In the first of these treatises, I surmised that we have a government that is out of control and, quite possibly, beyond hope of diminution. More significantly, I viewed the electorate of this once proud Nation as impotent and distracted to the point of apathy. For, after all, what can one person change in a nation so large and a government so omnipotent? The despair that, in my mind, is inevitable has not, as yet, reached the critical mass among the citizenry that will precipitate revolutionary change. Indeed, it is plausible (even to those of us who hold out some hope) that the awareness of just how far we have fallen as a Nation may never bring about the mass movement that will be required to remedy the flaws to which we have fallen. We few who pray for deliverance have seen little evidence that such unified determination is forthcoming. And, with the current motley gallery of unqualified and empty shells that parade and preen before us as our prospective leaders, is there any reason for us to hope? In days such as these, I seriously wonder.

But, for those who still feel a deep enough sense of pride in the earlier days of this singular republican experiment and remember the trials we have faced and overcome as a country in our past, a beacon of hope sometimes shines through the increasingly impenetrable haze. Rarely, we hear a voice from the political wilderness who promises to change the status quo. They say things like "Government is not a solution to our problems; government is the problem" and "We can change the priorities of government such that it is the servant of people again".

Sadly, these voices are muted and discarded from the public eye. "Pundits" (defined as those who get paid to think for us) label the purveyors of such radicalism as "fringe candidates", "long shots" or, for the coup de gras, are summarily dismissed by the Fourth Estate as "extremists." Thus, it is an unequivocal and unimpeachable fact: never will any vested interest (which the broadcast and print media surely are) give attention to anyone or anything that will propose to attenuate the power of government. To do so - i.e. to give such a candidate a fair and impartial hearing - would cause they, themselves, to lose some of their influence in the bargain. And that will not be permitted nor chanced.

We have had a few who have campaigned on the promise of breaking the creeping vines of government entanglements and giveaways. Andrew Jackson was the first (and almost the last) Presidential candidate who was actually elected by a popular uprising responding to a platform of returning a runaway federal government to the people. (Ironically, Jackson was the cornerstone of the Democratic Party and can be credited with adopting the jackass as - appropriately enough - the party’s symbol.) But Jackson’s Democratic Party has been transmogrified, since the days of Woodrow Wilson through Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and beyond, to represent the political faction which most favors socialism and federal budget expansion. In the current millennium, we have reached the mournful situation such that neither party - Republican nor Democrat - can lay legitimate claim to any high ground when comparing records on government expansionism.

If one confines one’s gaze to merely the recent past, the rare and intrepid few iconoclasts seem to appear at 20 year cycles: Goldwater in the 1960s, Reagan in the 1980s and Ron Paul in 2008. Alas, as one might predict, they almost uniformly fail; President Reagan being the exception and he succeeded only because of his personal charisma and the fortuitous circumstances of running against a thoroughly incompetent incumbent. Were it not for this particularly uncommon alignment of the stars, I am convinced he, too, would have fallen in defeat.

Despite the unhappy plight of those who attempt the quixotic charge the well-entrenched institutional order, I am persuaded that it is not a failure of the message. I truly believe that the majority of the voting populace is aware that our national government has long exceeded their Constitutional boundaries and have unremittingly infringed upon the liberties of its citizenry. In my opinion, the problem is two-fold:

- Anyone who runs on a platform of smaller government must do battle not simply with a political opponent but also with a concerted and powerful opposing force emanating from those already sharing in and benefitting from the existing power structure - e.g. the press, labor unions, beneficiaries of government largesse and professional bureaucrats among others. (After all, with nearly 30 million employees, the government, in and of itself, is quite a voting block!) Those with a vested interest in the continuation of "governmental creep" will work diligently, guard jealously and effectively thwart any attempts to diminish the size and reach of the federal government. To not engage in such a battle, after all, would cause these saprophytic beneficiaries to lose status and, in some cases, their employment.

- The reigning two-party system under which we have labored under for centuries is, also, committed to a continuation of governmental expansion. Only with an enthroned policy of "to the victor go the spoils" can the political parties seduce donors and supporters to fund their multimillion dollar campaigns and compete at a national level. Ambassadorships, directorships, assistant secretary to cabinet officers and other superfluous appointments are powerful inducements to the vainglorious and the wealthy.

The root problem, as always, is money. There is money to be made in and from government. There are thousands of superfluous and gratuitous government positions that pay very well, require little expertise much less effort and look impressive on a resume. And, more to the point, these appointments (which require no public vetting) are handed out at the pleasure of those in power in all three branches of the national system. As long as there is money on the table, there will be those willing to sell out their principles, their ethics and, sadly, the welfare of the nation

The first year business school tenet: "You must spend money in order to make money", is clearly applicable to office seekers and political donors as well. As long as candidates are required to match the spending of their opponents in a never ending cycle of advertising campaigns, polling, focus groups, opinion groups, strategists, and other "K Street" spin doctors and assorted leeches, they remain beholding to those who finance these astronomical expenses. And when those who succeed in being elected are beholding to others, the nation pays. Specifically, the tax payers pay.

Factions, as were described in the first part of this series, were envisioned by James Madison as beneficial to the stability of the new American Republic. Perhaps, in the early days of our nation, healthy and vigorous debate of the issues inherent in a nascent government was, indeed, a advantageous and productive process. But, 200 years later, factionalism - we call it "party politics" today - has clearly begun the process of cracking the pillars of our system of laws and is eroding the electorate’s faith in their voice in the true workings of a representative system. Perhaps, we have simply resigned ourselves to living under despotism as so many citizens have around the world and through the ages past.

If the republican system was designed in 1787 to put the will of the people in the hands of dispassionate, enlightened and impartial representatives who will make their decision on issues based solely on "the general welfare" of the nation, then republicanism as an experiment has failed. The federal system has become, to the undoubted dismay of the Founding Fathers, an oligarchic and aristocratic government. Myth holds that as Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention he was asked by a woman in the crowd what type of government the delegates had established. Franklin replied, as rumor has it: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

I am persuaded we have failed in that admonishment.

[...to be continued]