2 December—El Liberalissimo writes: “Let me get this right. You support our democratic system that elects representatives to office, but you assume nearly everyone who runs for office in that system is a crook and not to be trusted. As to socks, I promise to stay out of your drawers.”

Uh, not quite, El. I accept that the democratic system (our democratic system, if you prefer) that elects representatives to office is the most democratic system that elects representatives to office. All things considered, it’s probably the most democratic system there is.

Fair? I won’t speculate. Our federal and state constitutions presumably protect minority rights, though from what’s going on in some states you might not think so. That said, I have no problem asserting that the democratic system—majority rule—is good for the majority but not so good for the minority. That’s putting it mildly. But I shouldn’t go so far as to say the majority always screws the minority. Not always, anyway.

Then there’s minority rule. In the United States, liberals are accusing conservatives of that right now. For example, it takes only ten senators to block legislation. Or even one senator, for that matter. It’s well known, on the other hand, that liberals would never do anything like that.

It’s all a matter of the rules, who makes them, and how they’re enforced. And that, in essence, is what democracy is all about.

Admit it or not, representative democracy by its very nature is minority rule. Only direct democracy can be true majority rule. And even that’s questionable because it’s usually compromised.

Of course, minority rule is taken to its extreme in dictatorships. We won’t go disquisite on that. But dictatorship is obviously a far more efficient way of running anything. And it’s great if you’re the dictator or a loyal member of his claque—and he appreciates your fealty. On the other hand, you can say the same about indirectly democratic legislatures and even directly democratic polities. It’s whom you know and what you’ve got on them, rather than what you know.

Leaders do tend to have more power—call it authority—than followers. They wouldn’t be leaders otherwise. That’s the system and it makes sense and it works, for better or for worse. So I live with it and bitch about it because in this country and as things stand now I can.

I do indeed assume nearly everyone who runs for office is a crook and not to be trusted. They’re only human, after all, and we all know how innately corrupt the human species is. The problem there is also the system. When we’re presented with a choice of undesirables, as we were, for example, with Trump and Clinton and Trump and Biden, what are we to do while we hold our noses?

And let’s not forget that the longer our leaders remain in their offices—the more deeply they become entrenched in their positions of power—the more dangerous they become, more complacent than complaisant and less answerable to their constituencies. Joe Biden, for instance, hasn’t had a real job since he was elected to the Senate in 1972. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and current Dean of the Senate (longest-serving senator), has held his seat since 1975.

Senate Majority Leader (i.e., at the moment, Democrat) Charles Schumer has been polluting the Capitol, first in the House, then in the Senate since 1999, for 41 years. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader (i.e., at the moment, Republican), has been there only for 37 years.

Nothing speaks more eloquently for term limits than not having term limits.

Finally, El, I’m relieved that you promise to stay out of my drawers. They’re probably not your size . . .