About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution
in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of
Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some
2,000 years earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'

'From th at moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that
every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is
always followed by a dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of
history, has been about 200 years.'

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
following sequence (listed in order in the pole above).

 

It seems to me a bit ironic that you should post this poll today. During my morning commute I was listening to a report on NPR about likely voters in Iowa in advance of the the NPR sponsored debate in that state today.

In listening to their answers this theory entered my mind.

I find it interesting that ...................................

 

I want to add that NO one so far has picked the first five categories make me happy that I do not have children or grandchildren to worry about.

 

It is my understanding that America is a republic, not a democracy. If memory serves, our forefathers were concerned about complete democracy (majority rule and the abuses that could occur) and set in place our governmental sections of checks and balances in order to preserve the government's ability to protect our laws and the rights of citizens (legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government). America is not a pure democracy. Remember the words in the pledge of allegiance . . . "and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands . . .", the song, "The Battle Hymn of the REPUBLIC." I do not foresee anarchy.

 

This sounds in a way like the arguments from Plato's Republic, doesn't it. But the kind of democracy discussed in The Republic is from the small city states of ancient Greece, and its relevance to modern systems of government is not clear. Plato's determined order of regression is that Timocracy >leads to> Oligarchy > Democracy > Tyranny. Democracy is for him next to the worst form of government. The best form is a philosopher-king.

But it may be that our own system of democracy/republicanism, with its media control, and lobbying blocs, by the rich and powerful, is regressing into an oligarchy/plutocracy.

 

Reportedly Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul ,
Minnesota , believes the United States is now somewhere between the
'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy,
with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached
the 'governmental dependency' phase.

Jim, I agree, control the media and you control the people (for the most part).

 

I don't know. Does the government control the media, or is the media instrumental in controling/determining the government.

 

With all the negative stories about the current government/economy etc, I don't see how the government could "control" the media. If it were so, wouldn't the news be more positive?

I believe that the media (and I won't use the term "mainstream media") tend to focus on failures, rather than successes.

 

I don't know, either, Rob, but I think it is more likely the latter -- even though the government, especially the Executive branch, often does its best to influence the media.

Democracy supposedly expresses the views of the masses. I was just opining that the rich and powerful (and not just Rupert Murdoch) ultimately control the mass media -- and thereby exercise control over the run of the mill voters. Rather than having public air waves that neutrally support the election process, we have a money driven system. And the money holders also have undue influence through campaign contributions and by bankrolling independent Swiftboating operations. That sometimes makes the system look more like a plutocracy than a democracy. K Street DC is also supported primarily by money rather than ideals.

 

I voted with the pack: "complacency to apathy"

The 2006 elections gave a little glimmer of hope....that things can change without revolution.

Is there no example where the inexorable 200 year trend has been reversed?