So, four things in response to this.
1. We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a judicial dictatorship that allows democracy to function when the people conform to its ideological line, and crushes democracy when it sees fit.
2. The left does not believe in democracy. It may claim to champion democracy, it may solemnly voice concerns about voter ID laws, low participation among the poor and minorities in the political process (many of whom oppose “gay marriage”, by the way), but it is 100% nonsense. Like the judiciary, the left believes only in a democracy in which the people choose “correctly.” It isn’t that much different than the sort of “democracy” favored by Islamic theocrats or atheist communists. Don’t forget, North Korea is, at least in title, a “democratic republic”!
3. Anti-democracy currents on the right are therefore somewhat misplaced. There are valid theoretical critiques of democracy to be made, but when they are made with the assumption that we actually live in a democracy and that the democratic process is responsible for cultural decline, egalitarian madness and leftist ascendancy, they are wrong. The problem rests exactly where Jefferson said it would come to rest: with a judicial oligarchy that is unaccountable to the people.
4. I’ve said it before, and will again: our hope lies in the East. And by that, I don’t mean Massachusetts. I mean Russia.
All this is separate from what I think of the actual issue of “gay marriage”, which is almost a sideshow compared to these more substantial issues.
The White House and a host of celebrities have decided to give the nation a great big “nudge” on the topic of sexual assault through the “It’s On Us” campaign. The idea promoted in the video, that we can “stop sexual assault” – without qualification, this can only mean all sexual assault for all time – is about on the same level as the notion that “terror” or “drugs” can be defeated in a war. Anti-drug PSAs have been on television since the 1980s; their effects are minimal at best and in fact counterproductive in some cases. That hasn’t stop them from being produced even to this day.
Every rational person knows that there will never be an “end” to sexual assault, just as there will never be a victory in the “war on drugs.” A government that is trying to get you to believe such absurdities may be preparing you to accept atrocities as well. The absurdity of the “war on drugs” has led to the atrocity of America’s prison system, one of the most brutal in the world, in which non-violent drug offenders are subject to assault, rape and murder every day. It has also, with other currents, contributed to the militarization of local police. After all, a war needs to be fought by a military.
What atrocities are being prepared by those who believe that sexual assault can actually cease as the result of a political propaganda campaign? We see glimpses already in the totalitarian atmosphere of college campuses. There men accused of sexual assault are presumed guilty until proven innocent, are denied the right to face their accuser, are not judged by their peers, and are denied due process and a fair trial. This is on top of campus speech codes, mandatory indoctrination sessions, and other things repugnant to the Bill of Rights. Even all of this isn’t enough, hence the intervention of the White House and Hollywood. This is what the “war on sexual assault” looks like.
Political Realist therefore declares war on declarations of war, and encourages its readers to develop creative and realistic solutions to problems such as drug abuse and sexual assault.
When Democrats or leftists in general begin to lose, their solution is never to come up with better arguments to persuade more people to their way of thinking. If the voters aren’t buying what they are selling, they will simply import a new electorate by ceaselessly advocating for unrestricted third world immigration. And if Congressional Republicans oppose whatever they have a mind to do, well, just rewrite the Constitution.
The proposed amendment, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall, would give Congress broad power to shape campaign finance laws. It would effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and 2014 ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, which struck down laws restricting when corporations and unions can spend money on elections, and how much individuals can donate to candidates in a two-year period.
One has to note the contradiction of their whole absurd argument. While insisting that “the American people” don’t want to see the negative attack ads funded by the evil Koch Brothers (as if Democratic campaigns don’t run negative ads), they are also so worried about the effect that the ads might have that they want to establish a regime of censorship to stop them. But can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that the people are so virtuous that they reject negative political advertising as a concept while pushing for its elimination on the grounds that negative advertising poisons political discourse. “The American people know this is wrong”, says comedian Al Franken. Well if they know, then there’s nothing to worry about. They won’t be swayed.
What I also find amazing is the sheer presumption of these people. Says the socialist Bernie Sanders:
“If you understand what they stand for, and that is to end, do away with social security, do away with medicare, do away with medicaid do away with the concept of the minimum wage, do away with the environmental protection agency — that is the struggle. They have an agenda.”
So establishing all of this stuff – social security, medicare, etc. – was not part of an agenda. These things existed from time immemorial, with no political struggle whatsoever playing a role in their existence. Democrats do not have an agenda, no, they simply embody and pursue pure political reason untainted by the slightest whiff of ideology or bias, defending this purity from the “agendas” of the corrupt from without.
Sanders is right. We do have an agenda. We can morally and intellectually justify our rejection of each and every one of these supposedly unchangeable dogmas. We can morally and intellectually deconstruct and destroy the entire post-war “liberal consensus” in ways that this sad old coot couldn’t begin to understand. This is the age of the Internet: the age of free information, of decentralization, of a new-found independence and creativity for people with the intelligence and gumption to make something of it. Even the sappy millennial generation with its left-wing PC orthodoxy has given up on the centralized bureaucratic welfare regulatory state. Sanders, Franken, Warren and the rest are not progressive at all; to the contrary, they’re the geriatric scions of a decaying order that stands in the way of true (i.e. not PC) economic and social progress.
I mean, I’m glad they opposed the banker bailouts – so did the Tea Party, so do all libertarians. So it is sad that we can’t all agree upon the true remedy to the domination of central banks. It is a shame they see more government and more regulations as the answer, when it is really freedom and competition that these institutions fear more than anything else.
But this is not about racism, it is about realism.
Dan Hodges, writing for the Telegraph, about possible measures to address the Rotherham sex abuse scandal and its underlying causes. Unfortunately, this is what it takes for a handful of liberals to work up the nerve to confront reality, 1,400 rape victims. Maybe ten thousand raped, flayed, burned corpses hanging upside down from lampposts on every street corner in London would bring around, oh, I don’t know, perhaps another dozen.
Now I’m just being pessimistic on purpose.
Fast-food workers around the country are protesting for a $15/hr. minimum wage. They really think they deserve it. $15/hr, for assembling food, work that anyone can do. $15/hr. for unskilled work requiring no education and minimal training. Not only do they deserve it, but it is a divine, natural and human right, to be retroactively included the Magna Charta, the English Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.
Ok, sure, I’m on board. Why not?
Forget about the fact that most people who earn 15/hr are skilled or semi-skilled workers who require more training and have greater responsibilities, such as the people typically responsible for managing restaurants. Forget about the fact that there are college graduates with associates and bachelor’s degrees who aren’t fortunate enough to make 15/hr in spite of the investment of time, money and effort they made in themselves. Forget about the fact that this used to be the kind of job that teenagers did for a few summers, as opposed to some sort of life-long career that one would try to maintain a family with. Forget about the fact that this laughable wage hike will, if it goes through, cause fast food prices to considerably increase, negatively impacting not the evil 1%, but the masses of average and poor consumers who actually eat the stuff (for more on this and other facts of the matter, see the Heritage Foundation’s latest report). No, I think they ought to get their raise.
The sooner they do, the sooner we can be rid of their whining, since they will all be unemployed and replaced with machines. Good riddance to the whole lot of them. In order to receive value from society, you must give something of value to it. If your services are not worth 15/hr, you do not “deserve” 15/hr. And if you cannot afford to raise a family on what fast food restaurants pay, then either get some skills to increase your value as a worker, or don’t have kids. It is not acceptable for you to make your choices our problems. And so I welcome the full automation of fast food restaurants. The sooner the better.