Tyler's dire prediction

RE: Quote

"...A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy..."- Alexander Tyler

I chose this quote as something to focus on in exclusion of several other comments I wanted to make, regarding government intervention. This quote revolves, however, on related but very different philosophical disputes, and I thought it would be more interesting to engage for that reason.

I find a few things wrong with what is otherwise a solid though ominous prediction:

1. The idea of "democracy" tacitly referred to here is hardly an American democracy, which is far superior to the kind that would collapse under a "loose fiscal policy" of the sort Tyler is bemoaning. Notably, the American experiment differs from a standard or "pure" democracy in that it is a republic, first of all. Second, it has a strict and wide-ranging balance of power that still functions quite well today (Else why would we have reviewed the Vice President's energy task force using the Supreme Court?). Third, it has very antidemocratic features in some respects, especially in the organization of the law, which though based on Enlightenment principles of justice, fairness and liberty, is organized in an antidemocratic fashion. Hence, neither do we elect Supreme Court justices nor do they serve "at our pleasure," subject to dismissal or reprimand by the people. Furthermore, we have a deliberately malapportioned Senate, which preserves the character and power of the individual states (North Dakota would have zero power if all we had was a House of Representatives, but the way it stands they get to have some say in national matters because they have some very senior Senators in power). Fourth, and finally, the republican nature of our variation on democracy means that voters themselves rarely get to "vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury" unless they live in a state like California, which has a ridiculous system of referenda and ballot initiatives that has hamstrung their economic governance to the point of snapping.
2. In our current, modern variation on democracy, the majority (because it is actually relatively educated, from an historic standpoint) does not in fact always vote "for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury." In fact, democrats and republicans have both been elected on government-restraint programmes, or re-elected after proving that they were capable of it (Clinton in 1996 winning a landslide after severely curtailing the entire Left Wing economic agenda and embracing previously "right wing" measures: NAFTA, welfare reform, and deficit reduction). There is a very keen sense today that it is our tax dollars at work in Washington, and our tax dollars funding military operations, welfare programs, medicine for the elderly and infirm, and commercial regulation. If these benefits were not widely accepted as necessary if expensive, then the citizenry would vote for candidates who promised to curtail or demolish such programs. And of course, this has happened with welfare, trade barriers (which could be viewed as a 'benefit' to some taxpayers), et cetera.
3. Perhaps #2 made the larger point that #1 began. While Tyler might be very, very accurate in his predictions for a more "pure" democracy with a "loose fiscal policy," I argue that we are just not that democracy. What government programs and "benefits" we have as citizens, we want. Or else we would get rid of them. This is perhaps the difference between Tyler and I on this matter: I have a much more optimistic view of the intellectual ability of our voting populace, even if that is tempered by a LOT. It is not that I hold an overly rosy view, it is that I understand that at a basic level, Americans are just too educated and well-fed by media (flawed though they are, and flawed they are indeed) so that I do not worry that we are voting ourselves too many benefits.
4. As further evidence, I could show you dozens of similarly advanced countries (mostly, though not all, in Western Europe) that have in fact voted themselves countless more "benefits" than Americans have. While I like our model and think they have sometimes gone overboard, none of those democracies have collapsed, nor will they anytime soon. So, yes