Hi Bennie

A great thread and one I could discuss at some length. I won't, however, for the sake of brevity and continued cordial relationships with my fellow sisters who I think tire of my postings a little bit.
I think it is doubtful that any election has ever been decided upon issues pertaining to the common good. We wrongly think of democracy as a politics reflecting the will of the majority of the people. When democracy is in fact about harvesting the votes of the largest minority, or coalition of minorities. It is also about power, and politicians will pander to the self-interests of the largest number of people regardless of the common good. Just as the Roman Emperor's lived in fear of the mob ( a thing of their own creation, for the reasons you stated ) so politicians and Governments in a democracy live in fear of the electorate. They will provide, or want to be perceived as providing, what the requisite number of voters desire. That does not equate to any true definition of democracy, which is a term we use far to liberally and is merely a sop to our conscience. There is no democracy only various forms of representative politics. If anything the bread and circuses mentality has simply moved beyond the arena to the world of tax breaks and disposable income.

None of us know who the next president of the United States will be, but as I listen to the debates and coverage, I tend to be dismayed by the candidates' pandering to the selfish interests of the electorate, whether in regard to universal health care, tax cuts, entitlement programs, or other issues. Appeals based upon an interest in the common good seem to be sadly lacking.
I am reminded of the appraisal of imperial Roman society by the eighteenth-century historian and champion of the French republic, Baron Montesquieu.
. In his Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline, Montesquieu contrasts the attitudes of citizens of the Roman state with the citoyen of the eighteenth-century French republic. Montesquieu posits that, under the emperors in particular, Roman citizens were virtually bereft of any sense of civic pride, patriotism, or loyalty to the state. Unlike the soldier of the eighteenth-century French republic who proclaimed that, “It is to the nation, to la Patrie that everything belongs . . . the principles of love for la Patrie . . . are not only engraved on my heart, but absorbed in
It . . .,” the average citizen of imperial Rome was a self-absorbed subject, interested primarily in how his connection to the state might benefit him personally. In Montesquieu’s view, Romans of this era saw the state basically as the property of the imperial house and were concerned for the most part with its continued largesse toward the citizenry. This, in turn, led Rome’s rulers to imagine that such largesse ensured the loyalty of the populace.
Montesquieu writes, “The people of Rome, who were called plebs, did not hate the worst emperors . . . They regarded commerce and the arts as things fit for slaves, and the distributions of grain that they received made them neglect the land. They had become accustomed to games and spectacles. When they no longer had tribunes to listen to or magistrates to elect, these useless things became necessities, and idleness increased their taste for them . . . Thus Caligula, Nero, Commodus, and Caracalla . . . intoxicated by the plaudits of the populace, . . . succeeded in imagining that their government produced public felicity, and that only ill-intentioned men could censure it.” Many modern American politicians seem to be laboring under a similar misconception.

(Bennie Lee "Ben" Ferguson is an independent, write-in presidential candidate registered with the Federal Election Commission. E-mail: [email protected]. Web page: http://candidate.lpks.org/BenFerguson.)

Bennie Lee - I do hope your current post is read by all. There is a great parallel between the Roman games and the emphasis on sport not only in the US but it seems also in the UK and most of Europe. I was told many years ago, by a professional gambler, that all professional sports either were fixed or could easily be fixed. So I've always had a suspicious view of professional sports. Please don't misunderstand me. If someone "loves" their local NFL team, great for them and I don't inject my distrust into any discussion. But I do see the love of sports as a distraction from what could be accomplished if that enthusiasm and money were spent elsewhere.
No back down off that soap box....thanks
Gracie

correction: last sentence
NOW back down off the soap box.

sorry

The days of "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You " are long over.
the current cry is "How Much Can You Pay To Your Country"

I think most people really don't want anything from their country except to be just left alone.
The less government you have the better.

When It come to government, Less is More should be the motto.