|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Editor’s note: Make sure to read Daniel Greenfield’s masterpiece contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
Since 2016, the Democrats defined their primary political purpose not around agenda items like abortion rights, fighting racism, unlimited immigration or gay marriage, but saving democracy.
Who did democracy have to be defended from? Republicans.
Previous incarnations of the Democrats had made their case that Republicans were too extremist, too beholden to wealthy special interests or too bigoted to be trusted with power. In its latest incarnation, the case has been boiled down to the simple premise that the survival of the country requires stopping Republicans from taking office by any means necessary.
Investigations, indictments, lawsuits and election rigging are just ways to defend democracy.
The central issue is no longer any individual point of disagreement on taxes, abortion or anything else: it’s the total illegitimacy of Republicans and the threat that they represent.
Obama was the last Dem presidential candidate to have campaigned on something other than defending democracy from Republicans, but he was the one who ushered it in with Russiagate. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, both times, campaigned on the extreme threat that Republicans pose to democracy. The serial investigations and indictments of Trump that have stretched on for over seven years represent the fundamental transformation of our system of elections.
Within less than a decade the intelligence community, domestic law enforcement, prosecutors, lawyers and nonprofits had been mobilized in a massive scheme to sue, investigate, and prosecute their political opponents. The Trump investigations and prosecutions form the most obvious examples, but not the only ones, of this new identity of defending democracy.
And in the process democracy has ceased to be something that happens at the ballot box, but now involves the national security state, the judiciary and experts who will determine if actual democracy is taking place or a vast conspiracy that must be stopped with eavesdropping, FBI raids, covert investigations and mass internet censorship similar to that of China.
Elections are now accompanied by dirty tricks campaigns that don’t just involve campaign operatives like the Fusion GPS gang behind the Steele dossier at the beating heart of Russiagate, but intelligence agencies, the FBI, and federal and local prosecutors. Describing such activities as mere abuses of power misses the point. This is not JFK dispatching RFK to go after his political enemies: it’s a political movement whose core argument is that its political opponents are subversives, criminals and threats to national security who must be locked up.
Russiagate was initially performed in secret, but the investigations and indictments since, from Mueller to Jack Smith, have taken place in broad daylight. The public spectacle is a core part of the political argument. The endless show trials are not just a tactic, they’re a political identity.
Democrats have become the party that protects democracy by locking up their opponents. Trending hashtag movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have come and gone while the only consistent movement to endure has been the rise of a political police state. Unprofitable media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post have boomed from the investigations. books have been published in mass quantities and political personalities have been born out of it.
Identity politics still thrives but it is a cultural organizing principle, not a political one.
By branding as the defenders of democracy, Democrats avoid having to define what they truly stand for. In the identity politics era, Democrats ran not for putting pornographic books in school or burning down entire neighborhoods in violent race riots, but against “intolerance”. Now they do not run to federalize elections and end any political dissent, but to protect democracy from Republicans.
And who will defend democracy from the defenders of democracy?
Defending democracy is the deeply undemocratic idea that there is something undemocratic about the way that elections are practiced today. Democrats claim that they want more people involved in the political process when what they really want is to get the wrong ones out of it. That’s why there have been all the investigations of Trump, the censorship of social media and the rise of political gatekeeping. The trouble with democracy is that sometimes the wrong people win. The purpose of defending democracy is to make sure that can never happen.
The defenders of democracy are actually defending oligarchy from democracy. They define democracy as principles and values rather than free, fair and open elections. Given a chance, they uphold the principles of democracy, which invariably happen to consist of their own principles, by rigging elections and suppressing political debate and free and fair elections.
When democracy is defined, as it is in California and Washington D.C., among many other hyper-leftist places, as the absence of Republicans holding elected office, then eliminating the opposition and seizing total power becomes the new exciting form of democracy. Much as in the USSR, Cuba or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the less meaningful choices people have, the more democratic the elections are. Real democracy is a process while the defenders of democracy are after a preferred outcome which is the opposite of actual democracy.
