There was an underlying feeling among the founding fathers of the United States that government, though necessary, was a problem that needed some internal control to accomplish the purpose of social life, defense and cooperative means for advancement with protection of human rights. The states tried confederation for a few years during and after the Revolutionary War, but discovered that the smaller units, with differences would not accomplish the vision for the nation in peace and cooperation. Even in the realization that a larger representative government forging a nation in life context defined as freedom with responsibility, there was doubt that it would work. Europe called it the American experiment and many thoughtful leaders believed it would fade, and some form of tradition arise. Some nations still believe Americans are experimenting.
Power was given to a President, a Congress, and a Court. Ideally the three entities would agree and the vision, with its ideals for the citizenry, would move forward. Each would be a check on each other one. George Washington worked for the ideal, but wondered whether it would succeed what with the nature of mankind – which he felt to be seriously lacking for the large purpose. (He likely took the idea of depravity from the doctrine of the church and perceived it in political systems.) Even so, the founders of America believed the system they designed was the best the world had ever put in place for government. Even if it turned out to be messy it would be better than a single person, perhaps royal, who might become a tyrant. That authoritative person with power vested in a royal family might serve well but offer a tyrant in the next succession. (The biblical story of the kings of Israel and Judah provide illustrations.) In the passing of more than two centuries since the American Constitution was put in place, the democratic perception has gradually increased in favor with nations, the place of religious faith in politics and procedures has declined; some definitions have changed with checks and balances rising and falling; and, the nature of humankind continues to be faulty in the application of our own ideals related to government and the needs and rights of citizens. The increase in secularism has diluted our value system so complicating life.
How do we address what is commonly known the messiness of democracy? One of the first factors is to recognize that all governments are messy. They become even messier as populations grow larger; as massive emigration increases extensive variety to cultures; as individuals and groups separate their own interests from that of the larger electorate; and, as electorates fail to deal with issues of social needs and unity in candidates rather than with emotions and partisanship. Another factor is education. It will be more and more a major factor in the health of democracy that the merging generations learn what is necessary for them to do to protect freedom and rights in the context of the free citizen – with the limitations on both the citizen and the government (the individual and the social institution) to provide the most efficient society. Citizenry needs to be taught how to carry responsibility. That relates to nearly everything from taxes, to service, to beliefs and attitudes. It requires some inconvenience, like taking time to go to the polls or investigating the objectives of candidates. There are factors that are contradictory to the vital private beliefs of a voter, or a group of voters. We may believe in peace, but the candidate is militaristic. We may believe in higher taxation, but the candidate is committed to lowering taxes. So the stories may be recited at length. The electorate doesn’t usually handle these matters well. Out of the complexity the wise person tends to find the issues, and vote for the person closest to his or her perception of solving the major issues and preserving that which has worked well in the nation’s history. That is buttressed with prayer, and with a conviction that the individual will be as helpful as possible, so limiting criticism of the emerging government. There are various ways to address issues. None will work well in a spirit of negativism that has risen generally in the electorate. Without faithfulness to our elected leaders the nation will not move forward. Resulting despair will invite reaction so to reduce the value of the next election. The weakness in democratic society is partly and importantly a weakness of an uninformed and lazy electorate. Government criticism in a democracy is criticism of the electorate. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020