6 July 2008

Have you read any good letters to the editor lately?  Have you noticed they are all very one sided, emotional and oh so confident that the writer is right?  Op Ed articles are pretty much the same, and today so are many straight news articles.  Relatively few cover both sides of an issue.  There is one justification for that: there is seldom space enough to cover all the facets of an issue; and there is yet another: most writers don't know enough about the other side of an issue (other than their own) to discuss it, especially if it is economic.  And let's face it, economics is tough to cover from all aspects; even economists don't know what's going to happen.

Along those lines I read a blog this morning suggesting that if congress could just do away with its political issues for one week they could solve the energy and economic issues plaguing us.  I respectfully disagree.  That presumes that there are solutions upon which all can agree, and I don't think there are.  In fact all the above sums up "democracy", and the human nature that underlies it: we really do not agree on much, and most of us lack the knowledge or insight to be able to weigh the issues intelligently.

In Federalist Number 10 Madison allowed that faction can't be eliminated without eliminating liberty itself, because within faction is inherent the nature of man: contentiousness.  We have different interests, different backgrounds, different views and underlying knowledge; we just don't see things the same way.  All we need to do is look at the history of one man rule and see what it brings.  That is not to suggest there is anything like the wisdom of the common man; it is to suggest that by blocking the worst we achieve the least worst, and that, I would contend is what we have.  Remember Churchill?  Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest?

Think about it.