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.