To make the end of democracy seem like the epitome of democracy, leftists concoct a political threat, real or imagined, that threatens democracy. By making Trump or any Republican seem like a threat to democracy, they make the presence of democracy into a threat to democracy. And eliminating democracy becomes the only way to save democracy from democracy.
Ever since the defenders got started, elections are less trusted and less secure than ever. Political instability has increased leading to a downgrade and every organization, government, corporate and nonprofit, that had gotten involved in defending democracy, from the FBI to Facebook, has been tainted. Defenders of democracy argue that a crisis of trust means that they are needed more than ever to end the mistrust by silencing the mistrustful.
This cycle is not a democratic bug, it’s a totalitarian feature. The defenders of democracy are breaking the system, the culture and the marketplace of ideas to eliminate any alternatives.
The Democrats have rebranded their party identity as a primal struggle to end any political choices beyond, as in most urban areas, a choice between two flavors of lefties.
The party of democracy has become the anti-democratic party.
“ Defending democracy is the deeply undemocratic idea that there is something undemocratic about the way that elections are practiced today.”
With lines like these You would be a perfect candidate for government report writer of the year award.
No, the Government Report Writer Of The Year Award won’t go to Daniel Greenfield. That honor has already been locked up (tee-hee) by the gobbledygook of Deep State operative Ron DeSantis.
I don’t understand why Americans don’t realize that the country is in the process of a coup.
Many Americans do recognize it, but have grown up assuming security and prosperity are their right, and are unable to imagine the reality of what is coming. They are shielded from reality by their complacency and ignorance.
My impression is the generation born in the 80’s is the last to notice what has been lost. They deeply resent that we who were born earlier did not preserve what was given to us. Now, the vestiges of the past are being destroyed apace and, in their ignorance and indoctrination, the younger generations celebrate its destruction along with the destruction of their own identity.
Not all, not all, not all – but too damn many.
One factor is the public’s lack of willingness to read. Most of their news comes from corporate outlets and their predigested views passing for facts.
“They are shielded from reality by their complacency and ignorance.” BINGO! These are the conditions tyranny seeks to get its foot in the door.
Save democracy by destroying democracy ? Save Vietnam by destroying Vietnam ?
Banastre,
I understand what you are trying to say. However, we should welcome the destruction of democracy; we are a constitutional republic. If a person decides to reason based on a false premise, the battle will be lost before it even begins.
One of Ayn Rand’s favorite pieces of advise, “Check your premises”
Using the term democracy as the definition of the American system is like using the term anti-racism as the definition of individualism. Once you do that you’ve fallen into the intended Leftist trap of erasing the legitimate concept of individualism from men’s minds.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. ” – Atlas Shrugged
I upvoted you because your premise is correct.
But the foundations of objectivism are indefensible:
“Existence exists by the grace of existence.” The universe made itself with pre-existing “grace.” What is this grace? What about the infinite regress?
Answer with your own, naked thinking and logic — no mumbo jumbo about “context dropping” or “the law of identity” and such. I don’t mind you using those concepts – but use your own words and thinking, THX.
You always shine when you do that.
Yeah, I’ll check my premises next time I’m facing a contradiction.
….”To make the end of democracy seem like the epitome of democracy,
leftists concoct a political threat,real or imagined, that threatens
democracy.” And, yes, public spectacle is a core part of their political
argument now – not just by investigations and indictments but by
blatant coming out and saying so.
One is reminded of Biden’s attack speech on millions of Americans in
front of Independence Hall in Philly – against that ominous red
backdrop – last September when he spit out invectives against Trump
supporters and the MAGA movement. Comrade President – that
so-called Democrat defender of democracy – showed his true colors.
Excellent observation.
Psychologically similar to the stage when the Bolsheviks were transitioning from Lenin to Stalin. Some of the old Bolsheviks were idealists with good intentions, blind to the monstrosity of the state they were creating. Similar to the classical liberal Democrats of today.
Anti-democratic, indeed. Any definition of “democracy”, written prior to this antithesis of such, bares that out.
1) “The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.” Laughable by today’s headline metrics.
2) “A form of government that empowers the people to exercise political control, limit the powers of the head of state, provide for the separation of powers between governmental entities and ensures the protection of natural rights and civil liberties.” Um….yeah, no.
