Introduction
Democracy at its base is simply rule by majority vote. It is historically based on the power of the common man as opposed to the rich or the nobility, and not based on the principle that all men are created equal. The power of the elite is negated by democracy because everyone votes no matter their wealth or status. All men are not created equal in a democracy because the majority can vote in whatever policy they want, even to the detriment of the minority.
And in fact, those who support democracy often do so because of the power of the majority, who of course is mostly the common man, can be used to target the monied and powerful. Thus democracy can be used as a tool to "even the playing field," at least as far as it applies to class conflict.
The Founders and Representative Government
There is, however, no intrinsic virtue in democracy. The process of democracy does not automatically yield fairness, justice, or even good policy. It is often a tool of brute force, where outcomes are forced onto society by special interests who invest lots of time and money into swaying the vote in their favor.
This "tyranny of the majority" (Alexis de Tocqueville) was held in contempt by the Founders as mob rule. Democracy fails as soon as the majority learns it can vote benefits to itself, especially if funded by redistributive taxation that punishes the rich.
The Founders were extremely suspicious of government power. They had lived under the abuses of Great Britain. They were students of history. They understood tyranny. This is why the Founders instituted a limited representative government. Such a system puts a layer between the vote of The People and the implementation of government policy. It was thought that if The People voted for their representatives, and those representatives could be voted out at the end of their terms, then the decisions of the representatives would perhaps be more circumspect.
And in fact, the American system has several layers between government and The People. The Founders disdained democracy so much that they diffused and limited government power as much as possible. A system containing two houses of Congress, an executive branch, and an independent court where checks and balances and separation of powers operated, was designed in the hope that these would lessen the possibility of tyranny.
The Founders based their design of government on the idea that all power rests with The People, and that The People delegate their power to government to act on their behalf. If that government does not act on their behalf, the Founders asserted that they retain the right to alter or abolish it.
And it worked pretty well for about one hundred years.
The Narrative and The Agenda
Then along came the Left. The Left talks about democracy all the time. Democracy permeates their rhetoric. One might conclude that the vote of the majority is inherently noble and desirable. They want all voting to be direct, which would suggest that this would be without the layer of representation in government. By that we mean that if all votes are to be direct democracy, then the need for senators and congressmen would be unnecessary.
But their desire for democracy is nothing more than a smokescreen.
This is the central characteristic of what we have deemed The Narrative. The Narrative is simply agitprop, that is, rhetoric designed to achieve a political result. Agitprop (agitation/propaganda) is an old and well-worn Marxist technique designed to foment discontent among the lower class so as to cause them to rise up and overthrow the system.
The overthrow of the system is what we have deemed The Agenda. The Agenda, simply, is to eliminate the current system and install Marxism. By any means necessary.
There are no rules in agitprop. One can say anything, as long as it conforms to The Narrative and facilitates The Agenda. If someone is properly providing The Narrative, that is, he talks the language acceptably, he has pretty much a free pass to do or say whatever he wants without fear of repercussions. That's why a Leftist feels free to revise history, tell absurdities, egregiously violate the law, and support various social causes that contravene our institutions and culture.
It's all in pursuit of The Agenda.
This means that democracy is only a means to an end for the Left. Democracy is supported to the extent that it's useful. However, the Left will support any expression of government structure as long as that structure is implementing The Agenda. With our present system of representation, as long as the representatives are voting "correctly," the Left is making "progress."
But if that government is not adequately implementing The Agenda, that is, if the Senate and the House are voting in a way that does not implement The Agenda, then they will try to influence the voter to vote for their preferred replacements, most commonly in the context of crisis mongering (climate change, the poor) and name-calling (extremist, misogynist, racist, homophobe, etc.). We have found that present-day Leftists are rarely interested in debating the issues, they prefer instead to try to discredit and deplatform. Using such techniques is much easier than forming arguments, and are another aspect of agitprop.
So elections ordinarily express the will of the voter to determine the composition of representative government. But if the Left's candidates aren't elected, they claim that the vote was illegitimate, the candidate that won did so by hiding his extremism, or the vote was suppressed, or that the winning candidate bought the election with dark money. In other words, if the Left loses, it is never because they were rejected, or that their ideas are bad, or that someone won simply on their merits. No, they are so beholden to The Agenda that any deviation from it represents a failure to properly pursue democracy.
And, the illegitimate winner is not only wrong, but evil.
So the Left will happily subvert elections, often by any means possible, if the result was not to their liking. Democracy didn't work, they claim, because the vote was not fair. The People were lied to, deceived, or are simply stupid. Someone cheated. Votes were suppressed.
