If history has taught us one thing, it is that no system of government lasts forever. In fact most forms of government only last for a relatively short time before it is changed to something different, or even falls.
Think about it. The United States has a system of government that is arguably the oldest of all the developed countries. Since the adoption of our constitution, the Russians have changed hands many times, from a absolute monarchy Czarist Russia) to a republic (short lived) to a dictatorship (the USSR) under communism. Following the collapse of USSR a new semi-dictatorship was established in Russia. The Germans went from a Monarchy to republic after WWI and then a dictatorship under the Nazis to a Democratic Republic after WWII. The French threw out the monarchy and had a brief fling with a Republican government but then entered another monarchy under Napoleon Bonaparte and then back to a Republican government after his downfall. There was another change in government when the Germans defeated the French in WWII. The English moved from a powerful monarch with a vast empire to a purer form of a Republic, with the Monarch having only a ceremonial position and no say in government at all. A far cry from the days of Mad King George. China went from a monarchy to a dictatorial state under the communist after several iterations. And the story goes on.
The reason for the changes vary from country to country. Some changes were the result of invasion by foreign powers and some, in fact most, were really the result forces acting within the structure that brought it down.Very often the fall of a government to a foreign power is proceeded by a long history of corruption and decadence within, making the fall almost certain. Rome is good example.
The United States form of government, from it's founding, has been under threat a couple of times.
In 1812 the British were on the edge of reconquering American and taking it back into the fold. Only a heroic stand at Fort McKinley in Baltimore stopped that from happening. If we had lost there we might very well be flying the British flag now.
The nation was literally torn apart in 1860 when 13 southern states decided to destroy this nation by rebelling. They feared that the election of a Republican to the White House would not only stop the spread of slavery, which they desired to do, but might actually put an end to slavery all together. A bloody war was fought to hold the nation together. Thousands of lives were lost in effort to save this nation.
The nation changed as a result of the Civil War. Going into the war we were the united States of America.
The population, including those at, and graduates of, West Point, owed
more loyalty to their state than to the nation. Robert E Lee, who did
not own any slaves, felt that he could not fight against his state and
resigned his commission and joined the rebels. Almost all the southern
born officers in the U S army resigned and joined the Confederacy.
After the War we became the United States of America.
One nation, not a collection of semi-independent states. That was
significant change in the form of government. But, through it all we had
the corner stone of our contract with the government, the
Constitution.
The Civil War was probably the greatest threat to our form of government for a long time. Although one could argue that the Japanese threatened us when they attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. But, they had no real plans to conquer the United States, just to get us out of the Pacific and let them establish their "Asian Sphere of Influence". They thought that wiping out the the Pacific Fleet would force the Americans to ask for peace and the Japanese could then go on their merry way to control all of Asia. Their evaluation of the American psychology at the time was simply that we did not have the stomach to fight.
Hitler had great plans, but no real way to carry them out. He made the mistake of taking on the Russians with the British still at his back. He opened up a two front war, which anybody who knows anything about this stuff can tell you that is a very bad idea. Of course, he then compounded his problems by declaring war on the greatest industrial power in the world, The United States. Just how dumb can one man get? American industrial power then fueled the war machine that brought victory in the Second World War.
As I noted earlier, a form of government can be changed abruptly by acts of war, rebellion or invasion of a foreign power, but it can also be changed slowly and almost unrecognizably by forces from within.
The United States has been changing since it's inception. Technology has driven vast changes in how the nation operates and sees itself. The railroad, the car, the plane, mass production have had a profound influence on the country. There were many social changes in the United States over the years. The Constitution provided a method for change to reflect changing times by the amendment process. Notable among these were the 13th and 14th amendments which outlawed slavery and made all people born in the United States, regardless of color, as full citizens. Also, the 19th amendment assured women's suffrage throughout the United States. Up until then it was up to each state to decide the matter.
Since then the courts at all levels have been staffed more and more with judges which are prone to stepping outside the limits placed on government by the Constitution and are literarily making new law. The liberals had found a way to get their programs implemented without having to go through the congress.
A good example of the differences between current and past courts is the comparison between women's suffrage and abortion. Neither of these issues are addressed in the Constitution. The older courts would not rule on suffrage. The Constitution didn't address it so the courts felt is an issue left to the states to decide. It was the opinion that the federal government had no right to interfere. It took an amendment to the Constitution to force suffrage on all the states. It should be mentioned that a lot of states already had suffrage. In the case of abortion, the courts (Roe vs Wade) held that it was unconstitutional to deny an abortion to any woman who wants one. Before that each state was free to decide this issue by the citizens of that state. There is no part of the Constitution, nor any law passed by the Congress, that addresses abortion on demand. Then the logic changed. The courts acted outside of the federal Constitution and in reality made a new law allowing abortion through the United States. A new right was discovered.
The downside for the abortion advocates is that Roe vs Wade can be overturned by a subsequent court. Of course suffrage can't because it written into the Constitution.
The courts
have been the vehicle for much of the changes that have been made to
the social contract between the government and it's people. In fact,
more and more the courts have taken the place of the legislative bodies
in deciding the course of the nation with regard to many social issues.
It seems that we are undergoing a restructuring
of our form of government. This morphing of the government, from a
nation based on the idea of freedom of the individual, individual
initiative, minimum government and adherent to the Constitution, into that of the government
providing a social network attempting to provide for the well being and comfort of all it's citizens and a new interpretation of the Constitution. That it is a fluid document and needs to be interpreted to fit societies desires at the time.
