One of the rationales a.k.a. ex-post-facto justifications for the Iraq invasion is that the government of Iraq was tyrannical because a small plutocracy of the Sunnis was lording it over the vast majority of the population, which is Shiite. By toppling this Sunni “tyranny” we were doing God’s work in advancing democracy, since “the will” of most Iraqis wasn’t being done. In Iran also, most people were born after the ’79 revolution and just want to watch satellite TV and go on dates. Remember that even though the US has made implicit threats of invasion and explicit threats of “the use of force,” Iran actually has elections – it is ostensibly “democratic.” Some will say a small council of unelected mullahs has way too much power – they can take action that the majority won’t approve of. To those people, I’d like to tell you a story about the U.S. Supreme Court and the 2000 election.

It does stand to reason that if “the people” insist one doing one thing, and the government actually does something else then that government obviously isn’t responding to the popular will, but imposing the will of the governors onto the governed. This condition of government tyranny can occur – can easily occur in fact – despite periodic “elections.” Hitler was “elected.” Sadaam Hussein had an “election” right before our invasion in which the theme song was Whitney Houston’s theme song from The Bodyguard “I Will Always Love You.” Elections do not necessarily or automatically indicate a legitimate and real living democracy.

When you poll Americans on, well, pretty much all the major issues, there is an amazing “disconnect” or “gulf” – maybe more like a chasm – let’s say it’s cosmic sized black hole, sucking in all light, matter, time and space – between what the US people say they favor and what Congress, the President and Supreme Court impose on them.

Read ‘em and weep:

“A poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and fielded by Knowledge Networks in January 2005 asked respondents to assume that requiring car manufacturers to meet higher fuel efficiency standards would mean “it would cost more to buy or lease a car.” Nonetheless, 77% supported requiring them, with just 20 percent opposed. This was a bipartisan view, favored by 74% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats.”

There has never been an actual increase in the C.A.F.E standards since they topped out in 1985, and those standards were actually set in 1975. Thirty years – literally a generation ago. The standards were actually set up to respond to…mid-east tension between Israelis and Arabs. Thank God we have all those mid east problems licked. Now oil is no problem for us…right?

But what about arguably more important, domestic concerns like health care? We have a medical system set up to “create jobs” and wealth, then curing sick people is kind of a secondary concern. That’s what we all want instead of universal care – obviously because that’s what we have. Except for one small detail:

65% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE EVEN IF TAXES INCREASE

A nationwide survey by the authoritative Pew Research Center found that 65% of Americans said they support "government health insurance even if taxes increase." Even among those identified as "social conservatives," 59% support a tax-financed government system. For other groups, the percent supporting were: "populist conservatives" (63 percent), "conservative Democrats" (73 %) and "liberals" (90 percent). Only one group, "Enterprisers" (libertarian conservatives), did not provide majority support (24 %)

Pew Research Center, "Beyond Red vs. Blue," Survey Report, 5/10/05

* * *

Medicare is viewed favorably by 96 % of U.S. adults, according to a Harris Interactive poll of 2,242 residents. "Universal health insurance" was favored either "somewhat" or ‘strongly" by 75 % of respondents.

Wall Street Journal / Harris Poll, 10/20/05

* * *

But then, I’m talking around the proverbial 800lb gorilla in the living room right? The following is the least controversial statement anyone can make about politics in America:

Congress and the President and the Courts do not represent “the will of the people of the United States,” but instead they represent the will of the corporations of the United States. Theoretically, congressmen represent the voters in their respective districts, but everyone knows that they actually represent the corporations who fund their campaigns. This is why we so often refer to “powerful” corporations, even though they are technically not an arm of government. A Senator from Michigan transforms into the Senator from the Automaker’s Alliance lobby for instance.

Now if we got to vote on who ran corporations, and what they do, then at least we could count ourselves as a legitimate democracy. Maybe our corporate overlords would look completely different. But do they really want that? Maybe we should make a much less radical move than abolishing what is called the oldest democratic regime of government in the world.

Here’s an idea. Make campaigns publicly financed instead of financed by our corporate overlords. That way, congressmen wouldn’t be the representative from Wal Mart or General Motors, but of, Arkansas and Michigan respectively. Issues surrounding corporations could be considered dispassionately and disinterestedly if the Senator actually had to represent “the will of the people of the United States.” Even better, the “will of the people of the United States” already favors such a simple and enlightened plan. Look at this poll (thanks to TPM’s own Nathan Newman):

A new national poll finds overwhelming support (74%) for public financing of elections, the result no doubt of soaring campaign costs, lobbyist scandals and the desire for fairer, cleaner elections. The result is bipartisan with eighty percent of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans support this reform.

What's important to emphasize is why voters said things would improve with public financing of elections.

• 82% of voters believe it is likely, as a result of publicly financed elections, that candidates will win on their ideas, not because of the money they raise.

• 79% said it would allow candidates with good ideas rather than just the rich and powerful to have a shot at winning elections.

• 77% said that special interests would not receive as many favors, tax breaks and deals from politicians.

Is it even arguable that if the government of the United States doesn’t bend to “the will of the people of the United States,” then that government is simply not a democratic one, but a tyrannical one? Now what does the United States itself say the United States should do about tyrannical regimes? Invade the nation and institute “regime change.” What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Could someone invade the United States in order to impose the will of the people of the United States? How about a coalition of the willing including France, Britain, China and Russia? They all helped lick Hitler and/or Hirohito. Any takers care to enforce our will?