So if The People voted wrongly, i.e., the wrong candidate won in contravention of The Agenda, the votes of this particular majority of representatives are deemed illegitimate. Thus, those decisions are appealed to the courts, because they will employ the power of the courts to overturn "improper" votes. But if the courts don't side with them, they impugn the courts, accuse them of various nefarious activities or associations, picket judges' residences, and attempt to make it very difficult for judges to disagree with them.
All this means is that the Left isn't really interested in democracy, except to the degree that democracy furthers The Agenda. They aren't really interested in representative government for the same reason. And, they aren't really interested in the courts, again for the greater aim of implementing The Agenda. And finally, they aren't interested in The people if they are not on board with the Agenda.
Ultimately, if all the institutions and legislative bodies run counter to The Agenda, the Left is not adverse to abandon civilization itself for other techniques. This means violent protest, as the summer 2020 riots demonstrate.
We have seen more of this in recent years. Besides the riots and protests, there have been physical attacks against non-Agenda politicians, public figures, and invited speakers. And of course the unilateral takeover over several city blocks in Seattle. Books are banned, words are redefined, institutions are infiltrated, public schools and colleges are co-opted, the media take sides, and entertainment is being conformed to The Agenda.
The sheer magnitude of this cannot be ignored. It's more than a coincidence, and can no longer be dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
A New Breed
Incrementalism isn't fast enough for the younger, newly-elected Leftists like The Squad, and other young radicals like college students, newer public school teachers, and indoctrinated polemicists, starry-eyed teenagers, and wild-eyed activists. They aren't as patient as their leftist predecessors. They want things to move faster, and they're not adverse to chaos in pursuit of The Agenda.
In fact, the chaos they cause is in itself useful. Typically the Left will blame the Right for the problems of society. Lawlessness, racism, failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, and unrest, ironically all caused by the Left, are trumpeted as reasons for the "fundamental transformation" of America. That is the definition of "progress" for the Left. That's why they call themselves progressives.
And now, "progress" must be speeded up.
This "progress" is a unceasing march to Marxism. That is the end goal. The bottom line is, they don't want people to govern themselves. They view themselves as superior, uniquely qualified to rule over The People. But as we have seen all over the world, the elite have no special virtue. Power corrupts. No one is immune.
Blissful Ignorance
Even more ominous than The Agenda is the blissful ignorance of it. Most people don't understand the lengths to which the Left will go to get their way. Even in the halls of Congress there are many elected officials who are beholden to the "old ways" of civil discourse, negotiation, and compromise. However, the traditional collegiality has died, and they don't even know it.
As a result, the Right brings a knife to the Left's gunfight. And time and again, the Right loses and doesn't even know what hit them. They thought they could make deals and do a little bit of give and take like the old days. But they get run over at every turn, and for some reason never learn. They are useful idiots.
Or, one might be permitted to think that they're in on it.
So our government has long passed being a government of, for, and by the people. It is a government built to implement The Agenda.
Conclusion
What we have described is the mindset of the radical. They are revolutionaries in the sense that the existing system needs to be overthrown. If it can't be done within the system through the vote or court decree (incrementalism has been the strategy for the past 100 years), other means are invoked. They prefer revolution by vote, but aren't opposed to a bloody revolution.
Ultimately, there is still hope that America can be pulled back from the precipice. The People are a sleeping giant. We believe that at some point when the 600 pound gorilla in the room is finally aroused, a lot of fur will fly.
It is a shame when the average person needs to be an activist. The Right doesn't have very many of these, simply because typical, average people keep to themselves, do their jobs, raise their families, help their neighbors, and serve in their churches. Most simply don't have time or desire to do this kind of activism, whereas a Leftist living on the public dole in his parent's basement has all the time in the world to get bussed to protest sites and get paid $100 by a "community activist" organization in order to shout slogans, break windows, and assault passersby.
But even if the sleeping giant doesn't get aroused, there are some inherent flaws in the philosophy of Marx.
First, there is no guarantee that the majority will eventually support Marxists. The overthrow of the present system may not go the Marxists' way.
Second, Marxism requires a large number of disaffected, dissatisfied people. The average American does not fit this bill. Even the working class is getting by just fine. A lot of people are satisfied with their lives. The have friends, a little bit in savings, and a good job. They aren't interested in revolution.
Third, Marx preached about the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeois, but the problem is the oppressed will invariably become the oppressors and need to be overthrown. Thus Marxism is about a perpetual and unresolvable cycle of revolution. The inevitable result of their fundamental transformation will still leave privileged elites in charge, they will simply be different elites.
This is the bleak future of a "worker's paradise" which our present overlords are intent on inflicting on us.
No comments:
Post a Comment