(Largely from Wikipedia) The changes in attitude about the role of government started during the Great Depression. As a solution to the Great Depression Roosevelt initiated a program called the New Deal. The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms and regulations enacted in the United States 1933-36. Some of these federal programs included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration
(SSA). The Grand Cooley Dam was built as part of the jobs program under the Roosevelt regime. Some of these programs had trouble in courts initially. They were declared unconstitutional. But, after an attempt to expand the court by Roosevelt and some public pressure, the court approved most of them. These programs included support for farmers, the unemployed,
youth and the elderly. It included new constraints and safeguards on the
banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had
fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by
Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term
of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs focused on what historians refer to as the "3 Rs": relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party
the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven
out of the nine presidential terms from 1933–1969) with its base in
liberal ideas, the South, traditional Democrats, big city machines and
the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities. The Republicans
were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as hostile
to business and economic growth and liberals in support. The realignment
crystallized into the New Deal coalition that dominated presidential elections into the 1960s while the opposing conservative coalition largely controlled Congress in domestic affairs from 1937–1964. The Roosevelt New Deal and has been carried on and
expanded since.
This was a complete departure from previous government actions in the face of several recessions and an earlier great depression. Whether Roosevelt's programs helped or actually slowed down the recovery is open to debate. Many economists believe that he actually did more harm than good. In any event the general feeling was that Roosevelt was the savior of the country and he set up the Democrats to be viewed as the party of the working man. As a result of the Roosevelt programs, and their perceived success, a new role for government was now stamped into the American mind. That was never more evident than during the last recession where Obama took a page out of Roosevelt's play book and with a Democratic Congress, rammed through all kinds of bailouts for banks, investment houses and big corporations with the to big "To Big To Fail Label". A large infrastructure program was undertaken to provide jobs.
The courts have been the vehicle for much of the changes that have been made to the social contract between the government and it's people. In fact, more and more the courts have taken the place of the legislative bodies in deciding the course of the nation with regard to many social issues.
A current
bone of contention is the issue of gun control. The anti-gun faction is
doing everything it can to infringe upon the citizens right to bear
arms. This is a clear violation of 2nd Amendment to the Constitution,
which clearly states that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed. So a great contest is being waged by the
supporters of the right to own a gun and those that want to eliminate
guns altogether from society. The problem the anti-gun lobby has is the 2nd
Amendment. The courts have gone a long way in supporting
restrictions on the sell and possession of guns. However, at this
point they have stood firmly against any attempt to outlaw guns
completely. You wonder how long that will last until a new interpretation of the Amendment is announced by a liberal court. After all, the Amendment includes the phrase "A well regulated Militia" as being the justification for its existence.
The question is----are the changes we are seeing and experiencing a precursor to a significant change in the nature of the government? Will the changes continue under social pressure from the liberals to the extent we end up completely ignoring the Constitution were we don't like it and embracing a Socialist form of government? I think the answer is---it is a definite possibility.
If you think about it, our government today would not be recognizable by the people who wrote the Constitution.
When one looks at the college campuses and what's going on there, it is easy to see where the nation seems to be heading. After all, these young people who are convinced that Socialism, as taught by their professors, is the right system to bring Truth, Justice and Prosperity to the people. They see problems of poverty, poor medical services and other ills in society and want to fix them. Never mind that every place it's been tried it has been a dreadful failure. They will not listen too, nor allow anyone else to listen too, any contradictory opinion to their own. These are the people who will be the politicians, the lawyers, the judges, and the reporters in a few years. Any student on campus who displays a Trump sign is likely to meet with bodily harm. They may not be the majority on campus, but they are the loudest and are backed overtly by their professors and the school administration.
Even grade schools are in the act. Eleven year old students are marched out of class, led by their teachers, and display signs prepared for them to protest some act of the President or the Congress on some subject; especially immigration. The liberal press eats that kind of thing up. They never bother to ask the students what they are protesting about. The answer wouldn't support the message the media is trying to make.
In a recent poll the question was asked if they were proud to be an American. Only 47% said that they were. If you compare that to a similar poll taken in 2003, 70% said they were proud to be an American. If you asked any of the Great Generation that same question, I would be surprised if that number didn't rise to almost 100%.
To add to the problem, not only do the liberals pretty much control the main stream media, but more importantly for the younger voter, they control the social media. You name it, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft; all owned and and run by liberals. You can't get a job with one of them if you are a conservative. In fact it was reported that Google marched one of their employees out the door for mouthing a conservative thought during the last election.
Illegal immigration has changed the face of America, especially in the states bordering the Mexican border. California, because of it's liberal policies, has attracted such a huge number of Latinos that they make up a majority of the population in many large cities, and about 47% of the total state. The once dominate Euro-centric white population is now the minority. This is having a profound impact on the Congress in addition to the local elections. Look at how many California Congressmen and women have Spanish surnames. Most of them have a liberal view of the role of government. The face of America has changed and will continue to change. And, the change seems to be toward a socialist approach of government, where all essential services such as medical and higher education is free, welfare is abundant and only the "Rich" have to pay.
The recent Trump revolution has halted some of that momentum, but I fear it's only a temporary pause. But, I guess we'll see.
When we wake up one day and find ourselves being taxed at about 80% of our income to pay for all the social programs so dear to the liberals heart and a stripping of our military to pay for it, we might be sorry we don't have any way to stop China and/or Russia from stepping all over us and our interests anywhere in the world.
