A Nation That Forgets How to Govern Itself

A free society cannot survive when its citizens surrender the responsibilities that make freedom possible.

Communism and the American constitutional tradition both depend on human character. The difference is what they expect from it.

Marx envisioned a classless society in which the state would eventually wither away. Once class distinctions disappeared, political authority would supposedly become unnecessary. It was an ambitious vision of human social organization. It is a magnificent theory, provided one ignores human nature.

History has been considerably less accommodating. Governments established in communism’s name have repeatedly produced powerful ruling elites, entrusted with the authority to distribute wealth, direct labor, and decide what is best for everyone else. The promised disappearance of privilege gave way to its institutionalization. The road to a classless society has a peculiar habit of passing through a very privileged neighborhood, where the ruling class enjoys privileges unavailable to everyone else.

The problem is not difficult to identify. Concentrate enough power in the hands of a political elite, and eventually that elite discovers reasons to keep it. The people who promised to abolish class distinctions have proved remarkably successful at establishing one of their own.

The American Founders approached the problem from an altogether different direction. James Madison captured their understanding of human nature in Federalist No. 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

The Founders were not in the business of finding angels. They understood that ambition and self-interest were permanent features of human nature, particularly among those attracted to political power. Their answer was a constitutional republic, with divided authority, checks and balances, and institutional restraints designed to prevent any person or faction from acquiring unchecked power.

They did not assume that rulers would be virtuous. They assumed they would need watching. That distinction matters. Democracy, in its broadest sense, means government by the people. But majority rule alone guarantees neither individual liberty nor limited government. A majority can be every bit as capable of abusing power as a monarch or political elite. The Founders understood that liberty required more than counting votes. They established a constitutional system designed to restrain power, including power exercised in the name of the majority.

Yet the Constitution cannot do the entire job. It can restrain the ambitions of those who govern, but it cannot manufacture responsibility among those who are governed. It can protect the conditions of liberty, but it cannot compel citizens to exercise their freedom wisely. That part of the undertaking depends on the character of the people themselves. 

A republic requires citizens capable of governing themselves. Self-government means more than the right to cast a ballot. It requires personal responsibility, self-restraint, respect for the rights of others, and a willingness to accept the consequences of one’s decisions. It requires people who understand that freedom carries obligations, not merely opportunities.

This is where our political culture has begun to lose its footing. The November 3 election offered another indication of the growing appeal of political promises built around government benefits and expanded public assistance. The Democratic Socialists of America have become a significant force in that conversation, advancing a vision in which government assumes a much larger role in the lives of its citizens. The appeal of such promises deserves attention, particularly when the responsibilities accompanying freedom receive considerably less political billing.

Freedom is not a government benefit. It is not a subscription service, a monthly entitlement, or something delivered to the doorstep by an elected official. It is the authority to make decisions, accept consequences, pursue opportunities, and build a life without asking permission from someone who considers himself your superior.

There is nothing wrong with helping people through genuine hardship. A decent society recognizes that circumstances sometimes overwhelm individual resources. But safeguards intended to help people regain their footing were never meant to become permanent arrangements. A safety net is supposed to catch people when they fall, not become their permanent address.

We want the security without the sacrifice, the benefits without the burden, and the rewards without the work. There is a profound difference between helping someone stand again and convincing him that standing on his own is no longer necessary. One preserves dignity. The other gradually replaces it with dependency.

And government is always happy to oblige. Every promised benefit creates another political obligation. Every obligation creates another constituency. Every constituency gives politicians another reason to retain the authority they acquired in the name of helping people. Meanwhile, citizens become increasingly accustomed to looking elsewhere for answers to problems they once understood were theirs to solve.

The danger is not simply that government grows. It is that citizens gradually surrender the habits of independence that make limited government possible. As responsibility moves from individuals to institutions, political authority expands to fill the space. Eventually, the machinery of the republic may remain intact while the character necessary to sustain it has deteriorated.

This brings us back to the fundamental difference between the two political traditions. Communism places its faith, in practice, in those who hold concentrated political power. The American constitutional tradition recognizes the dangers of concentrated power and attempts to restrain it. But constitutional restraints alone cannot preserve a republic. Its citizens must be willing and able to govern themselves.

Nobody is virtuous enough to rule everyone else. And no society remains free when its people no longer believe they are capable of ruling themselves.

We can elect better politicians, write better laws, change administrations, and rewrite policies. But we cannot legislate the character required to sustain a free society. The Constitution can establish the framework. It cannot supply the people who must make it work.

A nation that forgets how to govern itself will eventually find someone willing to govern it. And that someone will rarely be interested in giving the authority back.

by Luis Gonzalez at americanthinker.com on November 8, 2026