We return to the search of mankind for freedom. Socially, in western nations it is presumed to be more fully promised under democratic procedures than in a court of royalists, or a confederacy of tribes, or a disorder of anarchy – or in combinations of systems. Democracy is dependent upon an effective means for discovering the will of the majority of the population. This is presumed to be that the nation will find an effective way to determine the will of the people. In this there is, for democracy, laws and guidelines for gaining the votes of individuals. Even if there is nothing better than a well formed plan to legalize authority in the electorate, there are problems, sometimes becoming severe, that mars the idealism.
The main weakness in the system may be found to be most severe in vagaries leading to some failure of the electorate. Some citizens simply do not vote, some vote in directions they feel personally beneficial rather than socially feasible; some vote so as to keep obvious winning candidates from gaining too much confidence; some vote party lines without knowing those lines; and other emotional lines vary with little objectivity. Currently there is wide agreement that the candidates with the largest treasury of funds to spend on electioneering will likely win. Advertising is often that influential. Ideals appear to have been diluted, and loss of respect for the system has sometimes faltered. One of the unknowns appears to be the moderation of representative methodology. In the early decades of the country, senators were elected by the state legislatures. That almost always meant that the controlling party in a state would see that their representatives were agreed on the wishes of the people for that state. During our time period states may have senators who cancel each other’s vote in legislation. When that occurs, neither the majority nor the minority is adequately represented for that state. During some election periods the public proves so fickle that support moves rather dramatically back and forth for no foreseeable reason. When elections are concluded there is often a drop-away of the majority from support of that they voted for. Followership seems as fickle as that of the persons who voted. The resistance of the minority becomes, in the tensions, more demanding than it ought to be. Government even shuts down, only to be resuscitated with increase of indebtedness, and added costs for shutdown. The process can become ludicrous. Recent presidents bow out at the close of their terms with lower percentage rates of support than they deserve. Public education needs better instruction on the nature of democratic government and what it takes to make it work. There ought to be a national education program by which both native born and naturalized citizens are instructed on what good government is for responsible citizens. The present casualness about so important a factor for lives is not working as well as it should. This does not take away the human right to freedom, but enhances employment of that right to progression. Historians have noted that governments end up in a box canyon, so ending as effective social/relational institutions. It need not be so.
The key to national pride that is deserved is found more in its citizens than in their leaders. Effective and poor leaders may strut and stall: citizens argue that the work must get done. If no one cared about who received the credit, we would immediately improve the performance. If we joined humility and respect to the efforts of both ourselves and others we would also improve performance. It is interesting that the percentage favoring the winning side is often within two to five points of the losing side. During my lifetime if the vote is 55% in favor of a candidate that person is said to have won in a landslide. The person coining the language picture must never have seen a true landslide. A centrist in government seeks the best from all sides, draws them together with grace, respect, humility, and agreement that all are seeking truth, and willing to try some factors to see if they work as well as the words say they will. The conclusion will never be perfect in a faulty society, but it will be improvement, it will qualify as good government, it will serve all, and build historical legacy for future generations. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020