The Legacy of FreedomThe founders of the American republic were not saints. Nor did they entertain any illusions about the perfection of human nature. 
The authors of the Constitution recognized in themselves and in others, the familiar vices of vanity and greed, but they preferred the risks of civil democracy, to the false assurance of a benevolent monarchy. The framers knew that the law is by no means a perfect tool for ensuring universal liberty and justice. Yet the mechanism of checks and balances they proposed placed as many obstacles as possible in the way of what might be inflamed passions of the moment. Thus they hoped to preserve the principles and practice of freedom, against the ancient human tendency to seek security in the rule of kings. Today, a timid and fearful public increasingly demands displays of divine omnipotence from its leaders. Political medicine-men loudly offer prayers and public sacrifice on the altar of media celebrity, as they strive to elevate themselves to positions of power and control over their fellow citizens. The wish for kings is an old and familiar desire, appearing no less at home today in a society thought dedicated to the opposite ideal of individual freedom, as it was in the monarchies of medieval Europe or tribal Africa. From the dazzling Camelot of the Kennedys, to the debauchery and czarist edicts of the Clinton (and now the Obama) regime, modern nobles do little except stand as symbolic figures in the midst of as much pomp and circumstance as can be reasonably arranged. They give royal audiences, receive petitions, and grant privileges, power and favor, meantime indulging in the royal pleasures and perquisites of their high office. To the extent that political and social leaders are thus able to create an image of godlike omnipotence, they promise to relieve their followers from the human burdens of responsibility, anxiety, and fear. |
