One thing that strikes anyone reading about the later Roman Empire is how many unhappy emperors there were. Even those who managed to reign, such as the Emperor Julian, often made the poetic connection, citing Homer, between assuming the royal purple and facing death*. Even more common are the generals who, being elevated to imperial dignity by mutinous troops, lamented that the empire had lost a loyal servant and gained a miserable sovereign. Even those who voluntarily assumed the office often lamented the sorry fate of the sovereign, who could never rest easy as every subject viewed his position with envy.

I mention this because it is one of the many reasons representative government is such an improvement over hereditary monarchy or other forms of lifetime tenure.

I wrote before, in "Misunderstanding Democracy", that most people mistake the purpose of representative government, ascribing to the elected officials the function actually intended to be served by federalism. The products of modern civics classes seem to think the founders believed that by electing representatives and allowing them to engage in debate, the legislature would produce the best possible government, while in truth the founders thought nothing of the kind. Representative government was intended solely to allow for the smooth transition of government without the need for violent overthrow or revolt that existed in monarchies. The existence of multiple federal governments was intended to produce the best laws, by allowing each tiny laboratory to choose what it thought best and then compare those results to the states around tit, deciding to keep the best ideas and replace the rest. But, as we all but destroyed federalism during the 20th century, I suppose civics lessons need to downplay the significance of federalism and so they end up transferring its function to an unrelated operation, the election of federal legislators.

Still, representative government does do an admirable job in its intended role. At least in the US. Then again, to a large degree that is because of a combination of lingering respect for constitutional government and the few remaining traces of restraint on the power of government. Because, if you look throughout history, or even around the world today, you will see there is nothing inherently stable about elected governments. You need only look at Honduras today to see that, or at Wiemar Germany. The existence of elected officials does not prevent peaceful coup or violent overthrow.

And that too was the brilliance of the founders. They recognized that representative government was a necessaruy, but not sufficient condition for preventing revolution or dictatorship. And in so doing, they tried their best to incorporate the other required element, limited power. Not just the checks and balances which limited the branches of the federal government, but the limits placed by both the federal system and by the 10th amendment reservation of rights to both states and individuals. In their vision, there was no reason to try to overthrow the federal government because, quite simply, the role of the federal government was so inconsequential.

Unfortunately, that is no longer true, and we are swiftly approaching the day when violent overthrow, from either side, may become a viable alternative to election. Already we hear those on the right saying there is no solution but revolt, and those on the left have already resorted to ACORN-driven election fraud in several districts. All because the state now wields so much power that those seeking power, and those fearing the excesses of power are both ready to resort to extra governmental means to achieve their ends. As I stated in "Transparency, Corruption and Reform", once the state has a certain amount of power, it just asks for corruption.

And as I said in that same essay, the solution is just as simple. At one time election fraud was more of a state or even local issue. Why? Because real power was largely wielded on those levels. City government offered an immense opportunity for graft or social engineering, while the federal government did not. Now, with ever increasing federal power, the locus of corruption has moved. But that fact gives us the answer.

The way to avoid election fraud and violent revolt is the same as the solution to corruption. And that is to limit the government, to return power tot he states, the localities, even the individual. Once the power is no longer there, there is also no incentive to try to take control of the federal government. Would anyone engage in election fraud to wield the power held by Andrew Jackson or Thomas Jefferson? Would lobbyists care about the federal government if it had no power over business? No. The answer is obvious, though I fear unlikely to be embraced in the foreseeable future, and that is to take away the power that leads to corruption and rebellion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Upon being invested as caesar, at the time the second rank of royalty, inferior to the two augusti, or emperors, Julian was reputed to have quoted the line "Him purple death obtained, remorseless fate".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Also interesting in this context is my post "Franken Wins", dealing with the question of whether we should lower ourselves to fighting court battles over contested elections or whether it might not be better for us as a party and for the nation as a whole that we accept loss rather than approve the relocation of electoral decisions from the legislature to the courts.