Republicans Openly Welcome the End of Democracy

Of course. We need to make room in politics for a little humor.

 

Bullseye doesn't.

 

Quite a joke for Republicans to say they want to end Democracy when they have ALREADY tried to end Democracy. People have even DIED in the attempt.

But that's funny, right?

 

Courts, Republicans, and Trump's own people have said countless times it wasn't rigged. The only ones still parroting that nonsense are QAnon orcs.

 

Of course they said that. It is in their interest to say that. But they don't know. Nobody does. No investigation, no certainty. It is no longer even an issue. The remaining issue is that the states to clean up election security so we don't repeat this visit to the rabbit hole.

 

Wrong. There was absolutely investigations and certainty. YOU chose to ignore the facts and chase conspiracy theories instead. That's on you.

 

Not a single one. Saying there were absolutely investigations of voter fraud doesn't make it true. Show me a report. I've been asking for one for three years. Nobody else has one and I'm positive you don't. What conspiracy theory? I said there has been no voter fraud investigation of the 2020 election. It is a fact, not a theory. Prove me wrong.

 

you're right. here's your voter fraud...

https://apnews.com/article/business...ns-elections-f7e490e5a73b54110e077c824c4e3bb3

 

Well, to be frank, I've always thought of libertarians as ideologues in serious need of a reality check, but, with that in mind, I will offer a commentary on the essay you've proffered, which I did enjoy reading, by the way, though I'm not, well, read on:

In undertaking the critique of this lofty essay, one is immediately struck by its audacious sweep through the annals of history, attempting to untangle the Gordian knot of liberty's evolution. The author, with a scholar's patience and a historian's precision, charts the course from the cherished liberties of the ancients to the prized freedoms of the moderns. Yet, in this grand narrative, there lurks a perilous assumption: that the past and present offer us neatly separable categories of freedom, as if liberty itself were a simple heirloom passed down through generations, its form changing with the fashion of the times.

The essay's ambitious endeavor to draw stark distinctions between ancient and modern liberties, while intellectually stimulating, often feels like a dance across a landscape where the very ground shifts beneath our feet. For in the pursuit of defining liberty, the essay weaves an intricate tapestry that, while rich in detail, sometimes obscures the larger picture with its complexity and the breadth of its reach. It's as though, in the eagerness to dissect liberty to its core, the author has served up a banquet where the courses are too numerous, and the flavors, though exquisite, risk overwhelming the palate.

The discussion of the representative system as a modern antidote to ancient direct democracy is treated with a reverence that might raise an eyebrow. The essay extols this system with the fervor of a convert, yet one might argue it sidesteps the quagmire of contemporary political disillusionment and the ever-widening chasm between the governors and the governed. This optimistic appraisal of representative democracy seems almost quaint, overlooking the machinations of power that often leave the populace outside the halls of influence, noses pressed against the glass.

Furthermore, the dichotomy drawn between the collective action of the ancients and the individual rights of the moderns, while a clever rhetorical device, risks simplifying a complex continuum of liberty. This binary framing, as neat as it is, may not do justice to the messy, intertwined evolution of freedom. It's as if in the zeal to compartmentalize liberty, the essay overlooks the threads that weave through both epochs, binding them in a continuous struggle for what it means to be free.

And then there's the essay's concluding call to arms—a synthesis of ancient and modern liberties. This rallying cry, noble as it might be, seems to gloss over the Herculean task of melding these divergent conceptions of freedom into a coherent whole. It's as if by sheer will, the author hopes to bridge epochs, to find in the synthesis a panacea for our modern ills, a sentiment both admirable and, perhaps, a tad naïve.

In sum, while the essay presents a veritable feast of thought, one might leave the table longing for a simpler fare. In its quest to map the terrain of liberty, the essay occasionally loses sight of the forest for the trees, ensnared in its own labyrinthine arguments. Yet, despite these critiques, one cannot help but admire the sheer ambition of the endeavor—a testament to the enduring quest to understand liberty, in all its elusive glory. A good read, but the author occupies a particular lofty perch upon which I doubt my glutes would ever be comfortable as it exudes the distinct aura of 'longing for classic liberalism' which, in modernity, is a lost cause.

