back-Propagation Neural Network, Probabilistic Neural Network, or Generalized Regression Neural Network; what is the likelihood that 100 random people will somehow chose the best option? Given the fact that most people know little or nothing about these subjects, the odds of them choosing wisely is 1 in 4, or random chance.

But what if powerful forces began running TV ads saying things like “The Kalman Filter has been repeatedly shown to be the choice of terrorists around the world. Can we afford the risk of letting terrorists drive our torpedoes?” And there are other ads saying “Pro-Family, Pro-Life, the obvious moral choice. Vote for Probabilistic Neural Network on November 4”. With the inclusion of propaganda that either makes illogical inferences or brings up facts that are irrelevant to the choice at hand, the odds of the 100 votes choosing wisely goes down to even lower than 1 in 4.

The astute reader will notice that this is exactly what occurs in the Presidential Election. There are 5-10 candidates, all nominated by national political parties, that run for president every election. Each of these individuals is potentially the best choice for the office. But it is only the two candidates who have massive propaganda machines supporting their campaigns (the Democratic and Republican candidates) who ever actually win the election.

Is it reasonable to assume that the Democratic and Republican candidates are always the best choices to lead our nation? Are no other candidates qualified to lead, as the two parties would have us believe? I am in no way advocating any other political party, but notice how the two main parties have managed to make us all feel doubtful of another party’s candidate’s capacity to lead even if they were somehow elected. This is the long-term effect of propaganda, and it is another reason why the results of the presidential election almost always give us a leader who is not the best choice to lead our nation. Indeed, that these parties would give us the likes of Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, Al Gore, and John Kerry as their best choices for president shows the likelihood that the major parties’ candidates are not the best choices for America. This is further emphasized by the fact that every president since FDR has committed serious blunders and has shown little true evidence of leadership (with the possible exceptions of Kennedy and Reagan).

“In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office.”

- Ambrose Bierce



Democracy Cannot Exist Without Being a Propaganda State

Democracy, more than any other form of government, falls prey to the effects of propaganda. Because of this, democracy causes propaganda to be created more abundantly than any other form of government as rival factions seek to permanently modify the government to become a new form that promotes their agenda forever into the future. FDR’s New Deal is perhaps the clearest example of this.[1] Other examples include both the reasons for beginning the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, and also the corresponding opposing reasons for their eventual loss of popular support and failure.

It is true that totalitarian nations like the former Soviet Union used an immense amount of propaganda. But this was largely aimed outward to the rest of the world to further the worldwide socialist revolution. That which was meant for use domestically was to control a largely illiterate peasantry to obtain their compliance and labor with the government. The key difference is that none of the ruling elite were affected by the propaganda (they all knew the reality of their nation) and it had no capacity to change or overthrow the government. Propaganda in a communist state is just another tool used to control the populace, like police and courts.

In a democracy, because of the vote, propaganda can destroy or completely reconstitute the government to become a new form, and can displace those individuals who run the government. This new form does not necessarily appear all that different. It may have the same outward hierarchical structure. But nobody can deny that our federal government became a whole new government, from a functional standpoint, at certain key moments in our history. The Lincoln administration made changes that eventually demolished the power of the States (even Northern States). Wilson and the Income Tax and Federal Reserve again recast the government into a form it had not been before. And the sweeping reforms of FDR again created what amounts to an entirely new government, operating very differently than before, though appearing to be only slightly different. In more recent years, these changes have continued with the Great Society of LBJ, the huge decrease in transparancy and simultaneous increase in activity under Nixon, and the restrictions upon Constitutional Rights in the name of Security during the most recent Bush administration.

So we must recognize that our government is NOT the same one that the Founders established. That original government has been destroyed and reconstituted differently several times. And this has been accomplished by factions that have used propaganda to obtain popular support for their new regimes. Propaganda, in a democracy, does far more than simply control the masses. It creates a new state, operating under the rituals and facade of authenticity of the old one.

In a democracy, propaganda is a constant attempt by all the contending political factions to effect a coup d’etat, or the ruling faction’s efforts to suppress such a coup or expand the scope of their powers. The election itself is the execution of this attempted coup. The only difference between this process and the coups of Third World nations is that our coups are bloodless, occur on a scheduled timetable, and the victor does not change the outward appearances of the State.

