"our democracy", Abortion, affirmative action, communism, crazies, D/S/Cs, deplorables, Electoral College, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, Harvard, joe biden, personal accountability, personal responsibility, redistributive change, representative republic, Ryan Doerfler, Samuel Moon, The Constitution, the rule of law, The Senate, treason, tyranny of the majority, Yale
I have, for years, been warning D/S/Cs intend to destroy our representative republic. They intend to replace it with “our democracy.” They have become, of late, far more strident and specific in their intentions. I have also been speculating since I began the Second Civil War series, what would be the trigger(s) of such a hot conflict. Surely among those triggers would be the abolition of the Constitution, for that is a necessity if D/S/Cs are to establish “our democracy.” Let us, gentle readers, first define necessary terms:
Representative Republic: a form of government where citizens, not non-citizens, of voting age elect representatives who govern in their stead and only with their consent. Government is limited, ultimate power resides in the people, and the people have rights which a political majority may not infringe or abolish.
“Our Democracy:” The tyranny of the majority. A form of government in which anyone, including the dead, willing to support the undemocratic majority may vote, as many times as necessary. The government is all powerful, individuals have only the privileges the majority is willing to accord them, and the property, liberty and lives of the minority may be taken at will.
18 USC 2381 – Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Consider this from the Washington Times:
Last week, Financial Times Associate Editor Edward Luce tweeted that Republicans are the most ‘dangerous’ political force in the world, bar none. ‘I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world,’ he said, and ‘I have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.’ Former CIA Director Michael Hayden chimed in immediately and said, ‘I agree.’
This past Tuesday, Democrat adviser Kurt Bardella called all Republicans a ‘domestic terrorist cell.’ MSNBC’s Tiffany Cross agreed and said there should be no distinction between Republicans and ‘right-wing extremists.’ At the same time, Peter Wehner, a contributing writer for The Atlantic, likened the Republican Party to a ‘dagger pointed at the throat of American democracy.’ All this while the FBI Director Christopher Wray added that any American flying the Gadsden — ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ — flag is suspect of violent extremism.
Thus speaks the party of slavery, segregation, racial hatred and lynching. Thus speaks the party that caused the first Civil War. What hope of reconciling with such people?
Keeping these divisive, destructive sentiments, and definitions, in mind, let us visit John Hinderaker at Powerline, where he reports on among the most overt exhortations to end our representative republic and establish instead a tyranny of the majority:
In recent years, many liberals have become openly hostile to the Constitution. The present moment in history, with the Democrats controlling the House by the barest of majorities, a 50/50 Senate with a Democratic vice president, and a Democratic president, has heightened liberal frustration with the Constitution. With their hands, for a brief moment at least, on all of the levers of power, why can’t the Democratic Party effect a total transformation of American society?
Hinderaker links to a NYT op-ed, which is behind a paywall. Written by Prof. Ryan Doerfler of Harvard Law School and Prof. Samuel Moyn of Yale Law School, the op-ed argues for abolishing the Constitution, because the Constitution stand in the way of making the radical, totalitarian change for which they lust.
One reason for these woeful outcomes is that our current Constitution is inadequate, which is why it serves reactionaries so well. Starting with a text that is famously undemocratic, progressives are forced to navigate hard-wired features, like the Electoral College and the Senate, designed as impediments to redistributive change…
“Redistributive change” is taking from the middle class and giving to the non-productive, even criminal, classes dependent on governmental whim. It also encompasses taking everything from political enemies and giving it to cronies and other friends of the government. It is at its base the abolition of private property and the establishment of Communism. The text of the Constitution is indeed “undemocratic,” and purposefully so, because the flow of power begins with the people at the top, then the states, and last, the federal government, which has limited powers. The entire structure of the Constitution establishes checks and balances to ensure no one has too much power, and the fundamental rights of the people cannot be taken away, which is what drives D/S/Cs like Doerfler and Moyn away from it like vampires from a crucifix.
…while drawing on much vaguer and more malleable resources like commitments to due process and equal protection — resources that a conservative Supreme Court has used over the years to invalidate things like abortion rights and child labor laws and might use in the coming term to prohibit affirmative action.
It is shocking that two law professors could write that sentence. The Supreme Court did not use the concepts of due process and equal protection to ‘invalidate…abortion rights.’ On the contrary, it was the misuse of ‘due process’ by liberal justices that created the fictitious right to abortion. The Dobbs decision correctly took that concept out of the equation and returned the issue of abortion to the democratic process, where it belongs.
