Democracy Only Works When We Win

As some of you may know, the Polish elections were yesterday and the right-wing party, PiS has come out with a majority in the Sejm. After this election, an article appeared in The Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...s-election-matters-beyond-its-borders/599992/

"Democracy was on the ballot yesterday in Poland. It suffered a stinging defeat that will have consequences far beyond the country’s borders."

What this idea appears to project is that democracy failed because people voted the wrong way, which brings me to the phase I used as the title for this post.

This particular way of thinking is not new with the election in Poland; after the vote in the UK to leave the European Union in 2016, almost overnight, people came crawling out of the woodwork demanding a new referendum because the majority of the people who voted did not vote the way the remainers wanted them too. Even if a new referendum was held, leaders of the opposition have come out saying that they would not follow the will of the people if the result was the same as the last time.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/24/the-casual-authoritarianism-of-remoaners/

"Swinson and Lucas are among those calling for a second referendum on Brexit. But when pushed by separate BBC interviewers as to whether they would accept the result of another referendum if the country voted Leave again, they both said no. On BBC News yesterday, Swinson said ‘No’, adding that ‘I’m going to do what I was sent here to do’. On Politics Live today, Lucas was at least more direct: ‘Um, no I probably wouldn’t.’"

In both cases mentioned here, the same elitism is on display. The people who voted based on their point of view have been called stupid, backward, ignorant, racist, selfish, and clueless and that democracy is somehow in danger because people exercised democracy the 'wrong way'.

Even here in the United States, there are examples of this way of thinking. Some of you may remember David Hogg who stated "Our parents don't know how to use a [expletive deleted] democracy" for not voting the way he wanted them to on the issue of gun control.

The main question I pose is, where did this elitist mindset come from and why is it passively allowed to continue? The way I see it, there is a grave threat posed with the holding of this logic in the form of creeping authoritarianism and the idea that elections can be thrown out because 'the people are to ignorant to vote the right way'.

 

Excellent points you make here.

This, more than anything, reveals the authoritarian mindset of progressives and socialists. We already see it with leftist judges, who will overturn the will of voters if it does not conform to the ideology of the judge. We saw this in California, with a leftist federal judge overturning propositions in which voters determined to slow the tide of illegal aliens voted to bar them from public services.

But leftists have made uneven gains with a judiciary that tramples the constitution on its way to force idealogical change. Thus, we see leftists now complaining about votes that don't go their way, wishing to overturn an election somehow.

It will get much worse before it gets better, my friend...

 

It's not even possible to vote the wrong way. Voting is a sovereign right of the individual which cannot be gotten wrong. You decide. Only you. You cannot be wrong. There is no right or wrong vote. There's only a winner when the fat counting lady sings.

 

I agree that we do indeed see this on the Left but , we see this authoritarian mindset (ignoring the will of the people) on the Right as well.

Red Establishment hates the founding principles and the principles of Republicanism. While the left pioneered utilitarianism as justification for law - the right is guilty too.

Utilitarianism - justification for law based on (what will increase happiness for the collective). Individual liberty is not considered. Thus this allows for an end run around the safeguards put in place to protect essential liberty.

For example "if it saves one life" or "Harm Reduction" - as justification for law.

These arguments often sounds good on the surface - who does not want to save one life ? - don't you !! - and this is what makes these arguments so insidious.

If "if it saves one life" is valid justification for law - should we not ban Skiing ? would this not save one life ? How about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown.

Driving a car ? forget it ... in fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as on might fall and break neck.

In a free society the individual has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to him/herself.

Red is trashing rights and the constitution left right and center on the basis of "National Security" - the ages old totalitarian trick of using "fear" of risk of harm from an external threat to take away essential liberty. Privacy, freedom of speech, press, information being just a few things that are under serious attack from Red (and Blue) establishment.

Same goal - just working both sides of the fence.

 

Well yes, that's what a normal person would think.

 

Modern prosperity will kill our civilization. The West, USA in particular, is Roman Empire 2.0.
There is no great generational conquest or war and no Great Depression. People spend too much time thinking about gay rights and reparations for wrongs done many generations ago.
In a few generations modern liberalism will give the rise to some new form of religion (much more aggressive than political correctness and global warming of today) which will result in breakdown of society and descend of the western civilization to the next Dark Ages. We might also fall into new Medieval Times by starting major wars over stupid crap like religion.

And it’s not just western liberals going nuts - Russians are turning into very real fascists and everyone seem to be willing to ignore it. The sh!t that they are doing to each other with mass persecution is insane and only differ from Stalin times by lack of death penalty.

