The founding fathers of America were certainly not inclined to speak with one voice regarding the ability of men to govern themselves. Jefferson and others were certainly grass-roots democrats with a steadfast belief that the government they were establishing should be of the Greek model, with major issues settled by plebiscite. They had a belief in the innate nobility of the common man, and both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, primarily penned by Jefferson, reflect this principle. These beliefs were opposed by Hamilton, Adams, and others of the Federalist bent, who at the very least mistrusted their population to make rational decisions involving their own governance. The make-up of our present government reflects both the struggle of these two opposing points of view, and their fascinating skill at rational compromise. The Executive Branch and the continued existence of the electoral college (the source of much consternation in our recent presidential election), are holdovers of the Hamiltonian concept of Republic, while the Congress and Senate and the popular election process are continuance of the Jeffersonian model.

Fact is, the government stands apart from either capitalism or socialism, and the US has experienced pendulum swings in both directions, those swings being primarily propelled by the popular will. The problem, as I see it, with a Cuba, China, or any other non-representational government, is that the mold of its society reflects the attitude of its leaders...."we shall do this because I know that it is best for all of you." Say what you will about American Government, but free will, freedom of speech, and the freedom of its people to determine its future course are its main strengths, AND these fundamentals of self-determination have become a model for democracy across the Earth. Patrick Henry and the rest had the intelligence, courage, and the will to establish this form of government at a time when rule by the people was considered heresy.

I'm pretty proud of that.