Prohibiting “affirmative action,” by the way, means reestablishing merit as the determining factor, rather than race, gender or sexual orientation, for jobs, benefits, education and a variety of other factors. That would, finally enshrine equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, which is why D/S/Cs hate the idea.
It’s difficult to find a constitutional basis for abortion or labor unions in a document written by largely affluent men more than two centuries ago. It would be far better if liberal legislators could simply make a case for abortion and labor rights on their own merits without having to bother with the Constitution.
And these are law professors at two of our ostensibly premier universities? They argue not for law, but for transient, popular whims. Of course, in their polity, the tyranny of the majority, the majority would ensure it remains the majority forever. Abortion and labor unions are not mentioned in the Constitution, which neither mandates nor forbids them, so the matters fall to the states to decide. What D/S/Cs want is the abolition of the Constitution, so their whims become law. Surely the penalties for violating their morally and intellectual superior preferences will resemble those of medieval England, where there were some 100 capital offenses.
One way to get to this more democratic world is to pack the Union with new states. Doing so would allow Americans to then use the formal amendment process to alter the basic rules of the politics and break the false deadlock that the Constitution imposes through the Electoral College and Senate on the country, in which substantial majorities are foiled on issue after issue.
The Founders wrote the Constitution to make amendment possible, but difficult, to prevent momentary passions from altering fundamental liberties and derailing checks and balances. What’s the “solution” to this “undemocratic” restriction? Make so many states ruled by D/S/Cs, they can do whatever they want to their political enemies. Hinderaker again:
The Times op-ed links to a 2020 article in the Harvard Law Review that advocates a plan whereby leftists can take permanent control over the United States, in effect staging a coup. The proposal is to break the District of Columbia down into 127 neighborhoods, and admit each of those 127 neighborhoods as a new state. You think I’m kidding?
Back to our Marxist professors:
To do this, Congress should pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states. These states — which could be added with a simple congressional majority — would add enough votes in Congress to ratify four amendments: (1) a transfer of the Senate’s power to a body that represents citizens equally; (2) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal-sized districts; (3) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote; and (4) a modification of the Constitution’s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans.
Why Washington DC? Because it is something on the order of 98% D/S/C. The 2020 population of DC was 707,109. Dividing that population by 127 yields states of 5568 citizens. Of course, some would be larger, others smaller. By way of comparison, our smallest state by population is Wyoming with a 2022 population of 579,495. Wyoming has 23 counties, so simple math indicates 25,195 per county, and again, some have more, some have less. The 2020 census has Wyoming counties from 2,467 in population to 100,512, but no one in Wyoming is suggesting making their counties states. The idea of American states with less than 5000 citizens is utter lunacy, but lunacy necessary for tyranny.
[E]very measurable subdivision of D.C. voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party in the 2016 election, so the Democratic caucus in Congress could be confident that new states created within the District would elect like-minded delegations to Congress.
As I noted, D/S/Cs are no longer hiding their totalitarian designs.
More aggressively, Congress could simply pass a Congress Act, reorganizing our legislature in ways that are more fairly representative of where people actually live and vote, and perhaps even reducing the Senate to a mere ‘council of revision’ (a term Jamelle Bouie used to describe the Canadian Senate), without the power to obstruct laws.
In so doing, Congress would be pretty openly defying the Constitution to get to a more democratic order — and for that reason would need to insulate the law from judicial review.
Yes, gentle readers, they’re arguing for entirely ignoring the Constitution, and legislating it away. That’s not “pretty openly defying the Constitution,” it’s absolutely openly defying the Constitution. It’s also clearly stating their intention of establishing a tyranny of the majority, which they call “democracy,” or “our democracy.”
What’s that you say? This is only two academics, not the entire D/S/C Party? True enough, but for D/S/Cs, academics, particular law school academics, hold great influence, and do, in fact, speak for the Party. Besides, they’re far from the only D/S/Cs making similar arguments, all similarly destructive to liberty. When the enemies of liberty explain what they want to do, it’s wise to listen and take them seriously.