I really don’t think this will end well.

 

Democracy only works when people that believe in it win. It’s hard work.

 

An almost exact description of our 2016 presidential election.

 

The European Union has absolutely no business lecturing anyone on democracy.

Also, when elites use the term 'democratic institutions' they almost always mean 'bureaucratic institutions'.

 

I think you nailed it by identifying it as 'elitism.'

'They arent voting the way we're programming them to. END DEMOCRACY!'

 

Excellent point, and sadly we have been seeing it in the United States. It started when Bush beat Gore, and has come full tilt when Trump beat Clinton. Leftist do not really believe in Democracy....it runs counter to their agenda

 

I absolutely agree with this.

Yet I'm also aware of the unfortunate binary choice we are forced to make. And I'd think you'd agree with me that Team Blue has become far more authoritarian and statist than Team Red over the past couple decades.

In a perfect world we'd have a third or even fourth choice, but in reality we don't. So it is, indeed, often a vote in which one plugs his nose and chooses the least worst candidate...

 

I would agree with your comments as well for the most part (far more being the one area of dissent -but whatever ,, this is nit picking) . Obama was a nightmare with respect to individual liberty, gov't transparency, increasing Gov't power towards a quazi totalitarian police state.

Here we had the "Harvard Constitutional Scholar" - "Civil Rights Activist" - who has never heard "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" or The founder Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserved neither liberty or security" - and doesn't understand what constitutes legitimate Gov't authority ...vs illegitimate Gov't Authority.

Of course he understands ... so what happened ? He did a complete 180 .. "Hope and Change" = Status Quo.. maintain the Establishment ..

Obama defended Clapper who - lied to congress (felony 1) about the NSA en mass domestic spying program (felony 2). This is a serious issue going on that is getting no good press... one of those "better not discuss that in a serious way" elephants in the room. Fox has done a little with respect to Dershowitz and that's about it.

This should be front page news "Should we allow Gov't to spy on everyone .. collectively " . at some point using AI to sift through information to find "undesirables" - the issue gets hand waving but no serious coverage.

Obama's defense of Clapper - and I almost fell out of my chair when I heard him say "If we want increased security - we need to give a little" Doublespeak on Franklin !

The founders knew the age old trick of using fear of some external threat - to get the masses to trade liberty for security.

Stalin used fear of an external threat to institute "Security for the Motherland"
Hitler did the same .. "Fatherland Security"
Bush .. lacking the creativity to come up with a new name "Homeland Security" The external threat being "Al Qaeda" the fear of this threat that is so scary .. and of imminent danger - akin to some massive army massing on our shores - that we should give up liberty.

Instead of "liberty or death" - it was now our Patriotic Duty to trade liberty for Security - over fear of a risk of harm (being harmed in a terrorist attack) that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "walking" - you heard correctly.

Obama then changed the name of the Patriot Act to the equally Orwellian doublespeak - Freedom Act.

and Obama tells us --- .. If you want increased security .. ya got to give a little of those freedoms away... this is the new mantra.

"Trade Liberty for Security"

Utilitarian Harm Reduction arguments .. give up your liberty to increase happiness for the collective. And what "happiness for the collective" means is what "We the Establishment" decide.

These arguments are an end run around individual liberty combined with a big increase in Gov't power - and illegitimacy of Authority.

 

Democracy would have been Hilary beating trump
And likely Gore beating Bush

Maybe you should look up the definition of democracy

 

Um we voted...we have however an EC, which makes the United States govt represent the states: all of them.

 

Which makes us not a democracy, thus the definition of the word, thus your post is invalid.

You are welcome

 

I think you might need to look up the word democracy.

You also might want to look up the history of the United STATES! Hahaha

It could be the concept of federalism that confuses you

 

It's just leftist megalomania.

 

LoL!

 

Gladly


de·moc·ra·cy
/dəˈmäkrəsē/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
   
   • a state governed by a democracy.
     plural noun: democracies
     "a multiparty democracy"
   • control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

An electorial college is not a democracy

 

Why is a definition funny to you?

 

That I need to explain is even more funny.

 

You may pseudobulbar affect.
Might want to get that looked into, has several risk factors that can be averted.
Would hate to lose your well thought out and enlightening posts here.

 

My state is, your state, I assume is...the federal govt, is too...the majority of the states elect the president, and the majority in my district elect the house member and majority of my state elect the senator...

 

I would argue the electoral college is part of a democratic process.