Our Democracy is at risk.

Both extremes have used this political talking point. It’s true, but not for the reasons typically mentioned.

Simplistically, our democracy means people make the country’s decisions, logistically facilitated by electing those representing us in governmental operations. These decisions, whether historically or currently, involve protecting individual freedoms by defining the manner the government is allowed to interfere. Voting is the most common method by which we participate in these decisions.

The more this decision-making power is limited by others or not utilized by ourselves, the greater the threat to its continuance and hence our democracy. Hindering democratic input negatively affects political, economic, educational and life decisions making it more difficult to take command of our own lives and difficult for our varying populations to work together toward a common goal.

This threat comes from two main sources: the government and us. The government prefers to take decision-making off our plates and do it for us. It’s easier for them, but it weakens our democracy. They are implying we aren’t capable.

One example is the recent primary elections. In Colorado, both parties endorsed a single candidate before the primary election. They preferred to determine the winning candidate without the risk of allowing the voters to decide democratically.

National parties followed suit. Neither had a true Presidential primary. They endorsed their choice prior. After Pres. Biden withdrew, Democrats had the opportunity for a primary and open convention; allowing people have input. But they said no; not valuing our opinion. Given that 75+% of voters weren’t happy with either candidate, an opportunity to identify and push forward someone more capable was missed. Instead, a coronation will occur.

Economically, our democracy is threatened whenever we are dependent upon another country for a required resource. Whether it’s oil, minerals, equipment, or food, if we must buy it from them, we are at their mercy regarding supply and price. They can not only demand our money but political concessions. We have the capability to be independent.          

Democracy requires an informed electorate. To make educated decisions we must understand all sides of an issue which is difficult. The government only provides their side and what they desire. We cannot rely on the Internet, the media to be any more reliable. Truth has become relative.

Democracy requires empathy. We mustn’t only consider ourselves but those who will be negatively affected by specific legislation. If we wouldn’t want to be the one affected, morally we shouldn’t vote for it even if it reflects our own opinions. One example would be wolves in Colorado. In a democracy, there is always a danger of the majority taking advantage of the minority on any issue. In a two-party system, the majority party can function as a dictatorship if they allow it.

The biggest threat to democracy is our responsibility: voter apathy. A decreasing percentage of our electorate fulfills their voting responsibilities. Any activity not utilized weakens and eventually disappears, whether it’s our muscles, voice or not voting. Apathy emerges when we become frustrated and don’t feel what we think, say or feel is of importance; we can’t make a difference. Why bother to vote?

With the millions spent on campaigns, it can be tempting to feel that whoever spends the most and has the best marketing will win. The good work this money could do elsewhere isn’t a consideration. We understand that individuals and organizations don’t donate large sums without expecting and receiving access and input. So why vote?

            Voter apathy is accelerated by not being willing to accept a democratic decision we didn’t support. If some don’t agree with a result, or desired legislation they tend to sue. It’s a function of submitting to a feeling that everyone should conform to the superiority of our desires. Consequently, why vote? It’s like threatening to take our basketball and go home.

We can feel our vote doesn’t matter, because it’s difficult if not impossible to defeat the governmental status quo. The government desires to make us dependent upon them in some manner. When a voter receives money or benefits from a policy advocated by a specific political party or candidate, they are logically reluctant to vote for any candidate seeking to change that money flow or policy.

The governmental status quo has prioritized benefits to specific electorate groups that are willing to become more dependent, controlled and don’t understand our democracy sufficiently to realize the long-term danger.

As a result, it’s possible to win every election. The number of voters possessing a personal stake in the status quo dominates the total electorate. To illustrate, in 2020 there were 239M registered voters but:

• 24M federal, state and county employees;
• 6.6M public school teachers;
• 3.9M university employees;
• 65.6M receiving Social Security benefits; 61.2M receiving Medicare;
• 10.1M receiving unemployment benefits;
• 82.7M receiving Medicaid, 44M receiving food stamps.

These 298.1M people have a personal stake in the status quo. This doesn’t consider millions who benefit from a specific policy whether immigration, affirmative action, income tax regulation, corporate law, or other special interest. They benefit from maintaining the status quo and seldom vote for change. Overlap lowers this total but only accentuates the likelihood they won’t vote for any candidate advocating change. This is discouraging and makes it easier to be apathetic about the effect of our vote.

The 438 governmental agencies are a threat. They establish rules and procedures without any legislative or voter approval. Input may be part of the process, but interim rules are typically established and often the decision’s been made before going through the motion of accepting input. Decisions are made far from where the rules have impact. For example, in 1980’s there was an OSHA regulation that required every agricultural employee be within 100 yards of an outhouse. Given farms/ranches encompass hundreds of square miles the ludicrous nature of such is realized.

French foreign minister Vergennes, a country with a different economic and political system, after being convinced by Benjamin Franklin to provide money to help finance the Revolutionary War inquired, “What is this American idea?”  Franklin replied, “that a free people may govern themselves guided by common sense, mutual caring and a belief in the greater good.” To which Vergennes asked, “And if they lack common sense?” Franklin responded, “Then I suppose they should get what they deserve.” 

Bryan Whiting feels most of our issues are best solved by personal responsibility and an understanding of non-partisan economics rather than government intervention. Comments and column suggestions to: bwpersonalresponsibility@gmail.com.