Imagine what students at Harvard and Yale are being taught. They are not learning the basis of law and order in our society, but are being radicalized, turned into Marxist revolutionaries, the better that the self-imagined elite may rule the “Deplorables”–Hillary Clinton–and “Crazies”–Liz Cheney–in the manner their genetic superiority demands. Hinderaker suggests they may as well argue directly for a military coup, but that would be the inevitable next, or concurrent, step.
The Harvard and Yale revolutionaries are not, at least in that article, specifically arguing for abolishing or packing the Supreme Court, but implied in the argument they do make is both, or simply ignoring the court—courts—entirely. Totalitarian despots often maintain the fiction of courts, but they exist to serve the political ends of the rulers, not to dispense equal justice based on the rule of law. The Soviet Constitution was infamous for proclaiming all manner of individual rights, but they were all a fiction. In reality, citizens had only the privileges the rulers allowed them from moment to moment.
Adding sufficient states to the union to overwhelm or abolish the Constitution would be a certain trigger for secession and civil war. At least half of America would never live under the kind of crime, oppression, decay and racial hatred so much a feature of the cities ruled by the self-imagined elite. I suspect more than half would join in opposing that kind of “democracy.” Why? Because they’d quickly recognize who produces everything, including food, power, consumer goods, necessary for modern civilization. They’d quickly recognize only a society based on personal responsibility—merit—and accountability—the rule of law—can sustain our current, somewhat faltering, standard of living.
No sane person wants a second civil war. It would be disastrous on many levels, particularly domestically, and our foreign enemies would surely take full advantage of our distraction. In Kurt Schlichter’s Kelly Turnbull novels, the Chinese ally with the Blue states as a prelude to conquering the continent. Should an all-out civil war break out, that would not be beyond the realm of probability. Normal Americans merely want to be left alone to live under the Constitution, the rule of law. Normal Americans will not countenance living under tyranny. However, D/S/Cs would live in a reality of their own making, and fully intend to force others to do the same. When they, by force of arms, try to force others to live in that reality, a socialist/communist reality that has failed everywhere and always, and that always leaves behind mountains of corpses, they’ll discover the Deplorables and Crazies will not be in a forgiving, or “democratic” mood.
And what of treason? It’s a term loosely used to generally mean opposing by word or action D/S/C intentions. D/S/Cs are making it absolutely clear they would make treason the slightest thought, word or deed in opposition to them or their ideas. This is one of the features of any “democracy” as they envision it.
As D/S/Cs become more and more desperate at the approach of the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential election, they may no longer rely on the reliable stupidity of Congressional Republicans and their “leadership” to save them. They are arguing, loudly and publically, for desperate, un-American measures. What they fail to realize if they provoke a second civil war, Normal Americans will not abide any kind of political settlement. They will demand, and secure, a victory that will ensure D/S/Cs can never again threaten the representative republic that has produced the most free, just and prosperous society the world has known. That’s the danger of civil wars. The betrayal, the destruction of families and good will unleashes passions no sane man wants unleashed.
Is this where we’re headed in months or only a few years? D/S/Cs are making clear their intentions.
No sane man is right. But as has oft been cited, modern liberalism is a mental disorder. I used to think that was unwarranted hyperbole. Not any more.
Mike McDaniel said:
Well, they aren’t at all happy, that’s for sure. What would life be like to be so miserable and hateful?
Keep your powder dry and your faith in God my brothers and sisters. For if you believe in God, family and the Constitution, as I do, we are most assuredly living in interesting times. #REDWAVETSUNAMI #ENOUGHISENOUGH #WALKAWAY #TRUMP2024
In this vein, the folks who would remove the police don’t get that normal folks don’t have options like ‘less than lethal weapons’ or the ability to take prisoners or the ability to establish courts. Regular folks will defend themselves and the result will not be pretty.
Mike McDaniel said:
Exactly. The rule of law, of which the police are an integral part, is necessary for civilization. Without it, people will have no choice but to resort to the 3 Ss: shoot, shovel, shut up.
Buck Turgidson said:
Brilliant post. It’s intensity (magnum opus), although obstinacy will frighten many. So, who gave you permission to ‘think’ this time ?
If I learned anything in my darkest time…..”Lack of orders is no excuse for inaction.” –
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Buck Turdigson:
Thanks, and should D/S/Cs get their way, no one would be allowed to think.
Pingback: Five MUST read Blogs, today anyway - The DaleyGator
Mike McDaniel said:
Thanks for the kind words and the link!