In the futuristic novel, “1984”, author George Orwell depicts English society under a totalitarian super-state, affectionately referred to as “Big Brother”. One of the characteristics of this totalitarian society was the introduction of a new manner of speech, appropriately called “Newspeak”. The purpose of newspeak was to promote and facilitate the ideological needs of English socialism, or, in newspeak, “Ingsoc”.
Just last month, under the camouflage of “newspeak”, the United States Senate, by a vote of 94-2, facilited American socialism by passing a bill to give “low-income families” an additional $400-per-child “tax-credit” in the form of a check written by the federal treasurary.
Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Problem is, these $400-per-child “tax-credits” will now be going to people that don’t pay income taxes. But, you may ask, how can people who don’t pay taxes get a tax-refund? That’s the beauty of “newspeak”, it allows legislators to construct a welfare payment and vote-buying scheme all rolled into one. It’s democracy at its pinnacle.
Alexander Tyler, an eighteenth century historian and economist, wrote of democracy:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.”
Despite our political leaders always speaking of democracy in the most glowing of terms, it wasn’t always like that. America’s Founding Fathers warned future generations against succumbing to democracy’s siren song. But, like a precocious teenager who envisions himself so much smarter than his “old-fashioned” parents, contemporary American society, too, ignores the wisdom of its founders.
America’s experiment with democracy can be traced directly to the post Civil War era of Reconstruction. One of the objectives of Reconstruction was to reduce the independence of the states by moving away from the principles of republicanism in favor a more powerful Federal government.
Beginning in the latter nineteenth century and carrying over into the early twentieth century, when President Woodrow Wilson lead America into World War I with the slogan, “to make the world safe for democracy”, the idea of democracy became inculcated into the mindset of most Americans as the ideal political system. The democratization of America culminated in 1913 with the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Prior to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, United States Senators were not elected by popular vote, but rather, were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. This system allowed the states leverage to limit the power of the Federal government and prevent it from evolving into the bloated bureaucratic beast it is today, with it’s tentacles entangled into every facet of our individual daily lives.
The Senate is the most powerful legislative body in the United States. Without Senate approval, proposed legislation cannot become law, presidential appointments cannot hold office and, most importantly, treaties with foreign nations and global entities such as the United Nations cannot be enacted.
When the state legislatures appointed their representatives to the United States Senate, the states both retained their independence and restrained the federal government with senators that held an allegiance to their states. The state legislatures, in handing over their senatorial appointments to “the will of the people”, have shifted the balance of power to the Federal government which, in turn, has aided in the passage of “progressive” social programs deemed popular with the voters, transformed highly populated urban centers into partisan voting blocks that wield their influence on both the state and national levels and, in general, has facilitated the incremental socialization of America.
When it has gotten to the point that senators are voting by a margin of 94-2 for nothing less than income re-distribution programs hidden under the guise of tax-refunds, perhaps it is time to seriously consider the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Several benefits would be immediately recognized.
Were Senators appointed by the state legislatures, as originally intended, their allegiance would be insulated from campaign contributions. This would instantly solve the problem of “campaign finance reform” that, to no avail, has taken up so much time within the congress and, so far, has only resulted in law that directly conflicts with the right of freedom of speech.
Other benefits would be that personal celebrity would not be a candidate’s sole qualification for office, nor would a candidate’s personal wealth permit the buying of a seat in the Senate. As an added bonus, a president could actually be removed from office for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
However, it will probably be a difficult task getting the genie back inside the bottle. Barring a constitutional convention, which would leave the potential for the altering of the Constitution as a whole, it would require two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. As the situation currently stands, there just doesn’t seem to be that much integrity in the Senate.
G. C. Collinsworth