The nation is perpetually at war with itself as rival factions vie for control of the culture (the collective opinions of the masses). The abortion issue, feminist movement, civil rights movement, gay rights movement, evangelical movement, war on terror, war on drugs, and other similar controversies and factions are each a singular long-term effort to seize and wield power.[2] Though many such activists are so swept up within their own propaganda that they fail to see this, yet it is still true.

In a democracy, the voters directly empower the individuals and factions that govern. Therefore, in order to govern one must first get the masses to agree with you in such a way that also causes them to disagree with your opponents. If there were no emotional and polarizing issues within the public political forum, there would be no means whereby the masses could feel any impetus to choose either you or your opponents. It would all be the same to them, and they wouldn’t care who ran the government.

Because of this, should you be elected under such ambivalent circumstances you would never have a sufficiently passionate mandate to rule as would permit you to make permanent modifications to government practice (through expansionistic new legislation) to move the nation into compliance with your agenda. Nor would you be able to modify the balance of power among the factions to give your faction a distinct or perpetual advantage. Since the people were only lukewarm in their original endorsement of you, they would be reluctant to grant you any license to make any permanent changes or to effect any sweeping reforms. Indeed, since there are many other candidates out there who were nearly as attractive as you were in the past election, with the coming of the next election the masses would be inclined to elect somebody else who opposes your changes (unless they are either tax cuts or socialist entitlement programs) and so the final outcome of your tenure in office would be virtually nothing.

Nobody who desires power or who seeks to make a difference of any kind would be satisfied with this situation. It is necessary to have a more passionate mandate from the masses (even if you passionately offend a large minority of them) so as to inspire the majority to permit you to more fully wield power in ways that otherwise would offend them. Indeed, by creating an adversarial relationship among the masses, the majority who supports you will almost completely support your other more controversial agendas simply because you are their public champion, whom they are loathe to publicly oppose. In this way, one can wield power in a far more autocratic manner and accomplish one’s agenda, and all the while the majority will praise you for your “strong leadership” instead of deposing you or labeling you a tyrant.

And so we can see that the only way for one to wield potent power in a democracy is to create public controversies and polarizing emotional issues that whip the masses into various frenzies. Taking distinct stands on these issues and controversies is an easy means whereby a candidate can show himself to be significantly different from the others. Also, using these issues allows one to promote a cunning and successful propaganda that causes the creation of a passionately supporting faction among the voters. For those who can grow their faction to become a majority, by polishing and perfecting their propaganda, enormous power is available. And because this is the only means whereby one may wield strong power in a democracy, we can see that a democracy cannot exist without being perpetually awash in propaganda.

“The methods now being used to merchandise the political candidate as though he were a deodorant positively guarantee the electorate against ever hearing the truth about anything.”

- Aldous Huxley



Democracy Makes Nations Weaker and More Unstable

Obviously, this is not a wise form of government. Instead of bringing voices together to find the truth and a harmonious balance in all things (the classical image of democracy), we instead see that lies and half-truths are spawned ad infinitum, and that the people are perpetually divided against themselves in controversy and dispute.

This constant division among the people means that the government is always opposed in its intentions by a large vocal minority. This causes the government to be inefficient, unresponsive, and stuck in a state of gridlock. Wise proposals that would benefit the people are opposed simply because their implementation and success would further empower the faction/party that promoted them. The majority of proposals that are adopted are those that increase the grip that the government has upon the people, those that spend the people’s money to the political advantage of those in power, those that are aggressively promoted to benefit the majority faction, and those midnight bills that are enacted without public scrutiny. The government largely ignores the needs of the people, except in those cases where doing so can bring political advantage, and where opposition is impossible because of a lack of a credible reason for doing so.

Because of this, we can see that the government doesn’t really do anything other than maneuver to obtain a power advantage among itself, distribute propaganda, and spend the people’s money to further their own thirst for power. The needs of the nation are not the driving force of democracy, and are addressed only when convenient to do so when these needs coincide with the eternal struggle over power.

