Will the 47% Ruin Our Democracy?

Mitt Romney's 47% remark, concerning segments of the American population who would never vote for him because they believe they are victims and are dependent on the government, caused an uproar. It probably didn't help that he made that remark to a room full of gazillionaires. But doesn't he have a point? Have we become a nation of  what Ron Angle calls the "gimmes," people who want something for nothing?

On Wednesday, one of my readers offered some interesting observations, attributed to Scottish lawyer and historian Alexander Fraser Tytler. Though the quotation itself might be inaccurate, this unusual condemnation of democracy is troubling. Not because it's wrong, but because it might be right.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."