I could go on, but why? None of them hold true and only make me homesick.
On a more basic level, the Democrats/leftists have redefined democracy to mean themselves = THEIR TRIBE. They literally ARE democracy. Democracy is no longer a system of politics/governance defined in theoretical terms as an abstract ideal.
When they win, democracy wins. Naturally and by definition, anyone that opposes them is anti-democracy.
And what persons are anti-democracy? Fascists, of course. That’s how they can claim to be anti-fa while acting in the most fascist ways we’ve seen in 80 years.
The Left uses the same words but not the same dictionary. To the Left, democracy only exists where all people have the same shares and no one can exercise more political influence than anyone else. Other people know this as communism. It is so Orwellian that the political party that, in every public opinion poll, declares itself far less patriotic than the other asserts the fiction that is is all about saving “our democracy” from the far more patriotic party.
As always, brilliant and concise, Daniel. Ramaswamy and Trump should incorporate some of your phrases into their speeches.
Once you unquestioningly begin to use the Left’s terms as legitimate you’ve fallen into their conceptual Venus Flytrap. To use the term “democracy” to refer to America is to fall into their conceptual trap. It is precisely like if people started to use the Leftist term “anti-racism” as a legitimate concept and had forgotten the legitimate concept of individualism.
So long as Americans are led to believe that democracy is a virtuous, noble, ideal, what America was meant to be and should be, they don’t stand a chance against the tyranny of democracy. I don’t know exactly when democracy began to be pushed by the Left to replace republic but I have no doubt it began with Leftist professors at the universities in the 19th century.
“The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one’s rights.
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . . .
The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.” – Leonard Peikoff
As if the folks on this site need a lesson from a religious bigot like you re: the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.
Hint, we aren’t lunatics like you.
Objectivism also has its own special words and phrases – like any religion or cult. It is especially resistant to true reason, argumentation, logic and evidence. The closer one drills down to its foundational premises, the more irrational and ridiculous it becomes. Behold the foundation of Objectivism:
“Existence exists by the grace of Existence.” So grace comes before existence?
What is “grace”? What about the infinite regress? If “grace” is borrowed from Judaism or Christianity, it means something like “unmerited favor.” Whose unmerited favor?
To whom should we be grateful? Or is that only an impulse to congratulate oneself?
We saw it back in 2016 the typical Bolsheviks response to a election they lost and their lies about Trump and we saw the gutter level Media at its all time worse
Close but still waiting for a Conservative author to hit the target. Democrats always accuse their political opponents of that which they are guilty of which is that the Democrats are the threat to “democracy” and to our Constitution.
“Hyper-Leftists???” —“Much as in the USSR, Cuba or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea…???”
Cut to the chase and just say it…it’s the Democrat Communist Revolution in America. I don’t understand the hesitancy; no need to get intellectually specific to precisely label the type of totalitarian communistic take-over of America. People intuitively understand the terms Fascism and Communism. I fear if we aren’t blunt about what is happening to America now it will be too late.
And the M.S. Media picks up the ball and runs with it as always
People’s Democratic Republic of Kampuchea.
The Democrat definition of democracy is simply a majority of Democrats voting on what rights, if any, their opponents might enjoy.
The Dumbacraps have never been the party of democracy. They have always been the party of slavery, discrimination and hatred
since the days of the ungreat divisionist barack obama, the party has drifted towards a corporate form of neo-fascism.’
it’s all about neutering the 99% to make it easier to loot for the 1%
“Much as in the USSR, Cuba or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”
Thank you Daniel for bringing up these sterling examples of freedom. Everyone who supported Stalin, Castro and Kim Il Sung expected to be a part of the new government or at least live under better conditions with Freedom of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. What they got was slavery and millions dead.
Why on earth would anyone defend democracy? It’s one of the worst systems of government in existance, and one robustly rejected and scorned by the Founders.
You are my intake, I possess few blogs and rarely run out from post :). “No opera plot can be sensible, for people do not sing when they are feeling sensible.” by W. H. Auden.