The Democratic Battlefront
A few weeks ago I received a letter from a reader, who unfortunately, remained anonymous. His message informed me that the image of the flag being blown to the left (stars on the right side of the flag) is used primarily for war. Or, at least, that images of the flag as such are symbolic of the nation being at war. I think the sender of the message for that insight since I had been ignorant of that connotation.
I have since taken time to reflect on this new information. After much thought I have decided that the title image shall stay as it is. I do this because it is my opinion that a democracy must be constantly at war if it is to survive.
However, by “constantly at war” I do not mean that democratic nations should in any way be aggressive to thier neighbors. A thriving democracy is at war with its own ideals. Its people should question the decisions of its leaders, and take great interest in how and why legislation is written and passed. Current leader should question the judgments of those that came before them; not to be obstinate, but to examine if the law of the past is still working to enhance the future.
Our own two party system does these things well. However, we are not without many problems.
Two parties can be in conflict with each other, but anytime one party achieves dominance (as is any political parties goal) the system becomes burdened by flaws. For many decades the two party system was able to struggle against itself successfully and take considerable time passing any law which had sweeping consequences. In our present high speed world of communications, the time it takes to guide even sweeping reform from idea to enaction has become dangerously short. Policy makers also suffer from help. They have large staffs which can research, summarize, detail, and write materials with amazing speed. Decisions do not have to be mulled over during long hours of writing and consideration, now only a snapshot is needed before action can be taken.
Minority parties can change this dynamic. Certainly we do have people who run as libertarians and as independents, but they currently do not have much real power. We have been raised to believe strongly in only two parties. But with perhaps two or three more legitimate parties we could rectify some of today’s problems. With parties needing to make alliances in order to see bills through from start to finish there would also be the requirement of making concessions for votes. While it is true that “the majority rules” it does not follow that the majority is correct. If consensus is achieved across multiple parties, especially if 4-5 parties all agree with near unanimity that an issue must go through, the people may also feel assured that the matter has been seen by several often opposed viewpoints and seen to be required. The war of political parties insures that occurs at a deliberate and rational speed.
This also requires that the general population not only be involved with politics but to care more deeply about these matters than they do so now. Apathy must be clearly recognized as the chief killer of democracy. When the population begins to be disinterested in the welfare of their own nation then the nation will surely and quickly collapse. The American people seem to be swinging dangerously close to this position of uncaring. The battle must be taken to the people. They must be stirred from their seats and made to participate in civil debate. If people do not question their government, then their leaders are at a loss to the opinions of their constituencies. Politicians who become senators, congressmen, governors, and presidents in order to exercise their personal power and opinions are most dangerous to democracy. Every politician should desire power because he or she feels that they are able to speak for their communities and first, the sanctity of the union next, and only last for their own opinions.
Tese wars of ideals, parties, and minds are what create the sort of nation that has the limitless power of dedication an true patriotism. It creates a nation that is not secure because it has the most power but because it has found the best solution to each problem through rigorous debate and examination of each other option. Democracy is only and can only be strong because it cannot be secure in walls but must attack its own fortifications to find truth.