This perpetual power struggle prevents those who govern from ever dropping their political weapons and actually getting down to the nation’s business. But it also plants the seeds of an endless and increasing antipathy between the opposing factions. This animosity exists within the people as well, and under stressful conditions will flare up into open conflict and even civil war. With the government forever at war with itself, and with the people surrounded by propaganda designed to anger them and demonize their neighbor who disagrees with them, democracy creates a nation that is ever-ready to burst into civil war. This makes the nation far weaker and more unstable than it would be otherwise. The only way to combat this is for the government to become more secretly totalitarian to maintain control, such as what has occurred increasingly in America since the civil war. Despite this, one can see that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

As a result of this constant dissention, democracy weakens the nation’s ability to prevent and withstand attacks from other nations. The endless gridlock causes the nation’s needs to go unaddressed until the last moment possible, including the nation’s defense needs.[3]

The early success of the Axis nations in World War 2 shows how non-democratic nations of only moderate power and capacity can wield a devastating sword against democracies with ostensibly greater military power. The invasion of France in 1940 is a stunning example of this. While the military tactics of blitzkrieg used by the Germans were instrumental in their victory, the disorganization and lack of foresight of the French government was the primary cause of the French defeat. Indeed, France had more tanks than the Germans in 1940, a similarly sized army, and had constructed the Maginot Line fortifications along the entire border with Germany. Their strategic situation at the beginning of 1940 was far superior to Germany’s, and they possessed both more total military assets and had the advantage of executing the battle plan of Prepared Defense, which is far easier to successfully execute than Assault.

But democratic France frittered away these great advantages partly because of the inefficiency and ineptitude inherent to democracy. The pacifistic bias of the people caused the government to fail to adequately shift to a fully belligerent mode, and empowered those military leaders who were more politicians than warriors. A great abundance of ammunition, airplanes, and tanks is useless if the government cannot provide the steely leadership to the soldiers who wield these weapons, and to the citizens who must work to support this war.

And so even with the help of the British Expeditionary Force, France was overrun in less than 2 months. If not for serious blunders by Hitler and Goering, in allowing the BEF to evacuate Dunkirk and then shifting the focus from attacking RAF airfields to bombing cities, Britain would have fallen as well and Germany would have won the war.

The policy of appeasement adopted by these democracies, imposed by the war-weariness of the majorities, caused them to be unprepared to face the rapid and potent rebirth of the German armed forces. Also, the Treaty of Versailles’ immoral and impractical burdens upon Germany[4], promoted by the previous generation’s majority intent upon revenge against their foe, clearly assisted the rise of Fanaticism and Totalitarianism in Germany and created the conditions that lead to World War Two, which was really the final act of a single Great War.



The Will of the Majority is neither Humane nor Wise

Democracy is, at its core, an organized form of mob rule. It is a perpetual competition of competing propagandas. Those individuals and factions who most successfully lie to the masses seize and wield power. The classical argument in favor of democracy says that the candidate who promotes the wisest agenda, or whose policies favor the majority, will win and thus good government is established. But this argument is flawed in two ways.

First, we can see that favoring the majority is not always the most humane course of action. Germany under Adolph Hitler prospered greatly before the war in part because of the way that it oppressed minority groups and seized their property and economic advantages, and gave these to the majority. In the Confederate States of America, slavery of the minority there was the bedrock of the entire economy.

People tend to act in their self interest, especially when they operate as a group. And if one group is vehemently opposed by another group, whichever one holds the majority will take selfish and sometimes violent steps to undercut the power of the rival group, so as to rule perpetually. This gives rise to a huge potential for barbaric and abominable actions by the majority, actions not even truly desired by them, just as an expedient of remaining in power or to oppose a growing minority threat.

Majority Rule is a powerful logical basis to promote genocide against an opposing minority faction who is reproducing faster than the majority. Since the value of one’s ideas are trumped by the basic animal fecundity of an opposing people, one wages successful war not in the arena of thoughts and ideas, but with poverty, disease, and warfare conducted upon women and children. Depopulating your foe is the most effective path to continual victory in a Democracy, if you can do so without enraging the majority. Throughout history, with the implementation of skillful propaganda, this has been accomplished on many occasions. As such, Majority Rule is an intrinsically barbaric philosophy and mode of government.[5]

Second, looking at this issue with the abstract example of the lifeboat I presented in Chapter 1, we can see that if we strictly follow the voiced wishes of the majority (a massive throng cast into the sea, all wishing to be in the boat) that we would overload the boat and that it would sink. The majority will is usually the course of foolishness, not wisdom, especially in dangerous or complex situations – which are exactly those times when wise governance is needed the most. Indeed, the majority will is more likely to be foolish than wise precisely because the individual people who constitute it are themselves mostly more foolish than wise.

