ZIPPY CATHOLIC writes:

Modern people are under the impression that the main function of democratic elections is to exercise individual influence over how we are governed. This is not the case. The main function of elections is to build and maintain social consensus over how we are in fact governed, which is under the political philosophy of liberalism.

[…]

[T]he viability argument consists in convincing people to irrationally deploy their personal infinitesimal influence in support of candidates they find morally abhorrent, but somewhat less morally abhorrent than the “viable” alternative. This builds social consensus around the major party candidates, the liberalism they represent, and the kind of governance that results from advanced liberalism: gay “marriage”, abortion, misandry, divorce and cohabitation becoming the norm rather than the exception, endless war to impose democracy everywhere: the whole package.

Should it come as any surprise, then, that over time liberal democratic elections build a social consensus in favor of things which are morally abhorrent?

In other words, voting for Trump is not an anti-establishment vote. See more here and here.

— Comments —

Paul C. writes:

The false premise in the article is American democracy is evil.  By using “we,” the article is referring to a choice that Americans face in every election.  Winston Churchill advised as follows:

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.

Although it is unclear what Churchill meant by “constitutional means,” he did refer to the means by which evil can be and has been controlled: a constitution, a Magna Carta.

Just because the Weimar Republic was inexplicably destroyed by the machinations of an uncultured Adolph Hitler does not prove democracy is evil.  The event serves as a caution to other republics.  The other European twentieth century republics did not war with one another and still have not.  There might be few arguable exceptions, but the few do not prove the rule proffered by the article.

As written, the American founders created a masterpiece type of democracy that has served to foster economic prosperity worldwide inconceivable in the eighteenth century: freedom of contract is an example.  It is possibly the most complex clause in the Constitution, and the secular progressives dislike it.  Among many other things only economists understand, it ensured the influx of capital into the young America.  No other democracy or other form of government has come anywhere close to maintaining ten supercarriers and to building more.

Just because many uncultured in our founders’ traditional ways are threatening to destroy our republic does not prove our democracy is evil.  Perhaps it proves too many question our traditional ways.

Please follow and like us: