In the first two installments of this essay, we attempted to make several points in our round-about way of compositon. Perhaps, it would helpful, as we near a conclusion, to recapitulate:

1. We submitted that the history of our republic seems to have settled into a 200 year harmonic, swinging from republicanism (small "r" lest we forget) to active governmental liberalism.

2. The swing to republicanism reached its first apogee with the conclusion of the Federalist versus Republican elections at the turn of the 19^th century; the clear winner was true republicanism (restricted national government, small military, individual liberty, etc) in the person of Thomas Jefferson.

3. In part two, we brought to bear the wisdom of two giants of the world of political thought. Alexis de Tocqueville of the 19^th century and Robert Nisbet of the 20^th century. What Tocqueville ominously predicted has been given recent voice in the writings of Nisbet: i.e. republics are, characteristically, short-lived and often erode into what Nisbet calls "democratic despotism."

4, With Nisbet as our guide, we examined the rise of the federal Leviathan. We looked at a personal example and, then, at some numbers which, alarming enough in and of themselves, served to show the inexorable creeping fingers of government into every nook and cranny of our existence.

5. We finished with the premise that the federal government, in its expansion over the last century, has displaced and even extinguished those tethers that held us together as a society through the preceding millennia - namely, family, church, neighborhoods, guilds, and charitable endeavors. We are now - if not forever - dependent on that government which controls our lives.

Let us, once again, return to Tocqueville and his "Democracy in America" for some additional observations on how a republic can become totalitarian:

"When the Roman emperors were at the height of their power, the different nations [Editor: let us think of States in the American example] of the empire still preserved usages and customs of great diversity; although they were subject to the same monarch, most of the provinces were separately administered; they abounded in powerful and active municipalities; and although the whole government of the empire was centered in the hands of the Emperor alone and he always remained, in case of need, the supreme arbiter in all matters, yet the details of social life and private occupations lay for the most part beyond his control. The emperors possessed, it is true, an immense and unchecked power, which allowed them to gratify all their whimsical tastes and to employ for that purpose the whole strength of the state. They frequently abused that power arbitrarily to deprive their subjects of property or of life; their tyranny was extremely onerous to the few, but it did not reach the many; it was confined to some few main objects and neglected the rest; it was violent, but its range was limited. [Emphasis mine]

"It would seem that if despotism were to be established among the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them. I do not question that, in an age of instruction and equality like our own, sovereigns might more easily succeed in collecting all political power into their own hands and might interfere more habitually and decidedly with the circle of private interests than any sovereign of antiquity could ever do. But this same principle of equality which facilitates despotism tempers its rigor. We have seen how the customs of society become more humane and gentle in proportion as men become more equal and alike. When no member of the community has much power or much wealth, tyranny is, as it were, without opportunities and a field of action. As all fortunes are scanty, the passions of men are naturally circumscribed, their imagination limited, their pleasures simple. This universal moderation moderates the sovereign himself and checks within certain limits the inordinate stretch of his desires." [Emphasis mine]

Tocqueville lays out the sinister form that Nisbet’s democratic despotism has taken. Our republic, under the leadership since, principally, Woodrow Wilson, has taken up the quest for the "Holy Grail," specifically, "equality." It is this incessant Rousseauian pursuit that has brought about both our dependence on the federal government for our daily bread but also expansion of central government’s reach into every facet and most minute detail of our everyday lives. In Tocqueville words, the democratic despotism beats us down but does not murder us, outright. This simple fact is why our governmental Leviathan has succeeded beyond the totalitarianism of Stalin and Mao. It recalls the old folktale of how to boil a frog: put him in tepid water and raise the heat gradually. The frog, as the tale goes, never jumps free.

As we saw in a quote from the ever-prescient Tocqueville, Congress has made the citizens subservient not through oppression but through social engineering. The federal government has embraced the alluring (if wholly socialist) philosophy of The Social Contract which includes this chilling passage:

"He who dares to undertake the making of a people’s institutions ought to feel himself capable, so to speak, of changing human nature, of transforming each individual, who is by himself a complete and solitary whole, into part of a greater whole from which he in a manner receives his life and being...He must, in a word, take away from man his own resources and give him instead new ones alien to him, and incapable of being made use without the help of other men." (The Social Contract, Bk.1, Ch.9) [Emphasis mine]

The federal government - from Wilson through Roosevelt’s "New Deal," Kennedy’s "Camelot," Johnson"s "Great Society," and beyond - have adopted social engineering and popular appeasement the touchstones of their policies. As Tocqueville describes in the previous excerpt, when there is "equality," government’s burden is eased. Since egalitarianism - leveling of society - removes the passions from the people - their ambition, if you will - and, thus plundered, they become more submissive and malleable. This is Rousseau’s dream and Tocqueville’s (and Jefferson’s, Nisbet’s, and yours truly’s) greatest fear.

Yet, it is the common principle for democratic despotism:

"Having taken every member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered but softened, bent and guided; men are seldom forced by it [government] to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy...it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes and stupefies people, till the nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." [Democracy in American, Bk.2, Sec. 4] [Emphasis mine]

Just as Franklin Roosevelt was greatly influenced by the "equalizers" of his age (principally Herbert Croly but also by his "aides" Henry Wallace, Harold Ickes, and Raymond Moley - at least until he discovered the chicanery and left), there have been the clerisy throughout each subsequent Presidency that has been at the ear of the leader to whisper: "Equality brings harmony!" When the blacks marched against government policies in the 1960s, they promptly received their just largesse which continues to this day. Recently, when La Raza lobbied for amnesty for the 15 million or so illegal Hispanic immigrants, we were a heartbeat away from having legislation passed - against, I hasten to add, poll after poll showing the American populace’s disapproval - giving them all a free ticket into the Land of Plenty.

The new crop of Presidential hopefuls have their own offerings to those perceived as "entitled." Proposals actively being considered include universal health care, yet another "war on poverty," bringing the troops home (always a crowd pleaser) and, presumably, and "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." But, with inflation, perhaps "a steak on every grill and a Lexus in every driveway" would be more in tune with the voters of today. This is the promise of contemporary politics: promise them more and we will control their urges, their passions and their ambition.

Indoctrination has almost been complete. Our children attend government-run schools and spend more time with government-employed teachers than with their parents and family. Government, having thus substituted themselves for church and family - the very structures that gave meaning to life for centuries- have, now, a simple job. Nisbet, in "Twilight of Authority," describes it more clearly:

"Looking back, and reflecting on the innumerable centuries earlier when political government was the object of fear and distrust in so many areas, symbolized in popular consciousness by the policeman, soldier, or tax collector, it is one of history’s miracles that from the end of the 18^th century on in the West populations were willing to entrust so much of their economic, social, and moral life to the supervision of the political sphere."

And, one might ask: "So what?" Well, the answers are many and troubling. In the words of Lord Acton, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We have (and have for years) reaped the rewards of such power granted to the hands of the federal government. Integrity, honesty and candor from our national officials has plummeted to nil. The consequences and repercussions for misrepresentation, disinformation and downright lying are now dispensed - not by losing office - but by a dip in the approval polls. Congressmen, senators and the Executive Branch consistently fashion and fabricate propaganda that will appease any sense of dissatisfaction, stir whatever flickering sense of patriotism still lingers, or distract from the real concerns within the populace. If all else fails to control the population, there is always the never-ceasing call to war. War unites the American people regardless of their grievances. [As an aside, have you noticed that while wars have become smaller, they have become more frequent?]

Another noxious side-effect of the Leviathan national government is their cultivation of a sense of powerlessness within the citizens. The percentage of people who vote has declined dramatically. More importantly, the percentages of the adult population who actually care about political matters reveal even more apathy. The democracy we have built has become an oligarchic domain controlled by the few. We have, as a once-great people, been lulled and narcotized into boredom and passivity.

The perception of government as an esoteric, arcane domain of mystery and privilege has turned the eyes and interests of the many to less important but more palliative and ego-nurturing pursuits. We shop. We talk on cell phones. We surf the internet. We chatter endlessly and ponder obsessively about whether Anna Nicole was actually murdered or whether Paris Hilton deserved to be in jail or whatever the latest Hollywood scandal is true. All the time, we are quite content to leave our lives invaded and covertly scrutinized and manipulated by the government. In God we do not trust but, in the government, we dedicate our undying fealty.

And what of our children? Do they have a better future ahead? We send them off to the government financed schools to be taught by government protected instructors to learn what the government (more specifically, the Supreme Court) deems useful. Is such instruction likely to produce questioning, inquisitive lovers of liberty and freedom? If they are told that the Republic was merely the flawed product of 55 white men in Philadelphia and the system must be constantly modified to fit "current trends and public opinion," I believe they will become exactly what the government desires them to become.

I fear, at this point, I have sufficiently bored my reader. What I want to say, from my heart, is that we have decidedly lost our love of republic. We no longer cherish the ideals of individual liberty and self-determination and have accepted a poor substitute. The false security of a benevolent government has become the opium of our dreams, drowning our sense of self-sufficiency and our love for family and community. The elections of the coming year, the second swing of the republican pendulum will be, I believe, the final test for this nation and "we, the people," If we do not seize upon it and attend to it as it justly demands, we will continue down the precipitous path to Nisbet’s democratic despotism. We are one election away.

The sound you hear, just over your head, is the fateful "swosh" of the pendulum of a nation’s destiny. I pray that you hear it and heed its call.