This can be proven by a simple observation: The majority of humanity are people who need to be governed and controlled. Most people are not noble individuals whose own personal code of conduct and social conscience constrain them from violence and enable them to coexist peacefully without compulsory governmental control. By virtue of the fact that the vast majority of the world’s people need to be restrained and directed by compulsory government, we can rightly infer that they are also, on balance, more civically foolish than wise.[6] Compulsory and punitive government is largely unneeded in a society made up of only wise people. But we can clearly see from modern conditions and from the voice of history that the average human is far from this state of civic wisdom.

Therefore, adding the average person’s voice to any public debate or adding their vote to any popular assessment will cause the overall outcome of that debate or assessment to become marginally more foolish instead of more wise. Most people are (in civic wisdom) negative numbers of varying degree, and only a few are positive numbers. When we sum together the opinions of large numbers of people, we get an outcome that is inevitably a negative number. The greater the number of people we include in this sum, the more negative this sum will tend to become.

In this way we can see that popular consensus is a path to foolishness, and that there is no logical basis whatever to suppose that either the nation’s electorate or even a jury of randomly chosen citizens will, by their embodiment and consensus, promote wise outcomes.[7] Indeed, for the reasons stated, it is much more likely that this method of decision making opposes wisdom in civic life. When we also consider how much more effective excellent propaganda is at convincing people rather than the unpolished truth, especially when the truth is either unpleasant, complex and difficult to understand, or uncertain; we can easily see that the likelihood of a majority of the masses believing the truth about any controversial issue is very low. Since this is an underlying theoretical basis for the supremacy of democracy, that popular consensus fosters fairness, balance, and wisdom; we can easily conclude that this assertion is false and that democracy is based upon false assumptions.



Lack of Civic Wisdom in People Does Not Imply Their Lack of Value in Life

It should be noted that by saying that the majority of people are mostly foolish in civic matters that this is not a condemnation of them in the totality of life. People can and do live lives of significance and value without also possessing wisdom in the public and civic arenas. One can be a foolish voter, yet also be an excellent parent, friend, worker, artist, or citizen. Excellence in one aspect of life does not guarantee excellence in all such aspects. And likewise, foolishness in one area of human activity (governance) does not necessarily imply a worthlessness of such people, nor does it automatically impugn their excellence in other worthwhile human abilities and traits. So when I comment on and indicate how the majority of humanity does not possess the capacity to positively contribute to leadership and governance, this in no way should be construed as a blanket condemnation of the bulk of humanity as worthless or inept. On the contrary, the wise reader can clearly see that people who can contribute excellence of any worthwhile kind are valuable and that many such people also have significant deficiencies in other areas of life.

It is no surprise that the brilliant scientist, who can work the blackboard in his imagination deftly and creatively, also has problems with relating to people, or with other commonly found interpersonal skills. It is no surprise that the popular musician or actor, who so adeptly transfixes and commands the audience, cannot quell his own inner demons nor relate meaningfully with his own family. Their foibles and weaknesses in no way diminish the excellence of that which they can do.

We do not devalue people simply because they do not possess a voice that is useful to governance. We cherish people for what they have and what they are, not condemn them for what they lack, unless their lacking is so comprehensive and pervasive as to leave little of value left.

So when we state that the majority of humanity has no ability to contribute to the process of governance, we can see that this is nothing close to a blanket condemnation of humanity. It is simply an objective observation like saying that the majority of people are not skilled at hunting or music or science or any other field of human endeavor. Also, it would be the height of folly and arrogance for people to universally think that they, simply by birth or natural right, possess the skill and talent requisite to add anything of value to one specific area of human activity. In this case, that skill is governance.

When we do not presume that we are just as skilled as our doctor in medicine, as skilled in flight as the pilot who flies the airplane we travel in, or as trained in war as the soldier who defends us; how can we then presume to automatically possess the specific talent and training required of a person who is a wise national leader? Leadership, especially on such a large scale, is a specific skill just like all these others. It takes a person with the right temperament and training to perform these duties well. And we should understand that the duties of leadership are just as deadly serious as those of physicians, pilots, and soldiers. The lives and prosperity of every person under their command is in their hands – a gravely serious responsibility. It is only because we rarely elect competent leaders, but instead usually select charismatic inept people of various degrees, that we presume to be just as competent as our leaders.



