People pine for the old days - when our "Founding Fathers" limited Democracy to themselves!
I saw the above "Garthtoons" comic and it made me think - the reason we have Trump is not in spite of democracy but because of it. As the second panel aptly illustrates, the intent of the Founding Fathers (a lodestar of the far right) was that voting to be the sole province of landed gentry - which may come as a surprise to the MAGA-head living in a trailer on a rented lot in the trailer park. The founding fathers didn't intend to give him the vote.
Which is why we have Trump.
The "landed gentry" of our modern age (the Billionaires and near-Billionaires) who control vast swaths of our economy - have a political agenda that only they and their fellow Billionaires understand. They want low (or no) taxes and have largely achieved this goal. They want no regulations on their businesses and weak or no labor unions. Again, they have largely achieved this as well.
How was that possible? The guy on the rented lot in the trailer court has real interests diametrically opposed to all of that. He doesn't want toxic waste dumped near him. He wants higher wages and lower taxes for the lower classes. He wants a strong union. He really has no interest in dynastic wealth as he has little shot at it.
So, how do you get that voter to vote for things diametrically opposed to their real interests? Again, the "Founding Fathers" never intended him to vote in the first place. They assumed, rightly, that the hoi polloi would vote for the first demagogue to come down the pike, or, failing that, the first guy to say he would hand out free money to everyone.
Hence we have Republicans and Democrats. They often serve the same masters, but use different tactics to get the public to vote for them. Make no mistake, though, one side has your interests at heart more than the other, provided, of course, that you are not a Billionaire.
In order for the wealthy elite to elect someone who has their interests at heart, they settle for a "populist" who pushes all the right buttons (mostly social issues) to get the "base" riled up to vote. Once in office, their puppet enacts legislation that favors the wealthy and then blames any blow-back on the opposing party.
A neat system and it works, provided your puppet dances to your tune. Problem is, sometimes you elect one and he has ideas of his own. "We can control him," they say, "and limit his worst impulses." They thought this about Hitler and every other dictator and demagogue. All of these dictators and strong-men needed the support of the wealthy elite to get into power. And in each case, the puppet became the master.
They said the same thing about Trump - "We can control him." But that didn't work.
A funny thing, too, as in previous decades, Republicans had no trouble electing what today are considered "Centrists" or even "Liberals." Yes, there was once a liberal wing of the Republican Party - one that didn't see government as the enemy but as a business that could be and should be, professionally managed. When breathing became dangerous in major cities, well, even the most hard-core rightist saw the light. Remember too, it was Nixon who signed the legislation creating the EPA. It was Nixon who though he could control inflation by enacting wage and price controls - how communist is that?
Today? Government is trotted out as the ultimate boogeyman - the cause of all of our problems, not a means to a solution. And if a solution actually starts working, Republicans will surely cut the funding to force it to fail - and tell their constituents that it was doomed to fail anyway, like all government programs should.
It is a different landscape than 50 years ago. Somehow, we've managed to convince most Americans that "Every man for himself!" is better than "We're all in this together!" and sold this to the average uneducated voter wrapped up in a tasty tortilla of social issues.
Maybe it is time we limited voting to landowners again. Of course, this could make things even worse, as so many younger people are now locked out of the housing market as corporate landlords snatch up one house after another. Maybe that ship has sailed.
I think the politicians of an earlier time did serve their corporate masters as well - but realized that too much of a good thing can backfire. History is awash with incidents in time where the wealthy accumulated too much wealth and made life difficult for the poor and more importantly, the middle-class. You have to structure the rules of the game so that the players at least have an idea that they might win. If not, they just may decide not to play.
Sadly, when this occurs, the average voter may decide to go with a strong-man authoritarian, which makes things worse. "He'll get things done and help the little guy!" they cry. But in most instances, the dictator sends "the little guy" off to die to satisfy his grandiose visions and plans.
We dodged a bullet back in 1929. There was talk then in America about fascism and the Nazi party - and the 1920s were the heyday of the Klan. Studebaker even sold a car called the "Dictator" along with "Commander" and "President." It was just another form of leadership, right? While much of the world did turn to strong-men, America retained its Democracy - with the Courts and Congress restraining what little dictatorial policies Roosevelt tried to enact.
Populism is an inherently dangerous philosophy - albeit an attractive one. Who of the unwashed masses doesn't want to vote for someone who claims to have their interests at heart? The problem is, good government is based on the idea that sometimes politicians have to make decisions that are unpopular simply because they are the right decisions to make.. So, for example, while it may pain us to pay a gas tax, we all benefit from the new roads it produces. The populist promises to cut the tax and then blames the potholes on his opponents - or argues that the roads should be privatized as "big government" can't fix them.
We are facing another election where a so-called populist is adored by the ignorati - who cannot list even one non-social-issue that he represents or how those issues even affect them. We are told by the Greek Chorus of background noise on the Internet that Joe Biden is a disappointment, yet when pressed, no one seems to be able to point to any particular policy or law that was enacted that was such a failure. Like Hillary's "crimes" or Hunter Biden's laptop, it is just repeated so often that it is assumed that there is some "there" there.
Some Republicans are waking up to the reality that Trump is a loose cannon and that while he might get them a foot in the door at the White House, his unpredictability and lack of real accomplishments might mean a second term would not only be unproductive but counter to their interests. Still others, in Congress, as hoping that hitching their wagon to the Trump Train (again) will catapult them into office
We'll have to see if the masses fall for this trick yet again. Their track record, however, is abysmal.
