We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. — John Adams, 1798, Address to the militia of Massachusetts (from here)
What inspired such a statement? Perhaps Adams had read The Spirit of laws. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu wrote his book, The Spirit of laws, over 250 years ago. He wrote in an age when educated men still admired the Roman Republic and carefully studied the history of the Greeks.
Montesquieu carefully studied history to learn the principles of government. He studied republics, monarchies, and despotic governments, and the founders of our nation studied what Montesquieu had written. They wondered. What made republics successful? What caused them to fail?
Today let us consider just a little of what Montesquieu had to say about the failure of republics. Let’s ask: does this sound familiar?
The principle of democracy is corrupted not only when the spirit of equality is extinct, but likewise when they fall into a spirit of extreme equality, and when each citizen would fain be upon a level with those whom he has chosen to command him. Then the people, incapable of bearing the very power they have delegated, want to manage everything themselves, to debate for the senate, to execute for the magistrate, and to decide for the judges.
When this is the case, virtue can no longer subsist in the republic. The people are desirous of exercising the functions of the magistrates, who cease to be revered. The deliberations of the senate are slighted; all respect is then laid aside for the senators, and consequently for old age. If there is no more respect for old age, there will be none presently for parents; deference to husbands will be likewise thrown off, and submission to masters. This licence will soon become general, and the trouble of command be as fatiguing as that of obedience. Wives, children, slaves will shake off all subjection. No longer will there be any such thing as manners, order, or virtue.
We find in Xenophon’s Banquet a very lively description of a republic in which the people abused their equality. Each guest gives in his turn the reason why he is satisfied. “Content I am,” says Chamides, “because of my poverty. When I was rich, I was obliged to pay my court to informers, knowing I was more liable to be hurt by them than capable of doing them harm. The republic constantly demanded some new tax of me; and I could not decline paying. Since I have grown poor, I have acquired authority; nobody threatens me; I rather threaten others. I can go or stay where I please. The rich already rise from their seats and give me the way. I am a king, I was before a slave: I paid taxes to the republic, now it maintains me: I am no longer afraid of losing: but I hope to acquire.”
The people fall into this misfortune when those in whom they confide, desirous of concealing their own corruption, endeavour to corrupt them. To disguise their own ambition, they speak to them only of the grandeur of the state; to conceal their own avarice, they incessantly flatter theirs.
The corruption will increase among the corruptors, and likewise among those who are already corrupted. The people will divide the public money among themselves, and, having added the administration of affairs to their indolence, will be for blending their poverty with the amusements of luxury. But with their indolence and luxury, nothing but the public treasure will be able to satisfy their demands.
We must not be surprised to see their suffrages given for money. It is impossible to make great largesses to the people without great extortion: and to compass this, the state must be subverted. The greater the advantages they seem to derive from their liberty, the nearer they approach towards the critical moment of losing it. Petty tyrants arise who have all the vices of a single tyrant. The small remains of liberty soon become insupportable; a single tyrant starts up, and the people are stripped of everything, even of the profits of their corruption.
Democracy has, therefore, two excesses to avoid — the spirit of inequality, which leads to aristocracy or monarchy, and the spirit of extreme equality, which leads to despotic power, as the latter is completed by conquest. (from here)
“As the latter is completed by conquest…..” When we vote now, do we vote for politicians who promise to protect the rights of our family, friends, and neighbors, or do we vote for candidates who promise to give us things? Are we voting as the virtuous citizens of a republic or as greedy fools, foolishly selling our freedom to the highest bidder?
Look at our “honorable” leaders. Are they servants of the people, or have we just selected the greediest among us to bind us in chains?
Have forgotten that only the virtuous can be free? Have we forgotten that virtue is the key to freedom? Have we forgotten what Jesus explained long ago? See WHEN DO THE PEOPLE STEAL THEIR OWN FREEDOM?