And, by the way, 'Constitutional Republic' is the more legalese, more technical descriptor, whereas 'liberal western democracy' as used in modernity, means essentially the same thing, and, as such, it is a more poetic, visionary, loftier description, would be used more in speeches whereas the former in documents. They are most certainly not at odds, not mutually exclusive terms as they are being used today, as much as Mark Levin et al want you to believe. Even Madison's contemporaries objected to his parochial use of the term 'democracy'.

 

Well, not all libertarians are like that, but thanks for sharing your thoughts. As you noted, it is quite an essay and an important one at that because the mistakes Rousseau, de Mably and the men they influenced are relevant to our own times and give us an insight into the differences between what many consider the two main streams of contemporary political thought - the Individualist stream that came out of the American Revolution, or perhaps the Anglo-American Revolutions, and the Collectivist stream that came out of the French Revolution. However, one does need to drill down even further to fully understand those differences, such as the "American" view that rights are unalienable versus the "French" view that they are alienable.

That being said, I'm going to respond to your observations, if I may:

Perhaps, if you have the time and inclination, you would care to expand on this observation - in what way is his categorization of Liberty - Ancient vs. Modern - a "perilous assumption"?

When one analyzes the polities of Ancient Greece and Rome, and to this day no one has provided us with more insight than Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges did in his remarkable work The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws and Institutions of Greece and Rome (1864), we do find a distinct difference between the "liberty" of the Ancients and that of the Moderns, and that difference lies in the affirmation and security of the individual natural rights that we enjoy today but did not exist in the Classical World. Take for example the case of the famed philosopher and all-purpose gadfly Socrates, who was sentenced to death by his peers for blasphemy and corrupting the minds of Athens' youth, although one might say he was condemned for questioning the conventional assumptions of the Athenian polis and its inhabitants. For this he was handed a goblet of hemlock, but what were considered crimes back then are now protected freedoms under the First Amendment of our Constitution (freedom of thought, religion and speech). There were no individual rights in the Classical world, largely because the Ancients did not share the Modern conception of the individual and his/her place and role in society.

It's been a while since I read Constant's essay in its entirety, but I got the impression he was aware of the historical continuum that began with the liberty of the Ancients and arrived here (and continues) with the Moderns. Obviously, this was a long evolutionary process that took centuries of long, slow painful progress.

It can be quite complex, but Constant could have delved deeper and wider as François Guizot did in The History of Civilization in Europe, where he explored the rebirth of democracy in the communes of Medieval Europe following the Agricultural and Commercial Revolutions. The evolution of Western Man's struggle for individual freedom - which is essentially what Constant's essay is about - is a ridiculously complicated and convoluted subject spanning thousands of years. Unfortunately, there is no short and simple way to approach it.

Perhaps this is just a matter of semantics and I'm not understanding you correctly, but Constant's essay is not a comparison of direct democracy vs. representative democracy. It is a comparison between a democracy that does not affirm and protect the rights of the individual (Ancient Athenian democracy) versus a democracy that does (our own) - the latter being what people commonly refer to as a "democratic republic" or more accurately as a "constitutional democratic republic", but even that description doesn't explicitly account for the presence of a Bill of Rights or something that serves in its place (perhaps through common law). I'm not sure there really is a better term.

Another thing we have to keep in mind here is that Constant wrote this essay in 1816, but even then there was a wide, if not wider chasm between the governors and the governed. There was no such thing as universal suffrage and the right/privilege of holding public office was usually if not universally restricted.

Which is understandable given that this was an essay-length address instead of a multi-volume history.

Yet that, for the most part, was what the revolutionaries in America accomplished - a synthesis of the liberty of the Ancients and Moderns (albeit, incomplete).

Interesting. In what way do you believe Classical Liberalism to be a lost cause?

"Liberal Democracy" is a pretty good term, but a lot of people in this country would confuse the term "Libera"l in the Classical, libertarian sense of the term (as it is properly used abroad) with Liberal in the Leftist/Democratic Party sense of the term.

 

At least you learned something.