A bedraggled congressman sat on the steps of Congress bemoaning his sad plight. Out of earshot to any eavesdropper, he recanted the first lines from Article 1 of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .” But every attempt he’d made to propose legislation for the people he represented was rejected by his Party’s leadership. In fact, nearly every bill proposed to “promote the general Welfare” was tabled. Further, even discussion on matters of national interest was sidetracked into endless debates, whether it addressed immigration, tax reform, infrastructure renovation, a balanced energy use/environment protection plan, or even basic civil rights for minorities and women. He buried his head in his hands in total despair. But a bystander saw his despondency and took pity on him. Placing a hand on the congressman’s shoulder, he asked what troubled the poor man. The congressman replied, “How can I be part of a legislative body that refuses to legislate, a government that refuses to govern? My position is a joke. I think I should just quit.” The bystander sat down next to the congressman and asked, “Have you heard of the parable of Ferguson?” The congressman shook his head from side to side. “Then let me tell you the story,” the bystander continued. “Once upon a time, there was this small town. It was co-habited by two distinct groups. The smaller group held all the positions of power. But one day a member of the ruling minority killed somebody from the majority. The ruling minority appeared unwilling to investigate the circumstances of this crime or determine accountability for the death of one of its citizens. The majority rose up in protests. But the protests drew a draconian response which infuriated the protesters, led to civil strife and violence, and highlighted the underlying problem. Do you know what the real problem was in this town?” The congressman wearily looked up at his storyteller, wondering what this story had to do with his predicament. “Well, I’ll tell you,” the storyteller eagerly carried on. “There was a longstanding lack of trust between the governed and the governing. That’s where the story had to turn. Though they represented nearly 70% of the town, the majority made up only 6% of the voting electorate in municipal elections. In the next election, however, they voted in a more representative local government.” The congressman’s interest was now peaked, prompting him to ask, “How do you think this town’s solution applies to my predicament?” The bystander looked down at the pitiable congressman and patted him comfortingly on the shoulder. “That’s simple,” he answered, “in a democracy the governed have to elect the governing. You’re off the hook, my friend, until the electorate assumes its responsibility.”

The preceding, as you may have guessed, was inspired by the parable of the Good Samaritan, though the parallels are rather uneven. The Good Samaritan “was moved to compassion” for somebody of a different tribe or class. The people in the Ferguson parable are moved to act in behalf of the general welfare of all its citizens, not just the fallen one. The artifice of this parable attempts to encapsulate the story of our American democracy and of its uneven evolution. Past setbacks to securing the general welfare, for instance, started at its outset with an African slave being counted as a 3/5 inhabitant of our new republic. Eventually, that injustice was corrected in law, as were other injustices affecting suppressed classes of people. Since our democracy has always been conjoined with an equally “free” economy (initially called laisse faire), it has brought wealth to millions, a growing middle class, and a standard of living for our citizens that became a model for the world. But, in that free-wheeling economic evolution, we too encountered setbacks, where the excesses of capitalism impinged upon our freedom, creating monopolies, unsafe working conditions, pollution hazards, dangerous products, and so on. These setbacks presented Americans with decision points in our progress. In each case, we rose as a nation with effective judicial, legislative, and executive responses. Of course, those responses are what you would expect of a democratic system whose laws reflect the values of its citizens.

Now a parable is not reality: it is a story meant to teach us something about reality. Ferguson’s reality at this moment appears to be a reawakening of democracy: citizens are registering to vote, 70,000 of them signed a petition for the District Attorney to recuse himself from the Brown case, and many are organizing not only to conduct peaceful demonstrations, but for future campaigns. These are the normal corrective responses to setbacks in a democracy: voters are moved protest, to petition, and to vote for their general welfare, as they can best define it at the time. If special interests or lobbyists write legislation, if paid advertising distorts the facts to dupe an electorate, if politicians carry out their public duties in a way that serves their reelection needs instead of the public interest, if discontent with government becomes an excuse to not participate in a democracy, then democracy is truly put in jeopardy.

A former UN ambassador during the Reagan administration, commenting on the break-up of Soviet Russia, wondered whether the fall of communism was a precursor to the fall of capitalism. More than two decades later, I think we can safely say her comment in no way prefigured what has actually transpired. The US is still, per capita, the wealthiest nation in the world. Its influence by virtue of a common currency and banking dominance has largely created an economic world order in which the European Union, the BRIC nations, and the underdeveloped nations of Africa and Asia have all prospered. Surely capitalism is not in decline, but democracy may be.

Our history has shown us there is a balancing act between capitalism and democracy, rather like a seesaw. When properly balanced, our nation prospers both in its freedom and its wealth. Out of balance, we suffer setbacks in our evolution of what John Adams called an experiment in democratic government. Wealth inequality and congressional gridlock are as much symptoms as problems. Do we need tax reform, elimination of Party-controlled gerrymandering, or campaign financial reform? Absolutely, these are keystone changes that will hold up and extend the life of our republic! But there will be no movement in Washington to address these issues without a groundswell of public pressure around specific policy initiatives. The US as a whole needs to learn the lesson of Ferguson before we succumb to mass disillusionment and the desperation of rioting in the streets. Let’s be clear: our tripartite government does not work until it speaks with one voice; and that voice has to be the voice of the people it represents.

It is commonly said that voters hate Congress, but love their individual congressmen/women. But voting is not a popularity contest! Instead, it is the exercise of a constitutional right to determine the positions and policies that benefit the electorate as a whole. It requires informed judgment. There are many knowledgeable and reasonable prescriptions for change already in the public forum. In my humble opinion, I would vote for any politician who would eliminate politically controlled gerrymandering, advance a fairer tax system, and institute public financing of elections with strict and transparent monitoring of all private money and resources proffered to public or elected officials. The agenda before Congress today, to the extent that one exists, reflects Party over public interest and moneyed interests over the general welfare of Americans. If we Americans allow Congress to dither as they have, we will be party to the devolution of our system of government. And that would be a tragedy not only for us, but for the world.