Democracy Changes Reality in an Orwellian Manner

We must always value the truth of a matter over the consensus of the masses about the matter. Consensus does not create reality! It is this fact, lastly, which is possibly the most dangerous flaw inherent in democracy – that it creates a philosophical structure among the people and their government whereby consensus creates reality. Democracy says that if 55% of the people think it is best to immediately withdraw from Iraq, then this creates a condition whereby the actual wisest course for the country is to withdraw immediately. If perceptions change somewhat and a few people subsequently change their minds making only 45% support an immediate pullout, then reality itself is changed.

Note that the actual correct course of action, independent of popular consensus (the Actual Reality), is completely ignored by this Majority-Rules mindset. Also, this is not simply an opinion of the masses which may be taken into account by an independent government along with other separate considerations. In a direct democracy, and also more indirectly in a representative democracy, the popular consensus itself is the sole actionable consideration of the government in determining reality and the proper course of action to respond to it. The voice of the people creates the reality that the nation acknowledges and dictates the policies enacted.[8] When democratic leaders enact policies that are in opposition to the majority opinion, this is seen as suspicious, tyrannical, and even possibly treasonous simply because of their opposition to the majority opinion, and not due to the actual policies themselves.[9]

Also, all previous realities are erased by the most current reality. Today, most Americans believe that going to war in Iraq was a mistake. This means (for democracy) that the war actually IS a mistake. However, if in future years events change or more information becomes available showing that the war accomplished something significant or prevented a catastrophe, and if 70% of the people say that going to war was correct after all, then reality itself will be changed to show that Bush was a Visionary President, valiantly protecting us from harm even though we failed to comprehend his wisdom and courage.

Now my point here is not at all whether the war is correct or not, or whether Bush is brilliant or a buffoon. But look at how Democratic[10] Philosophy causes reality itself to change according to the winds and tides of the masses. Those of us who have read Orwell’s 1984 can recognize the similarity to Oceania’s constantly shifting wars, and how the newest version of that reality erased all the previous events and moments. ‘Oceania is at war with Eurasia – Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia’. And then the moment comes when the shift is made. ‘Oceania is at war with Eastasia – Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia – Eurasia is our ally – Eurasia has always been our ally’.

It is precisely this haphazard way that Reality itself, the one eternal Truth of the universe from which all things can take their reference and orientation, is so easily moved about from place to place that is the danger. This is a form of philosophical insanity. When we also consider that democracy has no real intention or mechanism of finding the actual truth or actual reality of anything at all, we are left to wonder whether this mode of thought is anything but evil.

Can Truth be determined by taking a poll? Is Reality subject to popular approval?

This is different from having shifting perceptions of events as time passes and further information becomes available. Having an opinion about the truth of a matter, and acting upon that opinion is different than adopting a binary, all-or-nothing, majority-rules mindset. The search for truth is properly done by incorporating all previous opinions on a matter and the context in which those opinions were formed. A synthesis of the entire history of the matter and the whole train of thoughts and ideas about it is necessary to come to a wise approximation of the Actual Truth.[11] And at every stage in the process, wisdom requires that we acknowledge that we are not entirely sure that our current appraisal of the matter is 100% right, even though we still act on this current appraisal and have confidence that it is the best available at this time. We must be willing to accept a significant degree of uncertainty, be receptive to new data as it appears, and incorporate the entire history of our thoughts on a matter if we are to have any hope of getting closer to the Truth. Such is the path to wisdom and the development of valid philosophy.

But Democratic Philosophy does none of these things. It cannot tolerate uncertainty so the war either IS a good idea or it IS NOT a good idea – it has no room for any nuances or qualifications in its current truth. When uncertainty is high, it cannot form any opinion at all about the truth of a matter and so does nothing at all. And every time the popular winds change and the popular consensus changes, the new truth completely erases all of the reasons for the old truth and so all of that data is completely forgotten or discredited. This is an irrational, extreme, and fundamentally unintelligent approach since it ignores history (or rewrites it to fit modern opinions) and only listens to today, and can only answer complex questions with either a YES or NO.



