top of page
Search

Is Democracy the Biggest Existential Threat We Have to Democracy?

Updated: Sep 29

By: Robert E.L. Walters




There's a lot of talk this election cycle among the two big U.S. political parties about how this election is "the most important election of a lifetime," that democracy itself is at stake, and that the outcome is tied to the very continued existence of this republic. With all due respect to Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris, I don't think either of them sit on the precipice of catastrophe quite like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt or even Ronald Reagan, each of whom faced true existential threats to our government, or to at least our fundamental way of life.


This said, I have historically made no secret about my incredulity regarding the sincerity, competency, or motivations of the Republican and Democratic parties. They are both appalling as evidenced by the fact that we the people are on the hook for $35,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and counting, roughly $110,000.00 per person, which in a two family household sums up to $220,000.00, roughly half the average cost of a home in the U.S. in 2024.


This essay will spare the reader the realities such math works on inflation and the overall general welfare of the populace, but it suffices to say, Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris aren't going to do anything about our republic's true existential threat, which is of course debt, nor can they. For all that "we the people" complain about debt and spending, government waste, fraud, abuse, and welfare and entitlements spending, we consistently say we want it continued regardless of the fact that the numbers will never add up no matter how much or whom we tax.


Way back in 2020 The Socratic Review published an essay entitled The Politics of Magical Thinking which delved into this phenomenon. The basic premise of the essay was this: politicians run on platforms that are often unfeasible, untenable, unconstitutional or just plain crazy. It would be convenient to blame this on the politicians themselves, except that politicians are by nature venal, narcissistic, egotistical opportunists, as our founders so aptly understood. The bigger question is how they get elected in the first place.


A long-time friend and reader recently sent me a piece from the Associated Press entitled: Do you know the 3 Branches of US government? Many Don’t, Leading to a Push for Civics Education. The piece outlines how two-thirds of a professor's college students couldn't pass a U.S. Citizenship test prompting calls for more integration of civics into college curricula. Whereas this is certainly a worthwhile goal, college may be a bit too late to make much difference, since the franchise age in the United States has been eighteen since the Twenty-sixth Amendment was ratified in 1971 changing it from the previous age of twenty-one.


The Twenty-sixth Amendment is a good example of how increasing democracy can have unintended consequences. When I was eighteen, most eighteen year olds were in college or out of the house working. Now, not so much. We have kids living at home into their late twenties and early thirties. Is a young adult ostensibly dependent on their parents really the best judge of fiscal policy for the entire country, or are they easy targets for the demagogues of Magical Thinking?


Let's consider another demographic, Social Security recipients. As of this writing over 70,000,000 people receive Social Security benefits, roughly 20% or one-fifth of the U.S. population. These payments represent 21% of our current budget. To put that number into perspective, servicing our current national debt makes up 17% of the budget, and our entire military spending makes up 13% of the budget.


Unlike discretionary spending, we can't do much about Social Security. Social Security, as it was envisioned by Franklin Roosevelt, was an insurance against old age penury contributed to (presumably in trust) by both employers and employees alike. This said, we've taken the money so now we have to pay it out, which is easier said than done.


In addition to our regular $35,000,000,000,000.00 in operational debt we have another $175,000,000,000,000.00 in unrealized Social Security liabilities as described in a 01 March 2024 article from ABC News entitled: Medicare and Social Security Face $175 Trillion Shortfall, Risking Future Generations. When we add this to our $35,000,000,000 we arrive at $210,000,000,000,000.00 or $608,000.00 per person.


Even with such startling and patently untenable numbers as those described above, there is no grassroots groundswell from the voting public to address this issue, and so our elected representatives ignore it as well. Not only do people not want mom and dad or grandma and grandpa to lose their Social Security benefits, they also don't want to lose theirs as well. And here comes a rare defense of our elected officials. What choice do they have? Our representatives are elected to represent us and project our will. Blaming them for unbridled spending and obscene debt is like blaming our hosts for making a delicious chocolate cake when we ate seven helpings and gained ten pounds all of our own volition.


Whereas it would be nice to increase civics education in schools at all levels, it is only going to a address a small portion of the problem. Sure, understanding the relationship between the branches of the federal government, as well as the balance of powers between the states and the central government is useful, but I think a solid economics background would be far more useful.


In a recent article from Forbes entitled: Why Comprehensive Financial Literacy Is A Must For Economic Equity Adrian Nazari discusses among other things states such as California where financial literacy is becoming part of the curriculum. Of course, here as is the case with all curricula, vigilant taxpayers should take careful note of what our kids are being taught as to what comprises sound economics. I favor a ground-up basis starting with good old-fashioned Home Economics before moving onto the benefits of competing economic theory.


In any case, voters who are schooled in the fundamentals required for making informed decisions are the voters we want to vote. Whenever I see another "get out the vote" drive I have to wonder, where are they getting them out from and why did they have to be gotten out in the first place?


Our constitution leaves voting regulation to the states, and certainly this has been abused in the past to disenfranchise otherwise informed voters. However, besides the seemingly obvious requirement of a photo ID, shouldn't the states consider other criteria for voter registration? I'm not looking for a twenty-page test, but shouldn't we apply at least the same level of due diligence to voting that we do to driving a car?


When I was in Driver's Ed decades ago, our instructor repeated at least ten times a day that "driving was a privilege not a right." Isn't it about time that we thought of our franchise as a privilege rather than a right? I can think of 210,000,000,000,000 reasons why that thinking is woefully overdue.


Comments


bottom of page