Of the People

"Who knows what Lincoln (and others) meant (and mean) by the phrase "of the people"? Is it possessive as in "management of the estate" or "owner of the house"? Or is is causal, like "died of a broken heart"? Or is it partitive, as in the "hem of her skirt" or "hair of the dog"? Or is it all of these?

When I wrote By the People, I thought I would soon follow with Of the People and For the People. But I got stuck on Of.

I suppose government "of the people" might simply refer to administration primarily of people rather than of property or of the economy or of a highway or tax system. Those other things become responsibilities of government only in as much as they affect "the people." But that's getting into the realm of "for the people."

Maybe it's even simpler: Lincoln wanted to emphasize the importance of the people three ways for oratorical effect, even though "by" and "for" might have covered his intent.

I suspect there's more to it. I won't presume that Lincoln had this in mind, but it's worth consideration. Maybe government of the people means that government follows the people rather than requiring the people to follow those in charge. Daniel Webster said earlier that it is "the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people."

Every government is "answerable to the people." The people have the ultimate power. What our founders established was an acknowledgement of something that was always true. Our "fathers brought forth a new nation" as an honest attempt to institutionalize this natural rule of the people through a system of representatives elected by the people.

Citizens hold authority, whether or not they wield it. This is why governments and companies spend so much effort trying to influence people. Those at the top use their position to try to influence the electorate instead of dictating how things will be. We rejected the way of the kings of Europe, who thought they could dictate to the people. Some in business still dictate. Maybe that's OK, because workers can usually quit and work for someone else.

I'm reminded of something John Oliver said of Elon Musk: "He wants to save the world. But only if he can be the one to save it." 

That is not of the people. It's hubris.

Howard Schultz, founder and former CEO of Starbucks, was impressive in his insistence on taking care of his employees. But when they said they wanted more of a say, through a union, he fought them. Only I can fix it, he thought. They cannot fix things for themselves.

That is not of the people. It's patriarchy.

We also see desperate, yet often successful, propaganda from regimes that build systems to exploit the people to benefit a few oligarchs. They cannot simply say, "Because I said so!" They have to get a significant proportion of the people to believe in whatever they are peddling. They flood the world with lies, if that's what it takes.

This is not of the people. It's domination.

There was a time when most people accepted the notion that some were born to rule and others to be ruled. This acceptance was part of what allowed authoritarians to tell people what to do. But that notion faded in recent centuries with the rise of democracy. Now tactics have changed. There are still governments that rule with an iron fist, and some of them still have a populace that believes the ones in charge are ordained. But more often a move toward more extreme oppression is an effort to quell the people's dissatisfaction and resulting restlessness.

Authoritarians, many who gained a foothold by appealing to the citizens, have a lot of sway. Especially when they ally themselves with titans of industry. Now they have the money they need, and the wealthy bosses have government policies that ensure they get a lion's share of the markets. If the media can be pressured toward propaganda and the courts can be influenced to judge in favor of the already privileged, then the common people are at a serious disadvantage.

We citizens are not of one mind. We don't see eye to eye in the best of times and, when the bullhorns of propaganda blare in support of an authoritarian and his sponsors, it is difficult to cut through the confusion.

But it is still up to us. We gradually learn what is going on and, if we can no longer vote because we voted in an authoritarian, we can still protest. The dictator, never fully in charge, raises the volume on his lies. He threatens (or worse) those who disagree. He shifts blame for our discontent to scapegoats. But he responds to the people. He might even make policy adjustments in our favor. If we persist, he will fall.

I suppose we will always reserve some respect for those who thrash their way to the top. But this should never blind us to their wiles, their selfishness, their will to dominate. We will always tolerate some of this nonsense and go about our business, but we must not be deaf and silent.

For now, we can let our collective voice be heard through the ballot box. But, no matter what happens, if we decide not to put up with authoritarianism, we can stop it. The governing of us is up to us. It is always ultimately a government of the people. Any one, any party, any clan or cult that suppresses our voice or claims the right to decide for the rest is wrong. They are not of the people.