The problems of democracy

When it comes to winning democratic elections, true conservatives are at a distinct disadvantage. For if they are consistent with their core principles and beliefs, they can’t make any lavish promises. They can’t, for example, tell the public: “Vote for me because I will offer ‘free’ prescription drugs for all senior citizens.” Socialism is simply not part of the true conservative political philosophy and agenda.

But in order for conservatives to win democratic elections, they must invariably compromise their core principles. They must replace their cherished idealism with a brutally realistic pragmatism–and thereby try to secure liberty through a retarded policy of deplorable but apparently necessary incrementalism.

Even Republican George W. Bush had to jump on the prescription drug and education bandwagons in order to win against Democrat Albert Gore. Even the Republican party has had to remove its righteous call for the abolition of the Federal Department of Education from its national platform. Conservatives have certainly compromised their principles to win–to appeal to liberals, “independents” and so-called “moderates.”

As Harry Browne, the American Libertarian presidential candidate, sardonically observed in a PBS broadcast: George W. Bush is being overly generous in his proposed Social Security reform, isn’t he? He is actually offering to give you back two percent (as opposed to 100%) of your own confiscated money–provided you allocate it toward certain government-approved investments!

Granted, getting two percent of your own money is better than getting nothing back; and Americans would be wise to vote for George W. Bush on this Social Security point alone. But, ideally speaking, shouldn’t it be a 100% return instead–even if some people don’t want it?

That is the fundamental problem of democracy. Some people don’t want freedom and will use the power of their votes to deprive others of their freedom. Democracy often amounts to gang rule. It must be reigned in through constitutionally-mandated limited government.

In a democracy, it is easy for a political candidate to promise to help the public or support the people. It is easy for a politician to say that he will “fight for the people.” But “the people” is not a single monolithic entity. “The people” is made up of a vast array of disparate individuals, each with diverse individual interests and needs.

It is easy for politicians to say that they will fight for the people. It is a lot more difficult for them to say that they will fight to uphold moral principle by safeguarding liberty and individual rights, which takes more time to explain (and which may not even be appreciated by the masses). Yet, ironically, when you put principle over people, you are really putting people (individuals) first.

In a truly free society with a constitutionally limited government, elections should not matter a whit to the electorate. It should not matter who wins an election, because the state’s power to do harm would have been severely restricted. No public official could pit the interests of one citizen against another on behalf of “the people” or the “public good.”

Strictly a personal view. Charles Reyes Jr. is a regular columnist of Saipan Tribune. Mr. Reyes may be reached at charlesraves@hotmail.com