Conclusions

And so we can see that Democracy has the following major flaws and dangers:


It is based upon false assumptions about the utility of the masses in discerning truth and in fostering fair and wise outcomes

It is highly susceptible to propaganda, and as such is controlled by individuals and groups that are the most skilled at lies and manipulation

It is completely ineffectual unless operating in an environment of perpetual controversy, strife, and propaganda

It does not persist in its original form, but morphs into other governmental structures unforeseen and unintended by the people

It weakens the nation by creating a government perpetually stuck in gridlock, and without any real imperative of serving the people or the nation

It creates a government that spends all of its time fighting over internal power instead of addressing the needs of the nation

It promotes acts of cruelty, barbarism, and subversion by the majority so that they may retain their power into the future

It is highly susceptible to coups (meaning ‘election coups’) and randomly vacillates between Socialism and Plutocracy/Theocracy

It establishes a false philosophy where consensus, inclusion, and majority rule are ascribed attributes of value which they do not logically possess

It establishes a disingenuous philosophy which causes Truth and Reality to be completely randomly variable, but never seen as anything but eternal and permanent

It is empowered by the stupidity, cowardice, and greed of the many; which is always more abundant than the intelligence, courage, and civility of the few


When we open our minds and consider all of the ways that democracy promotes barbarism instead of civility, and we understand how it plays upon the vanity of the masses to empower the most manipulative and unscrupulous people in our midst, we can come to no other conclusion than this is not a wise form of government. If we are to live together in harmony on this planet, and if we are to become strong enough to face whatever challenges the future may hold, we cannot continue to support this destructive and irresponsible type of human organization.

We cannot stop the Bus of Humanity at every intersection and take a vote whether we should turn right, left, or continue straight. We cannot take a vote to elect a new driver at every stop sign and red light. Such a process has little hope of getting us where we need to go. And even if by some miracle we eventually reach our destination safely, the journey will certainly take so long that by the time we arrive, we won’t even remember the reasons for our trip.



ENDNOTES

[1] FDR’s administration enacted programs and an overall socialistic mindset in American Government that have never been erased even when conservative presidents and congresses later held power.
[2] How is this so? Each of these groups seeks to not only make something legal or illegal, but to permanently modify the culture of the country to echo their agenda. Doing this will create a political climate where these exact people will be voted into office and thereby given a wider scope of powers unrelated to their original cause.
[3] The only reasons why this has not had catastrophic effects upon America is that we have been the most wealthy and powerful nation on earth since the end of WW2, and that in previous days our geographic separation from all other world powers had kept us safe. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a singularly obvious example of what we could have faced if we were not so distant from our enemies. If America was located within 100 miles of either Japan or Germany, it is likely that a large part of our territory would have been conquered and we could have even lost the war.
[4] Anybody who doubts this statement should read the entire Treaty of Versailles. The economic, territorial, and moral burdens it placed upon Germany (who was no more responsible for the outbreak of WWI than the Allies) are truly staggering. No reasonable person could expect any proud and advanced nation to long endure such shame and perpetual rape as was imposed upon Germany without an eventual violent reaction.
[5] The film ‘The Ox-Bow Incident’ starring a young Henry Fonda is both a fine film and an excellent example of how Majority Rule is barbaric.
[6] It stands to reason that a person who needs to be policed ought not to have a say in creating the laws or contributing to the governance of the police. This is just an obvious logical axiom, even though following its wisdom leads to changes in society and government that we, in modern times, are unaccustomed to.
[7] This fact, alone, completely invalidates democracy as a reasonable form of government. The only way democracy could be a wise option is if the majority of the populace were so wise and enlightened as to not require any governance at all.
[8] And since the consensus of the masses is dictated by propaganda, we can see that reality itself is engineered by one of the two oligarchies within the government to fit whatever scenario they deem useful. Indeed, the contest between the two factions can be best described as a struggle to define what the nation says is real or not real. In this way, politically useful realities always hold sway over Actual Reality because neither faction has any incentive to promote a reality that is not useful to them.
[9] Such is the case with George W. Bush and his Iraq policies. This is also a huge consideration in how he is considered by many to be an illegitimate president, having lost the popular vote to Gore. This opinion persists even though the Constitution was clearly followed and the direct popular vote is not even a constitutionally valid factor in electing a president.
[10] Not Democratic Party Philosophy; the Philosophy of Democracy itself
[11] Notice how the path to philosophic wisdom always follows a course that is intended to discover the Actual Truth. As I have previously stated, democracy has no use for the Actual Truth and therefore does not seek it.