Here is a scary question: Would Americans accept a dictator in the office of president? There is no doubt that a dictatorship is a more efficient form of government than a democracy, if you want to get things done.
I heard a New Hampshire resident on the news say that she loves “Donald Trump because he’s getting things done.”
Our elected officials gain their support by making promises, outlining goals that in most cases can only be achieved by a dictator, unless the country has a unified vision of how their government should work and what those goals should be — in other words, unless there is a unified Congress.
It seems to me that the underlying cause of disunity stems from one primary idea: that in contrast to the Golden Rule (that we should all treat others with the respect we want for ourselves), people are justified in forcing others through law to conform to their ideas of what is right. This is especially prevalent in religion and the issues of abortion and gender identity, but it extends to every facet of public life.
There is a prevalent idea that “the ends justify the means,” and it is sometimes necessary to collaborate with people one would otherwise condemn in order to obtain some overriding objective. One objective on all sides of the political spectrum is to appoint judges who will “overturn” decisions of other judges instead of considering each case on its merits and applying the law impartially. To overturn or nullify laws to conform to a desired outcome is very far from impartial justice, which is one of the goals of the separation of powers written into the Constitution.
The Constitution was written to preserve the rights of states to decide standards in many areas (what constitutes murder, what are grounds for divorce, how to set up their elections, whether gambling is allowed, etc.) from the encroachment of the federal government, which was set up to perform essential functions that needed to be uniform, such as patent laws, currency, postal system, foreign policy.
The federal government has encroached on “states’ rights” for so long that it is no longer questioned that “the federal government trumps state laws.”
Because the founders of our constitutional government feared that governments could still encroach on the “unalienable” rights of individuals, the “bill of rights” was included in the form of amendments. The purpose was to allow each individual the right to decide personal standards for himself, so long as his actions did not violate the same rights for others. This includes the right of freedom of religion and freedom from enshrining religious standards in law. It also allowed the federal government to overturn state laws that violated these unalienable rights.
Unalienable rights, as noted in the Declaration of Independence, were “endowed by the creator,” not granted by the state, and therefore could not be justly taken away by the state.
I believe that the major problem of disunity in Congress would be alleviated by all states having ranked voting, or instant runoff, systems that would ensure the person elected would be the one supported by the most people, not necessarily as first choice, but supported. This would eliminate the extremes on all sides.
The Electoral College was created to give greater power to slave-owning states to preserve their right to own other people, but still to count their slaves as people for the purpose of apportioning representatives in Congress. It should be abolished, but that cannot happen without a Constitutional amendment, so in the short term, it is not a useful goal for taking control of our elections in 2020.
The fundamental problem in this country, as I see it, is that there are too many citizens who believe in unfettered democracy — the rule of the majority. I believe in the Republic, which limits not only government, but also the majority, from encroaching on or denying the rights of every citizen to decide for himself whatever affects himself alone. For example, everyone has the right to decide for herself whom to marry, but she does not have the right to deny the same legal protection to others.
So, yes, I believe, unfortunately, that there are many voters in this country who would support a dictator, as long as it is their dictator and not the other guy’s.
Judith Truesdell is a resident of Shelburne.