I do not imply that Bush is less competent then Gore.
I want to illustrate that electing a more competent president who supports more government is much more dangerous for democracy then electing an incompetent one who would reduce the government.
In order for democracy to survive, people must actively participate in the political and economic life. They can do so by:
A) entrusting the government to deal with the issues and electing officials do it properly.
B) dealing with issues themselves where possible.
People who are not ready for democracy would be screwed either way - they would either not be able to elect competent/honest government where the government is powerful (Russia) or would not be able to manage their own lives where the government is limited (some African countries).
The first way - strong government may be better in the near term, especially if headed by a competent president/congress because it has all the advantages of planning and centralizing.
It is also disastrous long term because it makes people less able to make decisions for themselves.
Active educated people now may elect a competent misguided president who would ask for more power to the government so that it can solve problems some people may not be qualified to solve for themselves.
Then people do not have to learn to manage their lives and those segments who could will lose that ability. They will not be able to control the government because they will not understand the issues.
Then they will elect a stupid or dictatorial or fascist (though good-looking) president who will inherit all the power given to the "good" presidents.
Even a "good" president cannot control the entrenched bureaucrats who are not elected and are actually running things.
We, Americans, are the ones who take care about our retirement, unless other country will decide to subsidize us. We either do it by investing ourselves or by electing entrusting government to do it for us. If we are not capable of investing ourselves, how can we be capable to judge the proposals of prospective presidents?
The first way (doing it ourselves) will require us to apply some effort, make us learn, involve us in the economic life, make us more educated and knowledgeable, more ready to judge the economic and social policies. Of course those incapable will end up poorer, but there will be many more people capable then if we did not have to make those decisions.
I am afraid that the point of no return is passed for American democracy.
Most population believes that Reagan and Bush caused a depression while it is common knowledge that Reagonomics pulled the country from depression and is continuing now. There was one quarter of a depression and it was officially over six months before Clinton got elected. But since most of us do not read economy section of newspapers, it was easy for Clinton to claim that the first week he came to office, he fixed the economy.
Most people believed that reducing the growth of a program from %17 to %12 percent a year (with GDP growing at less then %4) is a drastic cut.
Most population now do not vote because they believe that government issues are too complicated to understand and that all politicians are liars and crooks. The solution seems simple - reduce the government until it does minimum of things - drug and food standards, defense, politics. Take money and economy out of the hands of "crooks" and "liars". Handle your own finances and retirement through mutual funds. Support worthy causes directly through charity or foundations. But of course if we could understand those things, we would not be in that situation.
We need someone with horizon extending further then the next re-election. The president cannot be it. Greenspan will retire one day. We are not doing it either.
We are still superior because our business has unprecedented freedom, but with time more and more of it is chipped out by "well-meaning government" regulations. Sooner or later our economy will suffer.
At some point the ruling president will stop requesting new programs and powers to help those who are too incompetent to handle their own lives, but will state that we are to incompetent to elect a good president and cancel the elections among the apathy of the masses. And he will be right.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 11-06-2000).]
